WAWONA (SEGMENT 7)

Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified for this scenic segment of the river are scenic, recreation, biological, and cultural.

Potential impacts of Alternative 3 are shown in table 4-72.

Table 4-72 Impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values (Segment 7 [Wawona])
Action	Outstandingly Remarkable Value Affected	Impact to Outstandingly Remarkable Value	Impact Duration	Potential Mitigation	Impact Intensity
Adoption of the River Protection Overlay
	Scenic	Continuation of trends to restore riparian areas would improve the scenic views of Wawona Dome from the river	Long-term	NA	Impacts described in No Action Alternative continue
	Biological	Trends to restore riparian vegetation and river-related habitat would continue	Long-term	NA	Impacts described in No Action Alternative continue

 

Similar to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 3 adopts the River Protection Overlay, but does not prescribe any actions to implement the River Protection Overlay in Segment 7. However, the continuation of existing trends to restore riparian areas and the preclusion of future development incompatible with the River Protection Overlay would have long-term, minor, beneficial effects on the scenic and biological Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment.

Wawona (Segment 7) Conclusion

For the actions of this alternative, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts are described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the continuation of trends to restore riparian areas, pursuant to the River Protection Overlay, and the beneficial effects to the biological and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values that would result.

Segment-wide, the continuation of trends to restore riparian areas, pursuant to the River Protection Overlay, would improve views of Wawona Dome from the river, and beneficially affect the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Segment-wide, there is no impact to the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because current-day recreational activities would continue without any changes (i.e., maintenance of the diversity of recreational opportunities).

Segment-wide, the continuation of trends to restore riparian areas, pursuant to the River Protection Overlay, would beneficially affect the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Segment-wide, there is no impact to the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because river-related archeological sites would not be disturbed, and river-related historic properties would remain.

Cumulative Impacts

Impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would occur as a result of other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (see Vol. II, Appendix H for the list of cumulative projects considered in this analysis).

Past Actions

The Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS) established the River Protection Overlay , management zoning, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework inside the wild and scenic river boundaries. The River Protection Overlay is implemented through this plan, and its beneficial impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values have been assessed as part of the impacts of this alternative. This project also establishes management zoning, which does not directly impact the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process was designed to protect resources and the visitor experience, and would have a beneficial impact by focusing on protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework would have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values in this segment.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan (USFS and BLM) for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan does not affect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement (NPS) would replace the existing two bridges crossing the South Fork on Wawona Road with one single-span bridge. This would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value due to the reduction of development on the riverbank and the restoration of riparian habitat.

The Wawona Campground Rehabilitation (NPS) would have a beneficial effect on the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value due to maintaining the diversity of river-related recreational activities, and enhancing the camping experience by providing increased privacy and shade at the campground. The Wawona Campground Rehabilitation would have a beneficial effect on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because it would relocate campsites outside the River Protection Overlay and would initiate a vegetation management plan that would include shoreline protection. This beneficial effect to the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value would be somewhat offset by radiating impacts to riparian vegetation due to trampling of river-related habitats resulting from the density of camping in this area (this adverse effect would be negligible since camping is an existing use at this location). The campground rehabilitation could have an adverse effect on the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value, should the rehabilitation of the campground disturb archeological resources. Overall, the Wawona Campground Rehabilitation would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The past and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the implementation of the Merced River Plan Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework; the reduction of development on the riverbank and restoration of habitat associated with the South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement (NPS); and the relocation of campsites outside the River Protection Overlay and maintenance of a diversity of river-related recreational activities associated with the Wawona Campground Rehabilitation. The beneficial effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values have been somewhat offset by adverse effects associated with moderately impaired views of Wawona Dome from the river at the Wawona Campground, and the potential disturbance of archeological resources during campground rehabilitation.

For the actions of this alternative, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts are described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the continuation of trends to restore riparian areas, pursuant to the River Protection Overlay, and the beneficial effects on the biological and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values that would result. The past and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the implementation of the Merced River Plan Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework; the reduction of development on the riverbank and restoration of habitat associated with the South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement (NPS); and the relocation of campsites outside the River Protection Overlay and maintenance of a diversity of river-related recreational activities associated with the Wawona Campground Rehabilitation. When the impacts of all of the past and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above are considered in combination with the expected impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values from this alternative, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would result.

Consistency with the Merced River Plan

Similar to Alternative 2, the actions of this alternative in this segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River would comply with the Merced River Plan and be consistent with its management elements. The collective actions would be consistent with the classification of this segment because accessibility by road or trail would be essentially unchanged and the amount of development in the watershed and on the shorelines would not substantially change. The individual actions that are considered to be water resources projects would be subject to the Section 7 determination process. The River Protection Overlay would be implemented and individual actions would be compatible with the River Protection Overlay prescription. The individual actions would be consistent with the respective management zones established in the Merced River Plan.

Visitor Experience

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.

ACCESS

Access to Yosemite Valley

Access to Yosemite Valley directly by private automobile to parking at Taft Toe would be available only to 86% of day visitors on a typically busy day (using 1998 visitation levels), which would be the same as under Alternative 1. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option of driving into the Valley or traveling on existing tour buses or other modes of travel.

Alternative 3 would provide transportation facilities and services designed to accommodate Valley visitation levels on the majority of 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 7 days during the peak season. On these days, some visitors would not be able to find parking in the Valley. These visitors would have the option of visiting another part of the park; traveling on regional transit or other alternative transportation modes to visit the Valley; or visiting the Valley at another time or on another day. Minor, adverse impacts to the experience of this small number of day visitors would result from a reduction in the ability to make stops en route to the Valley, reduced spontaneity, extra travel time, and the inconvenience of moving personal items to and from bus stops. Adequate infrastructure would be in place to accommodate visitor parking in the Valley; this infrastructure would include in-Valley shuttles, regional transit, and commercial tour buses, as described under Alternative 2.

Access to the Valley by private vehicles would be managed through a traveler information and traffic management system. Impacts associated with a traveler information and traffic management system would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. Overall, the average visitor would experience negligible, beneficial effects on the time required to travel to Yosemite Valley.

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. Compared to Alternative 1, these impacts would be of negligible intensity.

Circulation within Yosemite Valley

Access by private vehicle to most Valley destinations would be eliminated, as described in Alternative 2. Once 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 camping and lodging sites, and under this alternative, at the Taft Toe day-visitor parking facility. 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. Therefore, 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. Compared to Alternative 1, the location of a 1,622-space day-visitor parking area and visitor center at Taft Toe would provide a major, beneficial impact for orientation and trip planning for all day visitors. However, most day visitors would still need to board shuttle buses to reach desired destinations in the east Valley. The requirement for most day visitors to ride shuttle buses would result in a moderate, adverse impact.

Changes to circulation within the Valley would be largely the same as described under Alternative 2. Access to the mid- and west Valley would be increased for visitors arriving by transit because shuttle bus service would be extended, resulting in a major, beneficial impact compared to Alternative 1. Impacts of shuttle service improvements would be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Traffic Congestion, Parking, and Crowding

Traffic would be reduced throughout the Valley below present levels at all times of the year (unless seasonal displacement appreciably increased traffic during present slow seasons). Alternative 3 would reduce the volume of private vehicle traffic associated with travel into and out of the Valley. On average peak-season days, the volume of daily vehicle miles traveled in the Valley would be reduced by 49%. Similar to Alternative 2, this reduction in traffic would have a moderate, beneficial impact on all visitors because there would be greater opportunities for quiet and contemplative recreational experiences. The overall traffic reduction would also have a moderate, beneficial impact on all visitors, because traffic flow would be improved and congestion reduced throughout the Valley, including mid-Valley, where much of Northside Drive would be closed and Southside Drive would be converted to a two-way operation.

This alternative would provide the greatest number of parking spaces (1,622) for day visitors within the Valley. Most day visitors could travel to the Taft Toe parking area and park there until it was full. After the parking area filled, visitors would use other means, such as tour buses, regional transit, hiking, or bicycling to reach the Valley. The traveler information and traffic management system would inform visitors of the parking status prior to their arrival. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option to drive to the Valley. As described for Alternative 2, frequent shuttle service would provide access to Valley attractions.

As described for Alternative 2, the appearance of crowding in the Valley would be reduced by eliminating roadside parking. A moderate reduction in traffic volumes, improved traffic flow, and fewer visual impacts from parked vehicles would have a major beneficial impact on the perceived level of crowding and congestion during peak visitation times for all visitors.

As described for Alternative 2, traffic congestion could increase west of the El Capitan crossover due to 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.

Some existing automobile traffic within the Valley would be replaced with buses, and would cause effects similar to Alternative 2. Notably, the movement of visitors in buses could cause some visitors to feel crowded. Most visitors would travel in larger groups because of the emphasis on bus travel. The overall impact of bus traffic and grouping passengers in buses is expected to have a moderate, adverse impact on the visitor experience, as compared to Alternative 1.

Visitor crowding 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 more social experiences, challenge and easier access). 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.

Reliability of Yosemite Valley Transportation System

As described for Alternative 2, the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system under this alternative would alert visitors to whether or not day-visitor parking was available at Taft Toe in the Valley. This would relieve visitor anxiety and time wasted searching for available parking within the Valley as compared to Alternative 1. Because this alternative would provide the greatest number of day-visitor parking spaces and frequent shuttle service between the primary parking area and Valley attractions, the overall impact to the reliability of the Valley transportation system would be major and beneficial.

Access for Visitors with Disabilities

Access and the resulting impacts for visitors with disabilities would be the same as described under Alternative 2. Notably, 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. The prescribed universal programmatic accessibility study plan and its implementation would ultimately result in a major, beneficial impact. New accessible trails at popular destination areas would provide access to areas that are not now easily accessible, resulting in moderate, beneficial impacts.

ORIENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

Sense of Arrival

As described for Alternative 2, visitor centers and orientation facilities near each principal park entrance would provide visitors an improved sense of arrival at the park. For day visitors parking at Taft Toe, the sense of arrival in the Valley would be indicated by combining parking and access to a visitor center, with increased convenience for orientation and trip planning. Impacts of the proposed arrival sequence under Alternative 3 would affect most visitors, and would be beneficial and minor in intensity, as compared to those of Alternative 1.

