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

Alternative 4 would provide a 550-space parking facility in the Taft Toe area and about 1,590 spaces in out-of-Valley parking at Badger Pass, South Landing, and El Portal. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative would include a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage access to the Valley. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option of driving to the Valley. Day visitors would travel in private vehicles only to the Taft Toe parking area. When this area was full, day visitors would be directed to out-of-Valley lots and would be able to ride shuttle buses to the transit center at Taft Toe. Few visitors who parked at Taft Toe lot would walk to destinations in the Valley. The Valley shuttle bus system would be expanded, and most visitors would ride shuttle buses to Valley destinations.

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

Reconstructing the segment of El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road would have the same impacts as those described under Alternative 2.

The average time that visitors would spend traveling from entrance stations to the Valley Visitor Center in the peak-season under Alternative 4 would be approximately 63 minutes. This would constitute an increase in Valley access travel time of 21 minutes, as compared to Alternative 1. The resulting short- and long-term impact to travel time would be moderate and adverse to peak-season daily visitors. Table 4-102 presents average travel time to the Valley Visitor Center by corridor; travel times are weighted by access mode and include waiting time at the transit terminal and shuttle bus stops.

Under Alternative 4 approximately 54% of Valley visitors (72% of day visitors) on typically busy days would access the Valley by transit. The resulting 42% increase in transit access share would constitute a major short- and long-term impact on mode share.

The Valley roadway network for Alternative 4 would be the same as described for Alternative 3. The main difference between the two alternatives is that the number of parking spaces provided at Taft Toe would be reduced from 1,622 vehicles under Alternative 3 to 550 vehicles under Alternative 4; out-of-Valley shuttle buses would bring many day visitors into the Valley under this alternative. As with the other action alternatives, additional shuttle bus service would encourage travel by alternative travel modes. Overnight guests would be discouraged from driving private vehicles when in the Valley. Providing designated parking, improved signage, and private vehicle management would minimize private vehicle circulation in the Valley. A traveler information and traffic management system would be implemented to assure that vehicles in the east Valley did not exceed the parking supply or capacity of roads. As a result, visitors would not need to circulate in search of parking spaces.

The highest reduction of traffic volume would occur under Alternative 4. This alternative would provide the fewest overnight accommodations; would provide a reduced number of day-visitor parking spaces in the Valley; and would eliminate vehicle trips by day visitors in the east Valley. The day-visitor parking lot would be located at Taft Toe, which would substantially reduce the amount of private vehicle travel within the Valley compared Alternatives 1 and 2. There would be a major long-term beneficial impact with this alternative because daily vehicle miles traveled in the Valley would be reduced by 57% on typically busy days, compared to Alternative 1 (see table 4-103). Bus trips entering the east Valley at Yosemite Chapel would increase by 254 per day.

Table 4-103 Daily Inbound Vehicle Trips and Total Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Valley in Summer on Typically Busy Days
	Inbound Vehicle Trips Passing Yosemite Chapel	Vehicle Miles Traveled
Private Vehicle	1,967	24,941
Bus	331	4,469
Total	2,298	29,410
Percentage Change from Alternative 1		-57%

Under Alternative 4, visitors would be allowed to circulate by private automobile west of Taft Toe. However, as with Alternatives 2 and 3, the share of trips within the Valley by transit would be expected to increase substantially. With the exception of west Valley circulation, the only visitor trips made by private vehicle within the Valley would be by overnight visitors either entering or departing the Valley. The resulting impact to Valley visitors is expected to be major in the long term.

Under Alternative 4, bus service would increase in the Valley and shuttle buses would travel from remote parking areas to the transit center at Taft Toe. The planned bus service would result in 4,469 daily bus vehicle miles traveled on Valley roads (see table 4-104) a major increase over Alternative 1.