Wayfinding

Improvements to signs and circulation would improve wayfinding for visitors, as described under Alternative 2. Notably, improved and consistent signing at shuttle bus stops would 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.

Visitor Centers

As described for Alternative 2, visitors would have opportunities to find out about park programs, the availability of services and facilities, directions, permits, reservations, trip-planning services, interpretive themes and a stewardship ethic, and regulations at park entrances as they arrive. Under this alternative, the new Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center would assist visitors in Valley orientation and trip planning, and in the interpretation of Valley themes before they entered the east Valley. Compared to Alternative 1, these impacts would be of major benefit to the majority of park visitors who would like to take advantage of exhibits, museums, trip planning, and other interpretive programs.

Overnight visitors would find orientation exhibits at their lodging or campground. Impacts would be beneficial and moderate in intensity (the same as under Alternative 2).

Exhibits and Programs

Improvements to exhibits, programs, the Nature Center at Happy Isles, and trailside exhibits would be mostly as described under Alternative 2. Museum collections, now split in many locations, would be reorganized and made more accessible to the public. A natural history museum would be developed in the existing NPS Administration Building, and the cultural history museum in the existing Museum Building would be expanded. These and other improvements described in Alternative 2 would have a moderate, beneficial impact on the large group of museum-goers and a major, beneficial impact on the small group of researchers.

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Auto Touring

Impacts on auto touring would be the same as described for Alternative 2, except that Taft Toe would be the easternmost limit for auto touring for all day visitors in the Valley. Notably, 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 majority of visitors unable to drive their car into the east Valley.

Reduced traffic east of Taft Toe could contribute to a sense of more relaxed touring; this would be offset by an increase in the number of buses, resulting in a negligible, beneficial impact. 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 would affect most visitors.

Bus Touring

Impacts of sightseeing by shuttle bus, as well as impacts to Valley Floor Tours offered by the concessioner, would be the same as described for Alternative 2, except that commercial bus tour passengers would need to transfer to other touring modes east of Taft Toe, resulting in a major, adverse effect compared to those of Alternative 1. Notably, 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; however, turnouts would be planned where possible to provide views similar to key Northside Drive views, resulting in a negligible, adverse impact to these users.

Walking and Hiking

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. Trails not adjacent to roads, increased usage, conflicts with other users, and trail use dispersal would be the same as described under Alternative 2. However, the elimination of private stock use in Yosemite Valley under this alternative would result in a beneficial, moderate impact for the large user-group of hikers and walkers. An impact of this alternative that would be neither adverse nor beneficial would be the potential displacement of day hikers out of the Valley or onto wilderness trails.

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

• Rerouting the trail segment north of the river at Ahwahnee/Sugar Pine Bridges would result in a slightly different path, loss of traditional views, and the loss of historic elements due to bridge removal.

• Rerouting the multi-use trail across Ahwahnee Bridge, rather than Stoneman, would lengthen the route between Curry Village and Yosemite Village, with a loss of traditional views and loss of historic elements.

• Removing Housekeeping Bridge would lengthen access to other Valley destinations for Housekeeping Camp guests and would result in the loss of traditional views and the loss of historic elements.

• Removing Superintendent’s Bridge would reduce walking trail options in the Yosemite Village area, would move pedestrians wanting a loop trail to the heavily used Sentinel Bridge, and would result in loss of traditional views and loss of historic elements.

Bicycling

Impacts on bicyclists associated with reduced private vehicle traffic but increased bus traffic, potential crowding along multi-use trails, new trails without direct influence of motor vehicles, other new trails, and increased accident risk due to greater trail use would generally be the same as described under Alternative 2. Notably, reduction of vehicle noise, smell, and presence would result in a major, beneficial impact to bicyclists along Northside Drive. Moderate benefits would result from removal of motor vehicles from the area of the multi-use trail through the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds.

Climbing

The reduction in opportunities for spontaneous access and other aspects of the climbing experience would be the same as described for Alternative 2. Additionally, day-use parking at Taft Toe would substantially increase intrusions from developed facilities and visitor use in this area. Although it would not likely reduce climbing activity on El Capitan, it would adversely affect the experience, a moderate impact on a moderately sized user group.

Stock Use

The prohibition of private stock access to Yosemite Valley trails under this alternative, in addition to eliminating concession trail rides (as described under Alternative 2), would be a major, adverse impact to the small group of private stock users, compared to that of Alternative 1.

Picnicking

The lack of private vehicle access to most picnic sites would result in overall impacts similar to those described under Alternative 2. Sites at Cathedral Beach near Taft Toe would be expanded, filling a demand for picnicking near the day-visitor parking area, and would mitigate the loss of other sites, reducing impacts to minor. The Swinging Bridge Picnic Area would be removed (the same as under Alternative 2), but picnic facilities at Church Bowl would be retained under Alternative 3. As described for Alternative 2, the North American Wall Picnic Area at the base of El Capitan would provide new opportunities for hikers and bicyclists in the west Valley. Together, these actions would have minor, adverse impacts to picnickers. Sentinel Beach Picnic Area would be accessible by shuttle bus, and thus more accessible to those without their private vehicles, resulting in a moderate, beneficial impact.

River Uses

Changes in raft and kayak access, and resulting impacts, would be the same as under Alternative 2. Notably, lack of private vehicle access to locations along the river would require the use of buses, which would result in moderate, adverse impacts to a moderately large group of visitors.

Swimming

Changes in swimming access and availability would be the same as under Alternative 2, except that the removal of Housekeeping Bridge would reduce access to the swimming area opposite Housekeeping Camp, resulting in an overall moderate but neutral impact.

Fishing

Changes to fishing quality and access to sites would be the same as under Alternative 2. Notably, protection of river banks would result in a moderate, beneficial impact for anglers. A moderate, adverse impact would result from decreased river access.

Winter Activities

Changes to winter activities (ice skating and skiing) would be the same as under Alternative 2. Increased winter visitation and greater use of the ice rink could result in a negligible, adverse impact, compared to that of Alternative 1. Relocation of the ice rink could result in a negligible, beneficial impact.

Photography

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 2, except less private vehicle use and an absence of roadside parking east of Taft Toe would result in greater opportunities for photographs without vehicles. This would result in an overall moderate, beneficial impact, compared to Alternative 1.

RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

This section covers impacts of Alternative 3 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 in the Noise section of this chapter. In general, improvements to natural resources under this alternative would provide a more natural appearance to the Valley, resulting in a major, beneficial impact for visitors, relative to Alternative 1.

Night Sky

The addition of parking at Taft Toe would cause a demand for light in a currently unlit area. The potential for light pollution to affect the night environment is high, especially with the reflectivity of the night sky against the Valley walls. This action would have major, adverse impacts.

Changes in the number of lodging units would have impacts similar to those described for Alternative 2. Other changes in lighting, involving the rehabilitation of obsolete architectural lighting and the relocation of facilities, would also be the same as under Alternative 2. (No impacts would result from out-of-Valley parking which is not proposed in this alternative.)

Wilderness Access and Wilderness Experience

Access to wilderness areas would be facilitated under this alternative, as described for Alternative 2, except that wilderness trailheads close to Taft Toe in mid-Valley would see a potential increase in use while other trails might see less use.

As described for Alternative 2, wilderness use is above the Valley floor, and wilderness visitors have a very different perspective on development (or lack thereof) in the Valley. Screening that might be effective from the ground is rarely effective at a higher elevation. Concentrated developed areas could reduce the amount of screening from above with the thinning of hazard trees. Under this alternative, development in the Taft Toe area would be particularly visible to wilderness users on the Pohono and North Rim Trails, as well as to climbers in mid-Valley. Site plans have not yet been fully developed for the Taft Toe facility, but it is estimated that it would lead to minor, adverse impacts for wilderness users.

Sound impacts would be minor and adverse, similar to those described for Alternative 2. Clustering of activities within the Valley would have both beneficial and adverse impacts due to decreased and increased noise levels.

Improved access to trailheads would result in a moderate, beneficial impact and increased use of trails would result in a negligible, adverse impact.

VISITOR SERVICES

Camping

Campsite quantity would be slightly less than at present (449 sites compared to 475 under Alternative 1, about 5% less). Impacts would be minor and adverse. The reduction of 5% of the campsites could shift campers to other seasons, so campgrounds might have to be kept open for longer periods, possibly requiring some utility systems to be improved to allow for winter operations; additional staff would also be needed. Campers might also be displaced to lodging, to other park areas, and to U.S. Forest Service and other campgrounds outside the park, increasing the pressure for accommodations at those locations, a negligible and indirect, adverse impact on a large user group (25% of summer visitors stay in Valley lodging) (Gramann 1992).

Improvements in campground conditions due to the greater separation of user types, the redesign of campsites, and riverbank restoration would be largely the same as those described for Alternative 2. The effects of centralized campground check-in and camper services would be the same as for Alternative 2. Notably, campers would receive moderate, beneficial impacts as a result of segregating camping areas by user type. Moderate, neutral impacts would result from relocating camping areas away from the river; and negligible and neutral impacts would result from relocating the amphitheater.

Lodging

This alternative would offer fewer opportunities for overnight lodging in the Valley. This alternative would provide 982 lodging units, compared to 1,260 units under Alternative 1 (a 22% 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, compared to Alternative 1.

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 impact on this small to moderately sized user group. New development would include lodging units, parking, and walkways that would incorporate universal design features to improve and provide accessibility to facilities.

Expanding the number of units at Yosemite Lodge (from 245 to 387, or a 58% increase) would place lodging closer to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and increase the developed character of the Lodge area. This would be a minor, adverse impact to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) campers and Lodge guests, combined, a moderately large group of visitors.

A substantial reduction in the number of units at Housekeeping Camp (from 264 to 52, or 80%) would lead to a much 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.

Relocating tent cabins at Curry Village would lead to a more natural environment, with greater privacy and less density. This action would have moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors staying in the remaining cabins, a moderately large group of visitors.

Visitor use and experience impacts in the vicinity of Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would be similar to those in Alternative 2.

Food and Retail Services

The impacts of changes in food and retail services would be substantially the same as those described under Alternative 2. (However, under this alternative, the impacts related to changes in the Yosemite Village grocery store would be substantially reduced compared to Alternative 2.) Notably, developing an employee cafeteria at Curry Village would result in a minor, beneficial impact. A negligible, adverse impact would result from discontinued food service in the Happy Isles area. Increases in food facilities and seating at Yosemite Village would result in a moderate beneficial impact.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 3 would reduce the spontaneity of travel within Yosemite Valley by requiring most visitors to travel by shuttle bus to reach attractions in the Valley. Visitors would experience a minor increase in the time required to travel to the Valley. With 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. The parking spaces provided in the Valley would not be sufficient to serve day-visitor demand on seven days in the summer. Visitors who had overnight reservations (and visitors parking at the Taft Toe day-visitor parking area) would be assured of entry and would be directed to designated parking in the Valley; they would not need to search for parking in scattered locations. However, once the Taft Toe lot was full, day visitors could only access the Valley by means such as tour buses, regional transit, hiking, or bicycling. With a fully developed Taft Toe parking and transit facility at mid-Valley, all visitors would arrive close to principal features and services. Visitors would be able to walk to many destinations in the Valley from Taft Toe. Shuttle services in the Valley would be expanded, and there would be a high degree of reliability in the 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 more opportunities for visitors without cars. Automobile-based experiences in the Valley would be substantially reduced. Visitors on foot or bicycle would find more areas free of motor vehicle traffic, and visitor use of these areas could increase. All commercial and private stock use would be eliminated under this alternative. Opportunities for orientation would be closer to where many visitors seek them, at park entrances and the day-visitor parking lot, and greater opportunities for participation in interpretive programs in the Valley would be available. Recreation, including touring, would be oriented more toward a shuttle bus system, which would be extended to the west Valley, as well as pedestrian and bicycling activities. Opportunities for staying overnight in Yosemite Valley would decrease modestly for camping (to 449 sites) and decrease substantially for lodging (to 982 units).

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.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Access, Orientation and Interpretation, Recreation, and Recreational Environment

The cumulative impacts described under Alternative 2 for access, orientation and interpretation, recreational opportunities, and recreational environment would be generally the same under Alternative 3.

Visitor Services

As described for Alternative 2, the January 1997 flood and subsequent cleanup actions resulted in the loss of 265 lodging units and 284 campsites within Yosemite Valley, displacing visitors to campgrounds or lodging elsewhere in the park or in neighboring communities. This alternative would intensify this impact by further reducing lodging units by 278 and campsites by 26. Proposed new accommodations in the vicinity of the park and campsites outside Yosemite Valley, as described for Alternative 2, could partially alleviate the impact of the reductions. As in Alternative 2, the reductions in lodging in Alternative 3 would continue to adversely affect the many visitors who wanted to stay in Yosemite Valley. However, the benefit of increases in out-of-park lodging would reduce adverse impacts, in that many visitors would seek and obtain substitute accommodations, but impacts would remain adverse and moderate.

While additional campsites could be provided at Yosemite Creek and Tamarack Campgrounds and in the region, as described for Alternative 2, the use of regional campsites by Yosemite day visitors would not likely be great, so the impact of this alternative on campground users would likely remain adverse and minor.

Transportation

Alternative 3 would provide a 1,622-space vehicle parking area in the Taft Toe area; no out-of-Valley parking would be provided. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would include a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage access to Yosemite Valley. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option to drive their vehicles into the Valley. Day visitors would travel to the Taft Toe parking area until it was full. When the parking area was full, access to the Valley would only be provided by travel modes such as tour buses, regional transit, hiking, or bicycling. Few visitors who parked at the Taft Toe lot would walk to destinations in the east Valley. The in-Valley shuttle bus system would be extended, and most visitors would ride shuttle buses to Valley destinations.

CONDITIONS ON STATE HIGHWAYS OUTSIDE YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK

The impacts of this alternative on conditions on state highways outside the park would be the same as those described under Alternative 2.

VISITOR ACCESS TO THE VALLEY

The impacts of reconstruction on the segment of El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road (the major access to the Valley) would have the same impacts as those described under Alternative 2.

Travel Time

The average time that visitors would spend traveling from entrance stations to the Valley Visitor Center in the peak season under Alternative 3 would be approximately 50 minutes. This constitutes an increase in Valley access travel time of 8 minutes compared to Alternative 1. The resulting long-term impact to travel time would be minor and adverse to peak-season visitors. Table 4-73 presents average travel time to the Valley Visitor Center by corridor; these travel times are weighted by access mode and include waiting at the transit terminal and at shuttle bus stops.

Table 4-73 Average Travel Time From Entrance Stations to Valley Visitor Center
Corridor	Average Weighted Travel Time (min)
North (Highway 120)	49
West (Highway 140)	40
South (Highway 41)	62
Overall Average	50
Difference from Alternative 1	+ 8

 

Modes of Access

Under Alternative 3 approximately 12% of all Valley visitors (14% of day-visitors and lodge guests) on typically busy days would access the Valley by transit or alternative modes. There would be a negligible impact on the mode of access for Valley visitors in the long term.

VISITOR CIRCULATION WITHIN THE VALLEY

Traffic Volume and Vehicle Miles Traveled

This alternative would maintain existing roadways and traffic patterns in the Valley as far east as El Capitan crossover, where day visitors would park. Overnight visitors would continue traveling east on Southside Drive to their accommodations. People not visiting the Valley would use El Capitan crossover to reach Northside Drive to exit the Valley. The parking area at Taft Toe would accommodate 1,622 vehicles. Because the parking area would be near El Capitan Bridge, the distance traveled by private vehicles within the Valley would be reduced compared to Alternative 1. As with the other action alternatives, additional shuttle bus service would encourage travel by alternative modes. Overnight guests would be discouraged from driving private vehicles when in the Valley. Designated parking, improved signage, and private 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 do not exceed the parking supply or road capacity. As a result, visitors would not need to circulate in search of parking spaces.

Alternative 3 would cause a substantial reduction of traffic volumes on roads east of El Capitan crossover. There would be a moderate long-term beneficial impact associated with reduced vehicular travel under this alternative. Daily vehicle miles traveled on typically busy days would be reduced by 49% in the Valley compared to Alternative 1 (see table 4-74). The number of buses entering the east Valley at Yosemite Chapel would increase by 253 per day.

Table 4-74 Daily Vehicle Trips in Summer and Total Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Valley on Typically Busy Days
	Inbound Trips Passing Yosemite Chapel	Vehicle Miles Traveled
Private Vehicle	1,985	31,578
Bus	330	3,362
Total	2,315	34,940
Percentage Change from Alternative 1		-49%

 

Modes of Travel

Under Alternative 3 visitors would be allowed to circulate through the Valley in private vehicles of Taft Toe. However, similar to Alternative 2, the share of trips within the Valley by transit would be expected to increase substantially compared to Alternative 1. With the exception of west Valley circulation, the only visitor trips made by private vehicles within the Valley would be either entering or departing trips by overnight visitors. The resulting impact to Valley visitors is expected to be major in the long term.

Bus Volumes on Roads

Under Alternative 3, bus service in the Valley would be increased compared to Alternative 1. The planned bus service would result in 3,362 daily bus vehicle miles traveled on major Valley road segments, a major increase (see table 4-75).

Table 4-75 Daily Bus Trips/Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Valley During the Peak Season
	Round Trips	Bus Miles Traveled
Out-of-Valley Shuttle	0	0
Valley Shuttle	384	3,207
Commercial Tours	62	155
Total	446	3,362

 

Level of Service

This alternative would maintain the existing Valley roadway system west of El Capitan crossover. Traffic on roads west of El Capitan crossover would be the same as or slightly lower than existing conditions as a result of the traveler information and traffic management system. East of El Capitan crossover, Southside Drive would provide two-way access to Sentinel Road and on to Curry Village. Even though the road would be two-way, the volume of traffic would be reduced because only overnight visitors and Valley shuttle buses would travel east of El Capitan crossover on Southside Drive. El Portal Road would be reconstructed between Big Oak Flat Road and the Pohono Bridge (Segment D) to improve safety and as a result, traffic flow would improve slightly (see table 4-76). Traffic flow at Valley intersections would be improved substantially, along with traffic flow on Northside Drive. The intersections of Sentinel Drive with Northside Drive and Southside Drive would improve to the level of service A during both inbound and outbound peak hours. The level of service on Northside Drive between Yosemite Lodge and Yosemite Village also would improve to level of service A in both peak hours.

 

The actions proposed in Alternative 3 would create a long-term, major, beneficial impact by improving traffic flow.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 3 would change transportation patterns in Yosemite Valley, with day-visitor parking provided only at Taft Toe. The average travel time to access the Valley would increase by about 8 minutes over Alternative 1, which would represent a minor adverse long-term impact to visitors. When parking areas in the Valley were filled, visitors would need to find other means of access to the Valley (tour buses, regional transit, hiking, or bicycling). There would be a moderate decrease in traffic volume and a major improvement in traffic flow compared to Alternative 1. Bus trips entering the east Valley would increase by 253 per day, and bus vehicle miles traveled in the Valley would total 3,362 miles per day in the peak season, a major increase over Alternative 1. Traffic congestion would be reduced at the congested intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive. Traffic flow would remain relatively unchanged on Southside Drive and would improve substantially on Northside Drive. Overall, there would be a long-term, major, beneficial impact to traffic operations by reducing traffic and improving traffic flow.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts would be generally the same as described under Alternative 2, except as noted below.

Transportation and Other Projects within Yosemite National Park

The reconstruction of El Portal Road Segments A, B, and C will facilitate travel by day-visitors in private vehicles, tour buses, or regional transit buses to the parking area at Taft Toe. The resulting cumulative impact with the actions in Alternative 3 would be a negligible improvement in the time required to travel to the Valley.

Noise

VEHICLE NOISE

The major transportation actions affecting sound levels and events in this alternative are:

• Parking for 1,622 day visitor vehicles at Taft Toe near the El Capitan crossover

• A transit center at Taft Toe where day tour buses, regional transit buses, and in-Valley shuttles would stop

• Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from El Capitan crossover to Curry Village, with wider lanes and shoulders where needed

• Northside Drive would be removed between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village

• Northside Drive would be closed to vehicles from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover and converted to a multi-use paved trail

• Traffic entering the east Valley would be managed at El Capitan crossover to assure that the number of vehicles would not exceed parking or roadway capacity

• No out-of-Valley parking or shuttle service would be provided

Except for tour buses operated by the concessioner for Valley visitors, the only transit vehicles entering the east Valley would be in-Valley shuttles and commercial tour buses serving overnight lodge guests.