The Valley road system in Alternative 4 would be modified as described in Alternative 3. Less parking would be provided in Alternative 4 than in Alternative 3 for day visitors near Taft Toe, resulting in less vehicle travel on Valley roads west of El Capitan crossover. As presented in table 4-105, the intersections of Sentinel Drive with Northside Drive and Southside Drive would improve to level of service A during both inbound and outbound peak hours. The level of service on El Portal Road would improve to level of service C during both inbound and outbound peak hours, resulting in a major improvement from level of service E. Traffic operations on Northside Drive also would improve to level of service A in both peak hours compared to level of service E in the outbound peak hours under Alternative 1, a major improvement.

Table 4-105 Level of Service Summary (Inbound/Outbound)
Intersections
	Southside Drive/ Sentinel Road		Northside Drive/ Sentinel Road		Northside Drive/ Camp 6-Village Access		Southside Drive/ Northside Drive
Alternative 1	C/B		C/E		A/B		B/A
Alternative 4	A/A		A/A		not an intersection		not an intersection
Roadway Segments
	Pohono Bridge	El Capitan Bridge		El Portal Road (between Pohono Bridge and Big Oak Flat Road intersection)		Southside Drive		Northside Drive
Alternative 1	E/E	B/B		E/E		D/C		D/E
Alternative 4	D/C	C/B		C/C		C/C		A/A

The actions under Alternative 4 would create a long-term, major, beneficial impact by improving traffic flow.

Under Alternative 4 the average travel time to access the Valley would increase by 29 minutes compared to Alternative 1, which would represent a moderate, long-term, adverse impact to visitors. When the Taft Toe parking area was full, day visitors would be directed to one of three out-of-Valley parking areas and then use shuttle buses to access the Valley. Alternative 4 would be the most effective in reducing vehicle traffic in the Valley. There would be a major decrease in traffic volumes and a major improvement in traffic flow compared to Alternative 1. Traffic volumes on roads would be reduced by 57%. Bus trips entering the east Valley at the Yosemite Chapel would increase by 254 trips per day. Because most buses traveling into the Valley would stop at Taft Toe, the bus vehicle miles traveled for this Alternative would be 4,469 miles per day, still a major increase over Alternative 1. The reduction in traffic congestion at major intersections and roadway segments under Alternative 4 would be the same as under Alternative 3, except there would be a greater improvement in the level of service on El Portal Road and conditions would improve on Pohono Bridge. Overall, there would be a major, long-term, beneficial impact to traffic operations by reducing traffic and improving traffic flow.

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 4 would be the same as those described for Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 would change the traffic access to the Valley by implementing out-of-Valley parking in combination with 550 day-visitor parking spaces in the Valley at Taft Toe. The traffic circulation changes and traffic management measures in this alternative would be similar to those in Alternative 3, with the addition of noise impacts at out-of-Valley parking facilities in El Portal, South Landing, and Badger Pass.

The impacts of this alternative on sound levels associated with vehicles would be similar to those described for Alternative 3 as shown in tables 4-106 and 4-107.

Alternative 4 would have sound impacts similar to Alternative 3, except west of El Capitan crossover, where the introduction of out-of-Valley shuttle buses would increase the sound associated with buses. There would be minor differences from Alternative 3 in the operation of shuttle buses east of El Capitan crossover, but these differences would not change the impact intensity, duration, or type of impact in any location from those of Alternative 3.

West of El Capitan crossover, the noticeable sound events from buses on Northside Drive and Southside Drive would increase from 15 per hour to 35 per hour. The resulting sound impacts would be long-term, major, and adverse.

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

This alternative would result in sound level reductions throughout most portions of the Valley east of El Capitan crossover. This would result in noticeably lower sound levels along Northside Drive between the Yosemite Lodge and Yosemite Village, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Long-term, major, beneficial impacts would occur along sections of Northside Drive that would be closed to vehicle traffic. The introduction of out-of-Valley shuttles would result in an increase in the number of very noticeable sound events west of El Capitan crossover and at out-of-Valley parking areas. The impact would be long-term, major, and adverse in the Valley west of El Capitan crossover. Increases in bus-related sound events would result in long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts at the out-of-Valley parking areas, with major, adverse impacts occurring at South Landing. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative would result in long-term, major sound reduction benefits along Northside Drive between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover and between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village.

The existing shuttle buses are currently being replaced with advanced technology buses that could reduce the intensity of sound events along the shuttle routes. Possible increase in regional transit service by the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (inter-agency) 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 4 would not change the vehicle types or operating characteristics of either the new shuttle buses of the YARTS buses.

Housing-related noise impacts would be similar to Alternative 2 (long-term, moderate, beneficial).

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

Noise of transit centers and day use parking areas would be similar to Alternative 3, except that the size of the Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center would be smaller (with less vehicle parking). This would result in a slight increase in ambient noise levels (compared to the No Action Alternative). However, impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3 (long-term, moderate, adverse).

The impact of lodging-related noise would be similar to Alternative 2 (long-term, moderate, beneficial).

Campground-related noise would be similar to Alternative 2, except that noise increases at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would not occur because campground size would remain the same as in Alternative 1. As in Alternative 2, the overall result would be long-term, minor benefits through noise reductions in campgrounds.

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

Impacts of trail-related noise would be the same as under Alternative 2 (long-term, minor, adverse).

Construction-related noise impacts would be similar to under Alternative 2, except that activities related to developing transit facilities would be located 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.

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

Out-of-Valley parking — related impacts would be the same as under Alternative 2 (long-term, moderate, adverse).

Out-of-Valley parking — related impacts would result in an increase in noise associated with the out-of-Valley parking facility, due to maintenance and visitor activities at the facility. 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. Nonvehicle noise would cause a long-term, moderate, and adverse impact that would be experienced by transit riders. Maintenance activities and associated noise that would be present under Alternative 1 would be displaced, reducing noise levels.

No additional transit or administrative facilities are proposed in these areas. Impacts would be the same as in Alternative 1.

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

Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 1, in that the effects of nonvehicle noise on the human environment would be concentrated primarily around development areas. As in Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would reduce housing units in Yosemite Valley and result in reductions in ambient noise levels, a moderate benefit. Likewise, increases in housing numbers in El Portal and Foresta would result in 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 long-term, moderate and minor, beneficial effects. 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 long-term and minor, due to the introduction of adverse impacts into new areas. The greatest increases in noises would be in El Portal, South Landing, and seasonally, Badger Pass, where adverse impacts would be long-term and moderate.

The projects that would have cumulative impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2. When considering the overall minor, beneficial impacts of Alternative 4, in combination with the more dominant noises associated with other projects and sources, including vehicles, cumulative impacts of nonvehicle noise in Alternative 4 would remain long-term, minor, and beneficial.

The social and economic environments, for purposes of this discussion, include characteristics of the affected communities in the region, visitor populations and trends, revenues and expenditures affecting regional economies in connection with employment, visitor expenditures, construction spending, and concessioners and cooperators. Impacts of Alternative 4 on these social and economic environments are discussed below.

Potential effects of Alternative 4 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 services, amenities, and infrastructure.

Under this alternative, 588 beds would be removed from Yosemite Valley, as under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts to the Yosemite Valley social environment 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 Concession Services headquarters and associated employees, would reduce the resident population by almost half, and alter the demographics of the community. Most of the non-management employees moved to El Portal would be year-round employees. Most or all of the employees remaining in Yosemite Valley would be in seasonal positions.

Impacts on social and community services would be as described under Alternative 2, including beneficial impacts to quality of housing and improvements to security, and adverse impacts to the community from increases in commute time, a change in locale of housing, and potential change in school locations.

Under this alternative, 588 employees, mostly primary concessioner employees, would be relocated from Yosemite Valley into new housing in El Portal. An additional 259 bed spaces would be constructed to meet the future and currently unmet demand for employee housing. Therefore, an additional 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 847 (588 plus 259).

The park’s current primary concessioner, Yosemite Concession Services, provided the primary source of employee demographic information. No similar information was available from the other park concessioners or the National Park Service. Nearly 95% of the new housing in El Portal would be occupied by primary concessioner employees; therefore, Yosemite Concession Services employee demographic information has been used to project the demographics for all future park employees who would be housed in El Portal under this alternative.