Sound Levels

Ambient sound levels associated with vehicle traffic would be reduced along most roadways in Yosemite Valley except El Capitan crossover and on Southside Drive west of Sentinel Bridge. Traffic volumes would be reduced by 73% 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 45% during the inbound peak hour and would be slightly higher than under the No Action Alternative during 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 negligible in the inbound peak hour and minor and adverse in the outbound peak hour. Sound levels along Northside Drive from Yosemite Village to Yosemite Lodge and on Southside Drive near the Chapel are shown in table 4-77 and table 4-78. Long-term sound level impacts along the portion of Northside Drive between the Lodge and Yosemite Village would be negligible in the inbound peak hour and minor and beneficial in the outbound peak hour. Traffic would be removed from the portions of Northside Drive between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village and between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover. In areas where Southside Drive is 400 feet or more from these portions of Northside Drive, it is likely that traffic noise would no longer be heard. The resulting reduction in sound levels associated with traffic would have major, beneficial impacts in the long term.

Table 4-77 Equivalent Constant Sound Levels from Traffic Along Southside Drive
Time of Day	Distance from Centerline of Roadway	Alternative 1 (dBA)	Alternative 3 (dBA)
Inbound Peak Hour	50 feet	64	66
	100 feet	61	62
	200 feet	57	59
	400 feet	54	55
Outbound Peak Hour	50 feet	63	66
	100 feet	59	62
	200 feet	55	59
	400 feet	52	55

Table 4-78 Equivalent Constant Sound Levels from Traffic Along Northside Drive
Time of Day	Distance from Centerline of Roadway	Alternative 1 (dBA)	Alternative 3 (dBA)
Inbound Peak Hour	50 feet	61	60
	100 feet	57	57
	200 feet	54	54
	400 feet	51	50
Outbound Peak Hour	50 feet	65	60
	100 feet	62	57
	200 feet	59	54
	400 feet	55	50

Sound Events

West of El Capitan crossover, the sound events on Northside Drive and Southside Drive would be similar to those in Alternative 1. From El Capitan crossover to Sentinel Bridge on Southside Drive, noticeable sound events would be reduced from 15 per hour to 8 per hour due to reduced traffic volumes in this area. An additional 60 events of lesser sound level would occur per hour from the operation of in-Valley shuttles to and from the Taft Toe parking area. The sound impact in this area would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial.

The area along Sentinel Drive and the Camp 6 area would experience a reduction in noticeable sound events from 15 per hour to 8 per hour. Sound events of lesser magnitude would increase by 30 per hour. The impacts in this area would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial. Between Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge, the noticeable sound events on Northside Drive would decrease from 11 per hour to 8 per hour. Lesser-magnitude sound events would increase by 4 per hour. The sound event impacts in this area would be long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Southside Drive from Sentinel Bridge to Curry Village would experience an increase in noticeable sound events from 4 to 8 per hour. Lesser sound events would increase from 10 to 20 per hour. The impact would be long-term, minor, and adverse. Sound events along Northside Drive from Sentinel Bridge to Yosemite Village would decrease from 4 very noticeable events and 10 lesser events to none. The impact would be long-term, minor, and beneficial. Between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover, all sound events from traffic would be eliminated, resulting in long-term, major, beneficial impacts.

Vehicle Noise Conclusion

This alternative would maintain existing sound conditions west of El Capitan crossover. It would substantially reduce traffic volumes east of El Capitan crossover, resulting in an overall reduction in sound levels from traffic. The reduction in overall sound levels would be noticeable but minor. Additionally, because this alternative would intercept all long-distance buses at Taft Toe, it would reduce the occurrence of noticeable sound events in most east Valley locations, resulting in long-term, minor to moderate benefits. Northside Drive between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover and between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village would have major benefits in sound reduction from the removal of all traffic.

Cumulative Impacts

Replacing the existing shuttle bus fleet with advanced technology buses (which could reduce the intensity of sound events along the shuttle routes) would have cumulative impacts similar to those described under Alternative 2. Increases in regional transit service by the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS) would possibly cause a larger number of sound events along the same routes. These two actions would have cumulative impacts on sound levels in the Valley similar to those described in Alternative 1 (long-term, beneficial). Alternative 3 would not change the vehicle types or operating characteristics of either the new shuttle buses or the YARTS buses.

NONVEHICLE NOISE

Yosemite Valley

Housing

Housing-related noise impacts would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial, essentially similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.

National Park Service and Primary Concessioner Operations

The impact of most National Park Service and concession operations on noise levels would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial, similar to Alternative 2, with the exception of transit operations, which are discussed below.

Transit Center and Day-Visitor Parking

Nonvehicle noise associated with the Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center would increase, due to maintenance, interpretive (trip planning), and visitor activity at the facility. As at parking facilities in Alternative 1, visitor conversation would represent the most typical nonvehicle noise in this area (60 dB; FICN 1992), and would typically be half as loud as associated vehicle activity. However, this would represent a major onsite change compared to the No Action Alternative, because of the operation of a parking area in a site that currently has a road and visitor parking turnouts only. Local ambient noise levels would increase, as would peak noise associated with mechanical sounds and loud conversation. Ambient noise at Camp 6 would also be reduced, due to the reduction in traffic, but peak noise levels would not necessarily be reduced in that portion of Yosemite Village, because transit operations would continue to deliver visitors to the area. Because Taft Toe is currently only under the influence of road noise and incidental visitor activities, impacts would be long-term, moderate, and adverse, compared to Alternative 1.

Lodging

The impact of lodging-related noise would be similar to that described under Alternative 2.

Campground

Campground-related noise would be similar to that of Alternative 2, except that noise increases at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would not be as great, in that there would be 15 less campsites. As in Alternative 2, this would result in long-term, minor, beneficial impacts through noise reductions in most campgrounds.

Picnic Areas

Noise related to picnic areas would be eliminated at the Swinging Bridge Picnic Area. Picnic area—related noise, including sounds associated with social interaction (e.g., conversation, laughing, and play), would be introduced at the new picnic area near El Capitan. A long-term, negligible, beneficial impact would be experienced by visitors.

Trails

Trail-related noise would be similar to those described under Alternative 2, except that private stock use would be discontinued in Yosemite Valley. Effects would be the same as in Alternative 2, with long-term, minor, adverse impacts along new trails, as experienced by visitors.

Construction Impacts

Construction-related noise impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 2, except that noise impacts related to developing transit facilities would be at Taft Toe. Types of construction noise would be the same. Overall, peak nonvehicle-related noises during construction and deconstruction, would have short-term, major, adverse impacts, affecting both visitors and residents.

Out-of-Valley Areas

El Portal

Housing

The types and general locations of housing-related noise would be similar to under Alternative 2, but because of an additional 73 employee beds in El Portal, nonvehicle impacts on ambient noise levels would be slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative. In new housing areas and at amenity sites, such as at the Village Center, impacts would be long-term, moderate, and adverse. In existing housing areas, impacts would be long-term, minor, and adverse, primarily affecting residents.

National Park Service and Primary Concessioner Operations

Most operations-related noise impacts in El Portal would be similar to those described under Alternative 2 (long-term, moderate, adverse).

Out-of-Valley Parking

There would be no out-of-Valley parking in El Portal, thus impacts would be the same as under the No Action Alternative.

Trails

Trail-related noise would be similar to that described under Alternative 2 (long-term, negligible, adverse).

Wawona

No new housing is proposed for Wawona in this alternative. Nonvehicle-related noise would not change. Therefore, impacts would be the same as under Alternative 1.

Foresta

Housing- and operations-related noise impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 (long-term, minor, adverse).

South Landing, Badger Pass, Hazel Green, and Henness Ridge

No additional transit or administrative facilities are proposed in these areas. Therefore, impacts would be the same as under Alternative 1.

Construction Impacts for Out-of-Valley Locations

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

Nonvehicle Noise Conclusion

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1, in that the impacts of nonvehicle noise on the human environment would be 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 Foresta would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. New trails would put typical trail-related noises into new areas, but these impacts would be minor. Reductions in campsite and lodging numbers would result in moderate and minor, beneficial effects, respectively. National Park Service and concession operations in Yosemite Valley would be reduced, but with light maintenance for transit being in the Valley, and with new impacts at Taft Toe, benefits would be minor. Overall, the nonvehicle noises would be reduced in Yosemite Valley, but benefits would be minor and long-term, due to the introduction of adverse impacts in some areas. The greatest increases in noise would be in El Portal, where adverse impacts would be long-term and minor.

Cumulative Impacts

The projects that would have cumulative impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 2. When considering the overall minor, beneficial effects of Alternative 3, in combination with the more dominant noises associated with other projects and sources, including vehicles, cumulative impacts of nonvehicle noise in Alternative 3 would remain long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Social and Economic Environments

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 3 on these social and economic environments are discussed below.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Potential effects of Alternative 3 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 structure.

Yosemite Valley

Under this alternative, 588 beds would be removed from Yosemite Valley, as under Alternative 2. Impacts would be largely the same as described under Alternative 2.

The proposed relocation of employees from Yosemite Valley to El Portal, including National Park Service and Yosemite Concessions Services Corporation headquarters and associated employees, would reduce the resident population by almost half and alter the character of the remaining population. Most of the employees moved to El Portal would be year-round employees. As a result, a greater proportion of the employees remaining in Yosemite Valley would be seasonal staff. Impacts on social and community services would be as described under Alternative 2. Impacts would range from long-term, negligible, adverse to major; and relate mostly to the change in community populations.

El Portal

Under this alternative, 588 park employees, mostly primary concessioner employees, would be relocated from Yosemite Valley into new housing in El Portal. An additional 157 bed spaces would be constructed to meet future and currently unmet demand for employee housing. In addition, 80 El Portal residents, currently living at the Trailer Village, Arch Rock, or Cascades, would be relocated into new housing facilities in El Portal. The total net increase in El Portal’s residential employee population is projected to be 745 (588 plus 157).

The park’s current primary concessioner, Yosemite Concession Services Corporation, provided the primary source of employee demographic information. No similar information was available from the other park concessioners or the National Park Service. More than 95% of the new housing in El Portal would be occupied by primary concessioner employees. Therefore, Yosemite Concession Services Incorporated 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 the 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 Corporation staff estimate 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 (745 x 20% x 15% = 22). Of these 22 spouses, approximately 17 would be relocated from the Valley and five would be married to new employees.

According to Yosemite Concession Services Corporation, under this alternative 62 managerial personnel currently living in managerial housing would be relocated from the Valley to El Portal, while 28 would remain in the Valley. Yosemite Concession Services Corporation’s current managerial population is approximately 210 employees. While a proportion of these staff live outside the park, many managerial staff currently live in non-managerial housing accommodations within the Valley. Yosemite Concession Services Corporation estimates that its managerial staff has approximately 80 children. An estimated 55 children are expected to be relocated. Of the 159 future new employees, 19 are projected to be managerial staff. Based on the current employee demographics, these staff would bring an additional seven 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 829 (741 + 22 + 55 + 7). Yosemite Concession Services Corporation expects that 10% of the employees housed in El Portal would be seasonal employees. Therefore, the winter residential population in El Portal would increase by approximately 746 (829 x 90%).

It is estimated that the current summer population of El Portal (from the park boundary to the confluence of the South Fork of the Merced River) is approximately 3,000, and the current winter population is approximately 760. Under this alternative, changes in employee housing would result in about a 28% increase in El Portal’s summer population and a 98% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on El Portal’s population, although it is expected that this projected future growth would occur gradually.

This alternative also would increase the number of residents and jobs in the El Portal area and the number of commuters to Yosemite Valley along Highway 140. Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Wawona

The Wawona social environment would not be affected by this alternative and impacts would be the same as those described for the No Action Alternative. The number of employees living in Wawona would not change, and travel along the South Entrance Road would not be impacted.

Foresta

This alternative proposes reconstruction of the 14 National Park Service houses that were lost in the A-Rock Fire, and potential placement of the National Park Service and concessioner stables at McCauley Ranch. Rebuilding of the 14 burned National Park Service dwellings would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the social environment of Foresta due to a negligible increase in human presence and reduction in solitude. Potential replacement of the stables at McCauley Ranch (depending on outcome of wilderness eligibility determination) would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact due to an increase in vehicle movement and negligible reductions in solitude.

Cascades and Arch Rock

Impacts to the Cascades and Arch Rock communities are expected to be the same as those described under Alternative 2, resulting in a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

Yosemite West

This alternative would have no direct impacts on the social environment in Yosemite West because no actions would occur within the area of influence.

Services and Infrastructure

Schools and Child Care

Impacts to local services and infrastructure are expected to be the same as those described under Alternative 2 with the exceptions noted below.

Impacts to schools and pre-schools in the region would be the same as those described for Alternative 2. Seven additional children would be added to the local population from future growth in managerial staff at the park. These additional students would not increase demand or impact school bus operations.

Law Enforcement

Relocation of concession employees is expected to increase the law enforcement requirements in El Portal. Based on the population shift from Yosemite Valley and future employee growth, it is estimated that approximately 62 arrests may be necessary in El Portal that would otherwise have been expected to occur within the Valley. Also, the addition of 159 new employees would be expected to add approximately 17 additional arrests a year. This would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact to law enforcement services. However, these projections do not consider the beneficial effects that improvements to employee living conditions and/or the quality of concession employees (attracted by the improved housing El Portal: social impacts) may have in reducing future law enforcement incidents and arrests necessary in El Portal and throughout the park. 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 area during off-duty hours.

There would be no impact to law enforcement aspects of the El Portal social environment related to visitor parking, because all parking would be located in Yosemite Valley at Taft Toe.

The cost of providing additional law enforcement services under this alternative would be the same as those expected under Alternative 2; a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the county would be expected.

In addition to the impact on law enforcement service, an increase in arrests within the county’s legal jurisdiction would also increase the service demands on the county court system. The magnitude of the impact on the court system is expected to be comparable to that on the county law enforcement: long-term, moderate, and adverse.

Other Services

Under this alternative, the Yosemite Valley Medical Clinic would remain in Yosemite Valley, and National Park Service emergency medical service staff and county ambulance services would continue to handle all emergency medical service functions. However, employees relocated to El Portal would need to be transported to the Valley medical clinic or to Mariposa in case of emergency. Therefore, a long-term, minor, adverse impact would occur due to an increase in county ambulance service expected to be associated with the projected growth in the park employee population.

A short-term, negligible, adverse impact on Mariposa County is expected as a result of road improvement and maintenance costs associated with any increase in county road usage in El Portal from the additional residential employee population.

Local Communities Conclusion

Impacts to Yosemite Valley would be as described under Alternative 2. Impacts to services and infrastructure under this alternative are the same as those described under Alternative 2, with the exceptions noted below.

Changes in the employee population would result in an increase of about 28% in El Portal’s summer population and a 98% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on the El Portal social environment, although it is expected that this projected population growth would be gradual.

As described for Alternative 2, this alternative would have a negligible impact on most of Mariposa’s County infrastructure. All the impacts to county services and infrastructure would be long-term impacts because the proposed housing changes would be permanent. Additionally, the county would provide increased law enforcement and court services for 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; the impacts to the county for these services are expected to be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

Yosemite Valley Medical Clinic would continue to operate within the Valley. As a result, the county ambulance service would experience long-term, minor, adverse impacts due to the increase in service demand.

This alternative would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the Foresta social environment. The placement of 14 dwellings at Foresta and the National Park Service and concessioner horse stables at McCauley Ranch would increase traffic and reduce solitude in the Foresta area thereby causing a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts on local communities under this alternative would be as described in Alternative 2.

Overall, projects described under the cumulative impacts analysis of Alternative 1 would have both beneficial and adverse short and long-term impacts when combined with the alternative’s actions. Local communities of El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta would each experience impacts ranging between negligible to major. When considered in combination with the effects of Alternative 3, the impacts would be moderately beneficial to moderately adverse. However, they would represent a relatively small proportion of the total impact.

ITOE POPULATIONS

Day Visitors

Under this alternative, it is projected that on the busiest days in the summer up to 13,029 day visitors could be accommodated by the proposed parking and transit facilities. This level of visitation exceeds the 1998 summer season average daily visitation of 10,950 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 who otherwise might 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 impact could be mitigated by the planned traveler information and traffic management system. This system could forewarn potential visitors when day-visitor parking was approaching full capacity and encourage and direct visitors to visit during nonpeak periods. In this case, no net reduction in total visitation would occur because peak-period visitation would theoretically be shifted to less busy days (weekdays).

Overnight Visitors

Lodging

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 982, a decrease of 278 lodging units or a 22.1% decrease in lodging. While a variety of types of lodging would remain, the number of rustic lodging units would decrease by more than 70% while the number of economy units would increase by almost 114%. In addition, 26 campsites are proposed to be removed from the Valley.

The specific lodging and camping impacts are identified below:

Yosemite Lodge

This alternative would add 142 new motel rooms at Yosemite Lodge, increasing the total number of rooms at the Lodge to 387. There would still be fewer rooms than the 495 operated at Yosemite Lodge before the 1997 flood, although many of those were rooms without bathrooms.

It is estimated that the additional rooms would have 92% occupancy. This reflects the strong year-round demand for Yosemite Lodge accommodations and is consistent with past Yosemite Lodge occupancy during 1994, 1996, and 1998. As a result, approximately 47,700 additional room-nights would be gained by the proposed Yosemite Lodge expansion. This increase would allow nearly 151,200 additional visitors to stay overnight in the Valley annually (assuming an average of 3.17 guests per room).

Curry Village

This alternative would reduce the total number of lodging units at Curry Village from 628 to 420, a decrease of 208. It is projected that approximately 200 room-nights would be gained annually (occurring during the off-season). This increase would add approximately 600 overnight visitors to the Curry Village annual total (assuming an average of 3.17 guests per room). The projected increase in overnight stays at Curry Village would occur because the majority of eliminated units would be the less popular tent cabins. Under this alternative, there would be a net increase of 149 cabin rooms, which are more popular and suitable for year-round use. As a result, while the total number of lodging units would decrease, additional off-season lodging would be gained, and would be expected to be occupied during the off-season since Yosemite Lodge is not proposed to be rebuilt to its greater pre-flood capacity.

Housekeeping Camp

This alternative would remove 212 Housekeeping units, leaving 52 units in operation. Based on pre-flood visitor demand, the occupancy of the Housekeeping units is estimated to be 75%. Although these units currently operate at full occupancy only during the months of July and August, the proposed reduction would decrease the lodging capacity so that all remaining Housekeeping units would operate at full occupancy and guests would be displaced throughout their operating season (mid-May to early October). Approximately 26,000 room-nights would be lost, displacing approximately 104,000 overnight visitor stays (assuming an average of four guests per room). In this alternative, overnight visitation at Housekeeping Camp would decrease by nearly 74%.

Changes in Lodging Types

In addition to reducing the Valley’s lodging capacity this alternative would also alter the variety of lodging styles and prices available to overnight visitors. The predominant changes are: (1) a reduction in rustic-style accommodations from 691 to 202 units (at Housekeeping Camp and the Curry Village Tent cabins), a loss of 489 units representing an approximately 70% decrease in units; (2) growth in economy accommodations from 181 to 387 units at Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village, a gain of 206 units, an approximate increase of 114%; and (3) an increase in mid-scale accommodations from 265 to 270 units, an increase of five units that represents a 1.9% increase.

Some visitors may be affected by the changes in lodging types available in the Valley. Overnight visitors would likely be displaced and impacted if replacement lodging alternatives were different from the lost facilities. However, if replacement lodging units are considered comparable by most overnight guests, the new facilities would not substantively impact their overnight lodging experience.

This alternative provides limited lodging substitutes for many overnight visitors. Current Housekeeping Camp guests would face a nearly 75% reduction in lodging availability. However, for some overnight visitors (including displaced Curry Village Tent cabin guests), the economy units may provide an adequate substitute.

Based on past occupancy levels, rustic accommodations have the lowest average annual occupancy of the Valley’s different lodging facilities. In contrast, Yosemite Lodge generally operates near capacity year-round, and reservations are booked months in advance. This suggests that current visitor demand for rustic facilities is weaker. Therefore, removal of the less popular lodging facilities could be partially offset by new replacement facilities that are more popular with a majority of overnight visitors. This would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

Camping

Under this alternative, 26 campsites would be eliminated, leaving a total of 449 campsites within Yosemite Valley. This represents a 5.51% decrease from the current 475 Valley campsites.