Based on current demographics of the park employee population, it is estimated that approximately 20% of the permanent employee population would be married. In addition, Yosemite Concession Services staff estimate that approximately 15% of employee spouses are not employed within the park. Therefore under this alternative, an additional 25 spouses are expected to relocate to El Portal (847 ´ 20% ´ 15% = 26). Of these 25 spouses, approximately 18 would be relocated from the Valley, and 7 would be married to new employees.

It is estimated that 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 Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Concession Services 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 managerial staff have an estimated 80 children. Approximately 55 children are expected to be relocated. Of the 259 future new employees, 31 are projected to be managerial staff. Based on current employee demographics, these staff would bring an additional 12 children to El Portal.

Including relocated employees, new employees, spouses, and children, the total increase in El Portal’s residential population under this alternative is projected to be 939 (847 + 25 + 55 + 12). Approximately 10% of the employees housed in El Portal would be seasonal employees. Therefore, the population in winter would be approximately 845 (939 ´ 90%).

The National Park Service estimates 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 31% increase in El Portal’s summer population, and a 111% 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 commuters to Yosemite Valley along Highway 140. These impacts and those related to out-of-Valley parking would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

The Wawona social environment would not be affected by actions in this alternative and impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The number of employees living in Wawona would not change, and employee travel along the South Entrance Road would not be impacted.

This alternative proposes reconstruction of the 14 National Park Service houses that were lost in the A-Rock Fire, and placement of the National Park Service and concessioner stables at McCauley Ranch, for this reason impacts would be long-term minor adverse or the same as described for Alternative 3.

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

This alternative would have long-term minor adverse impacts on the social environment in Yosemite West. The same as described in Alternative 2.

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

Approximately 55 children of concession employees would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal. In addition, 12 children are expected to be added to the local population from future growth in managerial staff at the park. This is not expected to change the duration, intensity, or type of impact on local schools and child care facilities. These additional students would not increase demand or impact school bus operations.

Relocation of concession employees is expected to increase 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 could occur in El Portal that would otherwise have been expected to occur within the Valley. Also, the addition of 259 new employees would be expected to add approximately 27 additional arrests a year. This would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to law enforcement services. However, these projections do not consider the beneficial effects that improvements to employee living conditions and the quality of concession employees (attracted by the improved housing) may have in reducing future law enforcement incidents and arrests necessary in El Portal and throughout the park.

The proposed out-of-Valley parking lot in El Portal would be the same as that proposed under Alternative 2, and its impacts on county law enforcement are projected to be the same as described under Alternative 2. Mariposa County law enforcement’s role in the future would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Although there could be a minor increase in the fire incidence rate, the impact to fire protection services provided by Mariposa County to the El Portal area would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Under this alternative, the Yosemite Valley Medical Clinic would remain in the Valley, and the impacts to the National Park Service Emergency Medical Services staff and county ambulance services would be the same as described under Alternative 3.

Effects on public services under this alternative, including utilities, waste collection, and community facilities, would be the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Impacts to Yosemite Valley would be as described under Alternative 2. Impacts to El Portal would be as described under Alternative 2, except as described below.

Changes in the employee population residing in El Portal would result in about a 31% increase in El Portal’s summer population and a 111% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on El Portal’s social environment, although it is expected that this projected future growth would be gradual. Resulting impacts on the El Portal community would depend on expansion of community services and infrastructure to meet the community needs. Impacts on county ambulance services would be the same as described for Alternative 3. Impacts on the social environment of Foresta would be the same as Alternative 3. Impacts on the social environment of Yosemite West would be the same as Alternative 2. There would be no impacts to the social environment of Wawona under this alternative.

The potential cumulative impacts resulting from actions in this alternative are the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Under this alternative, it is projected that on the busiest days in the summer, up to 13,077 day visitors could be accommodated by the proposed parking and transit facilities. This level of visitation exceeds the 1998 summer season daily visitation, which averaged 10,950 visitors. As discussed in Appendix J, 1998 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 increases.