Based on pre-flood visitor demand for Valley campsites, it is estimated that the lost campsites would have an average occupancy rate of nearly 95%, for operations between mid-April and mid-October. Accordingly, 4,500 overnight campsite stays would be lost, displacing approximately 18,000 visitors from camping overnight within the Valley annually (assuming an average of four overnight visitors per campsite). This would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact.

Table 4-79 summarizes the overnight visitation changes expected under this alternative. A moderate net increase in overnight park visitation is projected, despite a major net reduction in overnight accommodations of 304 units (based on a net lodging decrease of 279 units and camping decrease of 25 sites). The combined impact of the lodging and campsite changes is estimated to be a net increase in 17,400 room-nights annually. This represents an increase of 30,700 overnight visitor stays within Yosemite Valley annually, a 2.6% increase from 1998 overnight visitation. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on overnight park visitation.

 

Table 4-79 Estimated Potential Overnight Visitation Impacts
Lodging	Change in Units	Projected Change in Room-Nights	Projected Change in Overnight Visitor Stay
Yosemite Lodge	142	47,700	151,200
Curry Village	(208)	200	600
Housekeeping	(212)	(26,000)	(104,000)
Camping	(26)	(4,500)	(18,000)
Total	(304)	+17,400	+30,700

Note: These are conservative future estimates of overnight visitation demands since they are based on the pre-1997 demand for in-park lodging. As a result, they do not assume any visitor demand increases from factors such as reduced vehicle congestion, natural resources restoration, improved lodging facilities or population growth.Note: Apparent inconsistencies in the table are the result of replacing seasonal units with year-round units.Note: ( ) =decrease

Minority and Low-Income Visitors/Environmental Justice

Impacts on minority and low-income populations would be as described under Alternative 2.

Visitor Population Conclusion

Under this alternative, Yosemite Valley’s lodging and camping is proposed to decrease by 304 lodging units. However, due to the increase in the Valley’s nonpeak lodging capacity, an annual net increase of 30,700 overnight visitor stays is projected. This is equivalent to a 2.6% increase to 1998 overnight visitation, which represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Day-visitation would remain unchanged. However, 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, negligible, and adverse.

 

REGIONAL ECONOMIES

Visitor Spending

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

The primary effects on visitor spending within the region would be related to changes in park visitor population projected under this alternative. As discussed in the previous sections, the decrease in overnight visitation within the park is the only quantifiable impact on park visitation associated with this alternative. It is projected that approximately 30,700 visitor overnight stays would be added under this alternative.

It is possible that these additional park overnighters could be attracted away from lodging in the region outside the park. If these vacated rooms are not occupied by new visitors or day visitors, relocation of these overnight guests from lodging outside the park into the Valley would have no net economic effect on the region’s economy, because no new spending would be attracted into the area. However, given the high demand for lodging in the region (especially during the peak season), it is expected that some day visitors would likely choose to stay overnight in the region. As a result, the net economic impact on the regional economy from the additional overnight stays would be the net increase in daily visitor spending of $35.76 per capita ($61.30 — $25.54, the difference between overnight visitor spending and day-visitor spending) multiplied by the increased overnight visitation (30,700), which would equate to approximately $1.1 million in visitor spending. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to Yosemite visitor spending.

This is a conservative estimate of the beneficial spending impact on the county economy. The additional lodging capacity proposed under this alternative would still be lower than the Valley’s pre-flood levels; therefore, it might be expected that increasing the Valley lodging capacity would bring back overnight visitors to the park who otherwise would remain displaced by the 1997 flood. The analysis has conservatively assumed that the additional overnight visitors will be gained from current day visitors; therefore, no net change in park visitation is expected. However, if new park visitors were instead attracted to stay overnight in the park, there would be an even greater growth in visitor spending.

There would also be potential for future growth in day visitation under this alternative. It is estimated that an additional 64,400 day visitors per month could be accommodated during weekdays in July and August in the Valley, assuming that these additional visitors would come to the Valley on weekdays and less busy weekends. In addition to visitor spending growth based on increased park visitation, the region could also increase visitor spending by encouraging more of the existing park visitors to stay longer or to stay overnight in the region. Increased length of stay would increase visitor spending, which would have a beneficial impact on the region’s economy.

The proposed changes to the Valley’s overnight lodging facilities is projected to increase the future overall overnight visitation within the Valley. This would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on Yosemite visitor spending by increasing the number of visitors (and hence visitor spending) that can be accommodated overnight in the Valley each year.

Table 4-80 presents the estimated total visitor spending impacts of lodging changes proposed under this alternative. Estimated impacts of this alternative on Yosemite visitor spending would not exceed 1% in any of the five counties within the Yosemite region. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Overall, visitor spending within the five-county region is expected to increase by approximately 0.5%, representing a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-80 Estimated Visitor Spending Impacts
County	Estimated Total Yosemite Visitor Spending ($million/yr)	Estimated Impact on Spending ($million/yr)	Impact on Spending as a Percentage of Total Yosemite Visitor Spending
Madera	$38.1	$0.06	0.1%
Mariposa	$143.4	$0.91	0.6%
Merced	$4.8	$0.02	0.3%
Mono	$30.8	$0.03	0.1%
Tuolumne	$22.2	$0.07	0.3%
All	$239.3	$1.1	0.5%

Table 4-81 shows the total direct and secondary visitor spending expected under this alternative. The expected change in overnight capacity and associated visitor spending under this alternative would cause total regional output to increase by about $1.7 million dollars annually. Much of this change would be driven by an approximately $1.4 million increase in the annual output of Mariposa County. The portion of this spending increase expected to occur in the county’s lodging sector would result in an increase of approximately $52,000, or 1%, in the county’s recent average annual hotel occupancy tax revenues, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Table 4-81 further indicates that impacts to employment in Madera, Merced, Mono, and Tuolumne Counties would be negligible. Mariposa County would experience an increase of about 27 jobs, an approximately 0.3% increase in recent countywide employment. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to Mariposa County.

Table 4-81 Estimated Total (Direct And Secondary) Visitor Spending Impacts within the Affected Region
County	Estimated Impact on Spending ($million/yr)	Estimated Spending-Associated Impact on Annual Output ($million/yr)	Estimated Spending-Associated Impact on Annual Employment (FTE)
Madera	$0.06	$0.09	1.9
Mariposa	$0.91	$1.38	27.0
Merced	$0.02	$0.03	0.6
Mono	$0.03	$0.05	1.2
Tuolumne	$0.07	$0.12	2.7
All	$1.1	$1.67	33.3

Construction Spending and Employment

Construction costs proposed under this alternative would total $413.5 million in 2000 dollars. In 1998 dollars this cost corresponds to $389.7 million. The capital cost estimates would include approximately about $9.0 million for a bus fleet in 1998 dollars. This spending is expected to occur outside the affected region. In addition, a considerable portion of this construction spending would occur outside the affected region. As a result, it is estimated that total expected construction spending within the five-county affected region would be approximately $247 million. The expected average annual construction spending within the affected five-county region by five-year phase is presented in table 4-82. Total regional output and employment impacts expected to result from those expenditures are also shown.

During the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated $31.0 million of additional output per year in the five-county region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to a 4.3% 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 (direct and secondary) in the affected region by approximately $46.1 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 4-82 also shows that during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 360 full-time-equivalent jobs in the region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an almost 4.0% increase in recent regional construction sector employment and represents a short-term, moderate, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would cause the region’s total employment (directly and secondarily) to increase by an estimated 553 jobs (including construction- and nonconstruction-sector jobs). This translates to a 0.34% increase in total employment in the region and represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-82 Estimated Average Annual Construction Spending1 and Associated Output/Employment Impacts
Period (Years)	Average Annual Construction Spending ($million/year)	Direct Construction Sector Output Impacts ($million/year)	Total Construction Spending-Associated Output Impacts1 ($million/year)	Direct Construction Sector Employment Impacts (FTE)	Total Construction Spending-Associated Employment Impacts2 (FTE)
1 — 5	31.0	31.0	44.3	360	553
6 — 10	15.2	15.2	21.7	176	270
11 — 15	3.1	3.1	4.5	36	56
Total	246.6	246.6	352.4

Estimated average annual construction spending and associated output and employment impacts in Mariposa County are shown in table 4-83. During the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated $6.8 million of output per year in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an increase of about 19% over recent output in that sector and would represent 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 $9.7 million in 1998 dollars (including both construction sector and nonconstruction sector output). This is equivalent to a 1.9% increase in the county’s total industrial output and would represent a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Table 4-83 also shows that during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 81 full-time—equivalent jobs in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This represents an approximate 17% increase in recent employment in that sector and would be a short-term, major, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending in the county would cause the county’s total employment (directly and secondarily) to increase by an estimated 123 jobs. This translates to about a 1.5% increase in total employment in the county and would be a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Output and employment generated would decrease by over 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 of the project would end after 15 years.

Table 4-83 Estimated Average Annual Construction Spending/Associated Output and Potential Employment Impacts in Mariposa County
Period (Years)	Average Annual Construction Spending ($million/yr)	Direct Construction Sector Output Impacts ($million/yr)	Total Construction Spending-Associated Output Impacts1 ($million/yr)	Direct Construction Sector Employment Impacts (FTE)	Total Construction Spending-Associated Employment Impacts2 (FTE)
1 — 5	6.8	6.8	9.7	81	123
6 — 10	3.3	3.3	4.7	40	60
11 — 15	0.7	0.7	1.0	8	12
Total	53.7	53.7	77.2

Following implementation of actions proposed under Alternative 3, it is expected that approximately $12.8 million (1998 dollars) a year would be permanently spent within the affected region to operate and maintain the new in-Valley visitor transit system, to meet staffing requirements of expanded park visitor facilities and employee housing, and to pay for additional operations and maintenance expenses incurred by the concessioner on project-associated visitor and employee housing facilities. Table 4-84 indicates that this spending would generate about $19.6 million of output per year and 317 jobs within the affected region. This would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the region’s economy.

Table 4-84 also indicates that new park operations-related spending is expected to generate $11.3 million in additional output per year within Mariposa County. This would represent a 2.2% increase over recent county output, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to the county’s economy. Furthermore, park operations-related employment is expected to increase employment in Mariposa County by 221 jobs (including 116 National Park Service positions), a 2.7% increase over recent county employment levels. This would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the county’s economy.

Table 4-84 Estimated Average Annual Park and In-Valley Transit System Operations Spending
County(s) (in park)	Annual Park and Transit System Spending1 ($million/yr)	Total Operation Spending-Associated Output Impacts2 ($million/yr)	Additional National Park Service Employees (FTE)	Total Operation Spending-Associated Employment Impacts3 (FTE)
Mariposa	$6.7	$11.3	116	221.1
Yosemite Region	$12.8	$19.6	116	316.8

Other Revenues

Detailed analysis on the retail spending habits of 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.

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 average employee spending in Mariposa County is not known. Under this alternative, approximately 831 relocated park employees, new employees, and family members would move to El Portal. Impacts under this alternative, therefore, would be the same as described under Alternative 2: long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

Spending by these additional park employees would mostly represent new spending income for Mariposa County (although many would be seasonal employees, so 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.

Mariposa County currently assesses a 1.25% tax on all retail and restaurant sales within the county including the majority of the concessioner sales within Yosemite National Park. The average concessioner employee’s wages are low, and it is estimated that the annual earnings of the new additional employees would be approximately $2.1 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 were spent on goods within Mariposa County, the county sales tax revenues would be only $2,600, which would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the county’s economy.

The primary concessioner would also be expected to pay approximately $500,000 in housing incentives annually for employees relocating out of the Valley to El Portal. This additional spending would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the county’s economy.

Overall, the future change in local sales tax revenues is projected to be long-term, negligible, and beneficial because no significant 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 Yosemite Concession Services financial situation 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, however, that long-term, major, adverse impacts to the county’s tax revenues could occur if Yosemite Concession Services’ operations were impacted significantly.

No county building or permit fees would be generated by the proposed construction on federal land within Mariposa County. However, the county’s possessory interest tax revenues would be affected by net changes to permanent National Park Service and non-Yosemite Concession Services employees’ housing facilities. The county assesses possessory interest taxes to these park employees based on the value of their housing. Under this alternative, it is estimated that the National Park Service would add approximately 30 bed spaces for permanent National Park Service and non-Yosemite Concession Services employees in El Portal. Currently, the Mariposa County Assessor’s Office estimates that the annual possessory tax revenues associated with the 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 the 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.

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 is planned to accommodate primarily 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 have risen since the property was previously purchased. 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 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 $31.0 million in annual spending would expand the regional economy by about $44 million of output. This would represent a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. In Mariposa County, however, the estimated $9.7 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, it is estimated that approximately 553 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 123 jobs generated directly and secondarily by project spending would have a short-term, minor, beneficial impact on that county’s employment.

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

Redevelopment of the park’s lodging and campsite facilities also would affect the regional economy by changing visitor spending in the region. Completion of these visitor facility changes 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 increase by about $1.1 million in 1998 dollars. The economic impacts on each of the surrounding county economies would be long-term, negligible, and beneficial. It is expected that Yosemite visitor-spending impacts to the regional economy will be long-term, negligible and beneficial.

The overall economic impacts of the changes from visitor spending and operational spending to the regional economy 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 effects 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 moderate, beneficial impact to the county from the increased park operations and the long-term, negligible, beneficial impact from the expected visitor spending increases.

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 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. Combined with the net increase of 30,700 stays described above, the cumulative impact would be an increase of approximately 556,200 overnight stays per year.

Visitor Spending

In addition to the increase in overnight capacity in the Valley under this alternative, there would also be an increase in lodging in the region from the projects identified in Appendix H. As described under Alternative 1, the projects in Appendix H would generate approximately $18.8 million in direct annual visitor spending in the region. Thus, the total annual change in visitor spending would be approximately $19.9 million under this alternative.

Secondary impacts generated by $19.9 million in additional direct visitor spending would be estimated to be $11.0 million. At full buildout, therefore, the total estimated spending-associated impact on annual output under this alternative would be $30.9 million, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the regional economy. If new visitors are attracted to the region by the increase in lodging, visitor spending would be higher and the impact would be greater.

Construction Spending

Local construction spending from the projects identified in Appendix H is estimated to average $255.0 million annually. Under this alternative, an additional $16.4 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 the proposed action and outlined in Appendix H, therefore, would be approximately $269.8 million per year under this alternative.

Additional construction spending would generate secondary output impacts as a result of local spending on material inputs and wage spending by project labor. For annual construction spending of $269.8 million, secondary impacts would be estimated at approximately $115.7 million. The total change in annual output (direct and secondary) would therefore be $385.5 million, a short-term, major, beneficial impact on overall industrial output in the region. Of this increase, approximately 88% would be associated with housing construction in Merced County.

New park operations—related spending is expected to generate an additional $19.6 million in output per year in the Yosemite region.

Employment

The equivalent of up to 581 jobs would be supported by the increase in visitor spending in the region. In addition, the equivalent of approximately 2,900 to 9,200 full-time jobs would be supported each year from construction spending, including all projects in this alternative and other reasonably foreseeable, regional future projects, depending on the phase of construction. An additional 317 jobs would be generated by new park operations 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 also could be met by residents of neighboring counties outside the affected region, such as Fresno, particularly for the large construction projects in Merced County such as the proposed housing development and University of California campus development. In such a 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 influx of workers is expected. Therefore, it is projected that no new housing would be needed to accommodate employment impacts from this alternative or projects in Appendix H (Vol. II).

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 significantly under this alternative. This would represent a short-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 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, in order 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 72% 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 from 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.

• 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 which would result in increased response time for 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 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 concession’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 7 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 would be adequate to allow the concession operator to earn a reasonable return relative to its investment and operating risk. To evaluate the impacts of the alternatives presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan on the concessioner, the analysis began by evaluating the concession’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 nor 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 would 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 their 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 a decrease in its annual profits of $6.5 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.

The changes to visitor services proposed under this alternative are projected to generate additional net operating profits of $3.4 million annually. These profits would be obtained from annual revenue increases of approximately $7.4 million. The profit gains would primarily result from increasing the highly profitable Yosemite Lodge accommodations and the additional commercial visitor services to be located at the Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center.

Future employee housing and relocation cost increases are projected to be approximately $4.7 million per year. These consist primarily of increases in the annual costs for: furniture, fixtures and equipment replacement ($1.5 million), heat and utilities ($800,000), employee transportation ($300,000), insurance ($500,000), and wage increases to encourage employees to relocate out of the Valley ($500,000). Additional housing-related staff needs are estimated to cost less than $200,000 million. Other associated costs would total approximately $0.9 million. It is estimated that the future average annual cost for repair and maintenance for the new concession-related facilities would be approximately $5.2 million.

In summary, based on the analysis of changes proposed under this alternative, future concession operations would be expected to experience a $6.5 million decrease in annual profits ($3.4 million — $4.7 million — $5.2 million = —$6.5 million).

This profit decrease would result in the concession operating at a loss due to the concessioner’s expected additional financial and contractual obligations to the federal government. This loss could be offset by reducing the current or any future concessioner’s federal contribution from its current level of $9.9 million annually to cover the concessioner’s projected profit reduction. In this case, it is estimated that the current or any future concessioner would be able to make a net contribution of approximately $3.4 million to the federal government annually. This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on concession operations.

Table 4-85 shows the projected financial impacts to Yosemite Concession Services under Alternative 3.

Table 4-85 Projected Annual Financial Impacts to Yosemite Concession Services ($ Million)
Impact	Alt 1	Alt 3	Net Change
Revenue	$0	$7.4	$7.4
Profit from Operations	$0	($6.5)	($6.5)
Concessioner’s Govt. Contribution	$9.9	$9.9	$0
Net Profit Impact & Government Contribution	$9.9	$3.4	($6.5)

The projected revenue impact would represent an 8.4% increase in the concessioner’s 1998 revenues, which would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. If the concessioner’s governmental contribution were used to offset the projected profit losses from its operations, then the alternative would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the concession operations because the concessioner’s net profits would be unaffected by the reduction of its federal contribution. However, the annual financial return to the federal government from concession operations would be reduced from $9.9 million to $3.4 million, a reduction of 66%, which would be a long-term, major, adverse impact on the federal government.

Yosemite Medical Clinic

Under this alternative, the medical clinic would remain in its current location. 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 17,400 room-nights would be gained with an annual increase of 30,700 overnight stays within the Valley. While this represents an approximate 2.6% increase in park overnight stays, it corresponds to only a 1.0% increase in park visitation (compared to 1998 visitation levels). This would represent a long-term, minor, beneficial 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.

The Ansel Adams Gallery

Under this alternative, The Ansel Adams Gallery would remain in its current location. Proposed modifications for the Yosemite Village Area include expansion of fast food facilities at the Village Grill and Degnan’s, removal of public parking throughout the Yosemite Village area, and the transformation of the Yosemite Village area as an interpretive hub. A new transit and visitor center would be located at Taft Toe. All day-visitors would be required to use the Valley transit system to enter the east end of the Valley.

While the new transit and visitor center is located mid-Valley and visitors may disperse from that point, the Yosemite Village area is expected to continue to be an important part of most park visitors’ travel itinerary. It is expected these actions would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the Ansel Adams Gallery since potential customers will not be initially directed to the Yosemite Village area. The adverse impact could be decreased if future signage and visitor orientation programs increased public awareness of the Gallery’s location, operations, and history.

While the proposed natural resources restoration actions may improve the Valley’s visual appearance and enhance overall visitor experience, these changes would not be expected to affect the gallery’s business. However, removal of nearby parking may reduce the Gallery’s annual sales because many visitors may be reluctant to make purchases if they must use shuttle buses to return to their cars or overnight accommodations. In addition, any changes to the park’s annual visitation may also 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 on the concessioner’s future sales 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 Center are expected to produce mainly long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to the Yosemite Association. Under this alternative, the Valley 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. The new Visitor/Transit Center would also serve as a transit center for park visitors.

As a result, visitor use at the new visitor 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 would improve the Association’s ability to provide effective information and orientation service as well as retail sales. It is estimated that annual sales at the new visitor center could double from its current revenues of $0.75 million. This would represent a long-term, major, 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 and open an additional store at the new national history museum.