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 would be unable to accommodate all the visitors that otherwise may have entered the park under Alternative 1. In this case, some visitors may be displaced from accessing the parking during typically busy days. However, the adverse impact could be mitigated by existing and future traveler information and traffic management systems. These systems could forewarn potential visitors when day-visitor parking is approaching capacity, and encourage and direct visitors to visit during nonpeak periods. In this case, no net reduction in total visitation would occur since peak-period visitation would theoretically be shifted to less busy days (i.e., weekdays).

The lodging changes proposed under this alternative would be the same as those under Alternative 3. As a result, the impacts on park visitors lodging overnight in the valley would be the same as described under Alternative 3: long term, minor, and adverse.

Under this alternative, 34 campsites would be eliminated, leaving a total of 441 campsites within Yosemite Valley, approximately a 9% 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, approximately 5,800 overnight campsite stays would be lost, displacing 23,200 visitors from camping overnight within the Valley annually (assuming an average of four overnight visitors per campsite). This would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact.

Table 4-108 summarizes the overnight visitation changes expected under this alternative. A minor net decrease in overnight park visitation is projected, despite a major net reduction in the park’s overnight accommodations of 312 units (based on a net lodging capacity decrease of 279 units and camping capacity decrease of 34 sites). The combined impact of the proposed lodging and campsite changes is estimated to be a net increase in 15,800 room-nights annually. This represents a gain of 24,600 overnight visitor stays within Yosemite Valley annually, which equates to a 1.3% increase from 1998 overnight visitation. This represents a long-term, minor beneficial impact on overnight park visitation.

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

Under this alternative, Yosemite Valley’s lodging and camping capacity is proposed to decrease by 312 lodging units and camping sites. Due to the increase in the Valley’s nonpeak lodging capacity, an annual net increase of 15,800 visitor overnight stays is projected. This is equivalent to a 1.3% increase to 1998 overnight visitation, which represents a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Due to the limitations of available data and the potential influence of other factors, impacts to day visitors are indeterminable. Furthermore, low-income and minority visitors are not expected to be disproportionately affected by any visitor impacts.

No changes in Yosemite visitor spending behavior are projected, since 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 Transportation System (inter-agency) 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 24,600 overnight visitor 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 (24,600), which would equate to approximately $0.9 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 would 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 66,000 day visitors per month could be accommodated during weekdays in July and August in the Valley. 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 4-109 presents the estimated visitor spending impacts of lodging facility 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, Yosemite visitor spending within the five-county Yosemite region is expected to increase by about 0.4%, representing a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on Yosemite visitor spending.

Table 4-109 Estimated Visitor Spending Impacts
County	Estimated Total Yosemite Visitor Spending ($millions/yr)	Estimated Impact on Spending ($millions/yr)	Impact on Spending as a Percentage of Total Yosemite Visitor Spending
Madera	$38.1	$0.04	0.1%
Mariposa	$143.4	$0.75	0.5%
Merced	$4.8	$0.01	0.3%
Mono	$30.8	$0.03	0.1%
Tuolumne	$22.2	$0.06	0.3%
All	$239.3	$0.9	0.4%

Table 4-110 shows the county-specific output and employment impacts of the changes in Yosemite 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 approximately $1.4 million dollars annually. Much of this change would be driven by an approximately $1.1 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 a increase of approximately $43,000, or 0.9%, in the county’s recent average annual hotel occupancy tax revenues, a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-110 further indicates that impacts to employment in Madera, Merced, Mono, and Tuolumne Counties would be negligible. Mariposa County would experience an increase of about 22 jobs, an approximate 0.3% increase in recent countywide employment. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to Mariposa County.

Table 4-110 Estimated Total (Direct and Secondary) Visitor Spending Impacts
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	$0.04	$0.07	1.5
Mariposa	$0.75	$1.13	22.1
Merced	$0.01	$0.02	0.4
Mono	$0.03	$0.04	0.9
Tuolumne	$0.06	$0.10	2.2
All	$0.9	$1.36	27.2

Construction proposed under this alternative would total $441.7 million in 2000 dollars. In 1998 dollars, this cost corresponds to approximately $416 million. The development cost estimate includes approximately $21.4 million for a bus fleet in 1998 dollars. This spending is expected to occur outside the affected region. In addition, a considerable portion of the other construction spending will also occur outside of the affected region. As a result, it is estimated that the total expected construction spending within the five-county affected region would be approximately $255.7 million. Table 4-111 presents the expected average annual construction spending within the five-county affected region by five-year phase. The table also shows the total regional output and employment impacts expected to result from those expenditures.

During the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated $32.2 million of additional output per year in the five-county region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to a 4.5% 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 region by approximately $46 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 4-111 also shows that during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 373 full time equivalent jobs in the region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an almost 4.1% 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 (direct and secondary) to increase by an estimated 573 jobs (including construction- and nonconstruction-sector jobs). This translates to a 0.35% increase in total employment in the region, and represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-111 Estimated Average Annual Construction Spending and Associated Output/Employment Impacts
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	32.2	32.2	46.0	373	573
6-10	15.7	15.7	22.5	182	307
11-15	3.3	3.3	4.6	38	63
Total	255.7	255.7	365.4

Estimated average annual construction spending for this alternative, and associated output and employment impacts within Mariposa County, are shown in table 4-112. During the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated $7.7 million of output per year in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an increase of approximately 20% over recent output in that sector, and represents a short-term, major, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would cause total annual industrial output (direct and secondary) in the county to increase by approximately $10.1 million in 1998 dollars. This is equivalent to a 2.0% increase in the county’s total industrial output, and represents a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Table 4-112 also shows that during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 84 full-time-equivalent jobs in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an almost 18% increase in recent employment in that sector, and represents a short-term, major, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending in the county would cause the county’s total employment (direct and secondary) to increase by an estimated 128 jobs. This translates to about a 1.6% increase in total employment in the county, and represents 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, when compared to the first five-year construction phase. All regional output and employment impacts would end after 15 years.

Table 4-112 Estimated Average Annual Construction Spending/Associated Output and Potential Employment Impacts (Mariposa County)
Period (Years)	Average Annual Construction Spending¹ ($million/yr)	Direct Construction Sector Output Impacts ($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	7.0	7.0	10.1	84	128
6 - 10	3.4	3.4	4.9	41	63
11 - 15	0.7	0.7	1.0	9	13
Total	55.7	55.7	80.1

Following implementation of projects proposed under Alternative 4, it is anticipated that approximately $17.0 million (1998 dollars) a year would be permanently spent within the affected region to operate and maintain the park’s new in-Valley visitor transit shuttle system, to meet the 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 new visitor and employee housing facilities. Table 4-113 indicates that this spending would generate about $25.8 million of output per year and 412 jobs within the affected region. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the region’s economy.

Table 4-113 Estimated Average Annual Park and In-Valley Transit System Operations Spending (1998 Dollars)
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	$7.1	$11.8	127	231
Yosemite Region	$17.0	$25.8	127	412

The table also indicates that new park-operations—related spending is anticipated to generate $11.8 million in additional output per year within Mariposa County. This would represent a 2.3% 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 231 jobs (including 127 National Park Service positions), a 2.8% increase over recent county employment levels. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the county’s economy.

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 income from housing incentives.

Under this alternative, approximately 966 park employees (including relocated park employees, new employees, and family members) would be relocated from the Valley to El Portal. Although retail facilities in El Portal are limited, most of the relocated employees would continue to work within the Valley and would likely purchase goods there. Employees relocated to El Portal would also be approximately 30 minutes closer to Mariposa and Merced and approximately the same distance from Oakhurst and Fresno. As a result, relocated employees would have comparable access to spending opportunities and may be expected to shift some of their spending to Mariposa. While the magnitude of any such changes in employee spending cannot be estimated, the impacts to Mariposa and Madera Counties are expected to be long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

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

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

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 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 $3.7 million. Of these wages, only a small proportion would be available for purchasing taxable goods and services. For example, if 10% of total gross income was spent on purchasing goods within Mariposa County, the sales tax revenues would be approximately $4,600, which would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the county’s economy.

The primary concessioner would be expected to pay a total of $500,000 in housing incentives annually for employees relocating out of the Valley to El Portal. This additional spending also 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 negligible, 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 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, though, that long-term, major, adverse impacts to the county’s tax revenues could occur if Yosemite Concession Services operations are significantly affected.