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. This would be a long-term, minor adverse impact. Also, 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 and elimination of cabins without baths may affect the Yosemite Institute, which currently occupies approximately 80 units between September and June. Under this alternative, economy accommodations are proposed at Curry Village suitable for Yosemite Institute’s use throughout the winter. As a result, lodging capacity for Yosemite Institute participants is expected to be adequate.

It is expected that Yosemite Institute would be required to pay higher room rates to Yosemite Concession Services for rooms with bath. Based on Yosemite Concession Services’ current rate structure and depending on the availability of the remaining Curry Village tent cabins for Yosemite Institute’s use in September and June, it is estimated that the Institute’s average lodging costs would increase between 16% and 25%. This is equivalent to an average lodging cost increase of $1.80 to $2.70 per person per night. Based on an average annual total of 40,122 person-nights spent in Yosemite Concession Services accommodations by Yosemite Institute participants, Yosemite Institute’s total lodging costs may be expected to increase between $72,000 to $108,000 (in 1999 dollars). This would represent a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute’s program.

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-season. The purpose of these facilities would be provide an adequate staging area and base of operations so the Yosemite Institute could provide the essential support necessary for its field operations. Relocation of the administrative park operations would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute’s education programs.

In addition, under this alternative, Yosemite Institute would experience a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact from the new educational opportunities provided by the natural resources restoration in the east end of the Valley and the improved access to the west end of the Valley.

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. No satellite parking is proposed at El Portal under this alternative. As a result, visitor fuel sales would be expected to be unchanged, which would have a negligible impact on the station’s annual revenues. Therefore, overall it is expected that this alternative would have a long-term, negligible, and adverse impact on the El Portal Chevron station.

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 and contract. The store’s primary source of customers is from park visitor traffic along Highway 140, which will continue under this alternative.

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, minor, beneficial impact on El Portal Market’s sales.

Concessioner and Cooperators Conclusion

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

The future primary concession operations would be expected to experience a $6.5 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 to cover the concessioner’s projected profit reduction. In this case, it is estimated that the current or any future concessioner would be able to realize a reasonable profit and contribute approximately $3.4 million to the federal government and the Valley.

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

The proposed changes to visitor interpretation facilities are expected to have a long-term, major, 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.

Reductions in Curry Village tent cabins would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact, because program participants would need to use other newly built but more expensive lodging facilities. Relocation of the program’s administrative office out of the Valley is expected to have a long-term, minor impact.

This alternative would have a long-term, negligible, and adverse impact on the El Portal Chevron Station. The alternative would have a long-term, minor, and beneficial 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 resulting in a net federal contribution of $1.7 million by the concessioner is projected. This reduction is the difference between a $3.4 million projected federal contribution by the concessioner and the $1.7 million additional repair and maintenance cost on existing park facilities used by the concessioner. This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the concessioner, because its net profits would be unaffected by the reduction in its future federal contribution.

Potential mitigation approaches and their expected impacts were discussed in the impact analysis for Yosemite Concession Services earlier in this section.

Other Concessioners and Cooperators

Cumulative impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 1.

Park Operations

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 Operations

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 salary and operations costs annually. Construction of new shuttle bus stops, buildings, housing units, and changes in building functions from administrative to public use would require additional custodial service and facility maintenance.

The rehabilitation of historic districts would require additional staffing and associated funding.

The traveler information and traffic management system, once implemented, could displace visitors to outlying districts or expand visitation to off-peak seasons. This would cause a long-term, minor, adverse impact on buildings and grounds operations in outlying districts, in that the levels of maintenance and custodial services required for peak season operations would be needed for a longer period of the year.

Roads and Trails

To provide the levels of service considered necessary, it is estimated that approximately 17 additional roads and trails person would be needed. This would represent approximately $637,500 in additional salary and operations costs annually.

A new parking lot in the mid-Valley would require additional winter maintenance (equipment and staffing) for snow removal.

An increase in trails in the Valley and El Portal would create an additional 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 to handle the added travel time for pack trips leaving from Yosemite Valley trail heads.

There would be an increased demand for trash pickup in the El Portal area due to the relocation of administration functions and the increase in the number of housing units.

Utilities

It is estimated that approximately six additional utilities personnel would be needed to provide appropriate levels of service. This would represent approximately $225,200 in additional salary and operations costs annually. Moving functions, constructing new buildings, and relocating utilities out of highly valued resource areas would require the utilities branch to install additional or longer service lines. New service connections and, in the case of the Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center, an entirely new utility system, 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. However, it would increase logistical maneuvering when leaving from Yosemite Valley trailheads.

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 provided, the impacts 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 in additional salary and operations costs annually. Removing the court system and the detention facility and relocating them 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 eight rangers and two corrections officers would be in El Portal on a daily basis.

Relocating the base of operations for Search and Rescue from Yosemite Valley to El Portal would have the potential for long-term, 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.

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 an additional $975,000 in additional salary and operations costs annually.

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 American Indian programs 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 the prescribed levels of service. This would represent approximately $262,500 in additional salary and operations costs annually.

Overall, the impacts to Visitor and Resource Operations would be long-term, moderate, and adverse until funded. Once funded, impacts 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. Administrative support would be increased by five positions and $187,000 to support park operations.

Concessions Management

Management and monitoring of new concession operations and facilities would require two additional staff at $37,500 annually. There would be additional costs for increasing the level of service necessary under this alternative to manage revised and refined concession services.

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 section of this chapter titled Social and Economic Environments.

TRANSIT OPERATIONS

The annual recurring costs for operations and maintenance of the bus fleet for this alternative would be $2,739,000.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would require that approximately 115 additional park personnel be added to current staffing levels in the Maintenance Operations, Protection Operations, Interpretation, Resources Management, and Administration Divisions. This would require an additional $4,312,500 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 until fully funded. Once funded, impacts would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In this alternative, only in-Valley transit systems would be needed in the park. There would be no out-of-Valley parking areas, yet the costs would remain moderate, when compared to Alternative 1. Cumulative impacts would result from other park planning projects and regional activities. The workloads of the Maintenance Operations, Interpretation, and Resources Management divisions could moderately increase as a result of the transit system developed by the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS) due to increased facility maintenance, custodial services, visitor education, and resource monitoring. There would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact because of workload increases. YARTS operations would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on Protection Operations due to the alleviation of traffic congestion. These moderate effects, in combination with the moderate impacts of implementing in-Valley transit systems, would result in operational impacts that are long-term, major, and adverse 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 during initial planning and implementation. This would cause a short-term, minor, adverse impact. However, this project would require a long-term commitment from and an increased workload for the Interpretation Division. As a result, this project would have a major and adverse effect on the workload of the Interpretation Division. The Protection Operations and Maintenance Operations Divisions would achieve long-term, moderate, positive benefits when the project is 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, adverse operational impacts.

Fire Management planning and Wilderness Management planning would increase the workloads of the Protection Operations and Resources Management divisions. These 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 a short-term duration.

Numerous proposed residential and commercial developments along each entrance corridor would have no long-term 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, 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 effects upon Protection Operations would remain moderate to major and long term.

A research station for the University of California, Merced (UC Merced) would have a moderate to major benefit over the long term, 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 effect of these activities on park operations would remain short-term, major, and adverse.

Energy Consumption

Under Alternative 3, housing beds would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal and Foresta, and additional beds would be added to El Portal to accommodate present unmet needs and potential future growth as a result of operational changes associated with this alternative. No additional beds would be added to Wawona. Table 4-86 shows existing housing and estimated propane consumption for Alternative 1 and provides data for Alternative 3.

Table 4-86 Changes in Housing and Propane Consumption
Location	Alternative 1		Alternative 3
	No. of Beds	Propane (gal/yr)	No. of Beds	Propane (gal/yr)
Yosemite Valley	1,277	260,510	689	140,600
El Portal	290	59,160	1,049	214,000
Wawona	112	22,850	112	22,850
Foresta	4	820	14	2,860
Cascades and Arch Rock	12	2,450	0	0
Total	1,695	345,790	1,864	380,310

 

Under Alternative 3, there would be an increase of about 260% in propane consumption in El Portal, a small 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 3 would be 34,520 gallons per year, or 10%, which would represent a minor, long-term, adverse impact on propane consumption.

Table 4-87 lists estimated fuel consumption for visitor-related travel to and from the Valley due to the Alternative 3 transportation plans, and additional out-of-Valley employee commuting due to the relocation of residences from the Valley to El Portal. By 2015, Alternative 3 would result in a 23% decrease in visitor-related gasoline consumption and a 16% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption. This increase would be associated with new shuttle buses operating in the expanded Valley shuttle system.

Table 4-87 Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Alternative	Total (Gal/Yr)		Total Fuel Consumption (Gal/Yr)
	Gasoline	Diesel or Alternative Fuel
2000
Alternative 1	2,905,800	230,200		3,136,000
Alternative 3	NA	NA		NA
2005
Alternative 1	2,696,100	224,500		2,920,600
Alternative 3	2,084,800	260,400		2,345,200
2010
Alternative 1	2,555,400	219,100		2,774,500
Alternative 3	1,976,000	253,800		2,229,800
2015
Alternative 1	2,480,800	213,800		2,694,600
Alternative 3	1,918,300	247,500		2,165,800

A 23% decrease in gasoline consumption by the year 2015 would represent a savings of 562,500 gallons over Alternative 1, whereas the 16% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption would represent an increase of 33,700 gallons over Alternative 1. Overall, Alternative 3 by the year 2015 would yield a combined savings of 528,800 gallons of fuel. This is a net decrease from Alternative 1 in motor fuel consumption of approximately 20%, and would represent a minor, 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 during the 2000-2015 time frame. Overall, there would be a minor increase in total housing units for Alternative 3 and an associated minor, long-term, 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 diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption would be attributable to the deployment of shuttle buses for visitors. The combined motor fuel consumption savings for Alternative 3 in 2005, 2010, and 2015 would represent a minor, long-term, beneficial impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Other actions in the immediate area and greater San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact on energy consumption under Alternative 3 would be associated with new housing and lodging developments outside the park. A moderate, long-term, adverse impact would result from these reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region, as described for Alternative 2. Alternative 3, however, would represent a minimal contribution to the incremental effect on the overall cumulative impact because the net increase in employee housing for Alternative 3 would be only about 1% of new housing projected for the region.