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

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

Economic impacts of this alternative on the affected environment would result primarily from project construction spending. During the first five years of development, $32.2 million in annual spending would expand the regional economy by approximately $46 million of output. This would represent a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. In Mariposa County, however, the estimated $10.1 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 573 total jobs would be generated in the affected region. This represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact on regional employment. In Mariposa County, however, the estimated 128 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 are created from construction spending and visitor spending. Assuming the unemployed labor force in the Yosemite region would fill the majority of these new jobs, unemployment rates would drop significantly under this alternative. This would represent a short-term, major, beneficial impact on the region’s economy. Housing impacts would be negligible, based on 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 impact 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 lodging 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 $1.4 million in 1998 dollars. The economic impacts on the surrounding county economies would be long-term, negligible, and beneficial. Mariposa County, however, would experience a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to its annual output and employment base.

Regardless of regional efforts to attract Yosemite day visitors following implementation of Alternative 4, it is expected that the negligible, beneficial impacts to the regional economy associated with Yosemite visitors would be more than offset by increased regional output and employment from expanded National Park Service operations and the park’s new visitor transit system.

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 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 increased park operations, and the minor, beneficial impact from expected overnight park visitor spending increases.

Although none of the projects identified in Appendix H would be expected to attract additional visitors to the park, these projects would be expected to change the lodging patterns of the visitor population. As described under Alternative 1, the new lodging units identified in Appendix H would be expected to accommodate approximately 525,500 overnight stays per year, and these stays would be filled by park visitors who would otherwise have been day visitors. Combined with the net increase of 24,600 stays described above, the cumulative impact would be an increase of approximately 550,100 overnight stays per year.

In addition to the increase in overnight visitation to the Valley under this alternative there would also be an increase in lodging capacity 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 $19.7 million under this alternative. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Secondary impacts generated by $19.7 million in additional visitor spending would be estimated at $10.5 million. At full build-out, therefore, the total estimated spending-associated impact on annual output under this alternative would be approximately $30.2 million, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the regional economy. If new visitors are attracted to the region by the increase in lodging capacity, visitor spending would be higher, and the impact would be greater.

Local construction spending from the projects identified in the cumulative impact scenario is estimated to average $255.0 million annually. Under this alternative, an additional $17.0 million per year in local construction spending would occur on average from the proposed renovation of campsites, and the development and relocation of housing, parking, and other structures. Total construction spending on the projects under this alternative and outlined in Appendix H, therefore, would be approximately $282.2 million per year.

Additional construction spending would generate secondary output impacts as a result of local spending on material inputs and wage spending by project labor. For annual construction spending of $282.2 million, secondary impacts would be estimated at approximately $121.1 million. The total change in annual output (direct and secondary) would therefore be $403.3 million; a short-term, major, beneficial impact on overall industrial output in the region. Of this increase, approximately 87% is associated with housing construction in Merced County.

New park-operations-related spending is expected to generate an additional $25.8 million in output per year in the Yosemite region.

The equivalent of up to 641 jobs would be created from the increase in visitor spending in the region. In addition, the equivalent of approximately 2,900 to 9,100 full-time jobs would be supported each year from construction spending under this alternative and projects described in Appendix H, depending on the phase of construction. An additional 412 jobs would be generated by new park-operations—related spending. Much of the general labor and raw materials would probably come from local sources. Unemployed labor (i.e., the available workforce) in the surrounding region (22,180) would considerably outnumber the projected number of new jobs created from construction and visitor spending. A labor shortage is not anticipated because of the large number of unemployed workers in the region. However, employment needs could also be met by residents of 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 new employment opportunities, no significant influx of workers is expected. Therefore, no new housing is projected to be needed to accommodate employment impacts from this alternative, or from projects described in Appendix H.

Overall, impacts on employment would occur as new jobs are created from visitor spending, construction spending, and operations spending. Assuming the unemployed labor force in the Yosemite region would fill the majority of these new jobs, unemployment rates would drop under this alternative. This would represent a 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.

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

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

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

The impact analysis of the concessioner includes an evaluation of whether concessioner profits would be adequate to allow the concession operator to earn a reasonable return relative to its investment and operating risk. To evaluate the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives’ impact 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 Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS 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 its profits are not also eroded. However, if the concessioner was unable to make any payments to the federal government and was also unable to earn a reasonable profit, that situation could not be sustained. The concessioner would choose to discontinue operations.

The total profit impact on the next concessioner’s operations associated with the proposed alternative is projected to be an annual decrease in its profits of $8.2 million. This projection is based on the combined profit impacts associated with: (1) changes to the concessioner’s gross revenue (sales receipts) and profitability, (2) employee housing and relocation-related cost increases including furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and (3) annual repair and maintenance costs on new facilities.

The changes to visitor services proposed under this alternative are projected to generate additional net operating profits of $2.6 million annually. These profits would be obtained from annual revenue increases of approximately $3.9 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 $5.0 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 ($400,000), 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. Other associated costs total approximately $1.1 million. It is estimated that the future average annual cost for repair and maintenance would be approximately $5.8 million. Therefore, the impact on the next concessioner’s resulting total profit is projected to be an annual loss of $8.2 million ($2.6 million — $5.0 million — $5.8 million = —$8.2 million).

In summary, based on the analysis of proposed changes under this alternative, future concession operations would be expected to experience a $8.2 million decrease in annual profits. 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 contribute approximately $1.7 million to the federal government annually. This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on concession operations.

Table 4-114 shows the projected financial impacts to Yosemite Concession Services under Alternative 4.

The projected revenue impact would represent a 4.5% 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 this alternative would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the concession operations. However, the annual financial return to the federal government from the concession operations would be reduced from $9.9 million to $1.7 million, a reduction of 83%, which would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact to the federal government.

Under this alternative, Yosemite Medical Clinic would remain in its current location. Also under Alternative 4, it is projected that approximately 15,800 room nights would be gained with a corresponding increase of 24,600 overnight stays within the Valley annually. While this represents an approximate 2.0% increase in park overnight stays, it corresponds to only a 0.8% increase in park visitation (compared to 1998 visitation levels). This would represent a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the Clinic.

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

Under this alternative, The 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 and some day visitors would be accessing the Valley by shuttle from remote parking areas.

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 the 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.

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 visitor 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 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.

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

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, additional economy accommodations are proposed at Curry Village to add 112 units suitable for Yosemite Institute use throughout the winter. As a result, lodging capacity for Yosemite Institute participants is expected to be adequate.

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.

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.

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 to 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 Institute’s administrative operations would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute’s education programs.

In addition, under this Alternative, Yosemite Institute would be beneficially affected by 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.

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

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

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

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

Under this alternative, the proposed changes to park facilities are expected to have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the primary concessioner operations (currently Yosemite Concession Services), mainly associated with locating new employee housing outside of 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 services out of the Valley would require additional staff and equipment for these services.

The future primary concession operations would be expected to experience an $8.2 million decrease in annual profits. 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 realize a reasonable profit and contribute approximately $1.7 million to the federal government and Valley. In total, this would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on concession operations.

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.

Long-term, moderate impacts to the Yosemite Institute are expected from the proposed changes to overnight accommodations and park facilities. 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, moderate impact.

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

The proposed changes in visitor parking and visitation are expected to beneficially affect the Ansel Adams Gallery sales; however, the net impact on the Gallery is undetermined. Changes in the park’s visitation are expected to have a long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on Yosemite Medical Clinic’s operations. The net effect on the clinic’s future operations associated with relocation of employee housing and park safety improvements is undetermined.

The cumulative impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 1. The primary concessioner would be expected to assume costs of 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 would result in no net loss to the concessioner. The $1.7 million projected federal contribution by the concessioner would be entirely offset by the $1.7 million 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.

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

To provide the levels of service considered necessary, it is estimated that approximately 22 additional building and grounds personnel would be needed under this alternative. This would represent approximately $825,000 for additional salary and operations costs annually. Construction of new shuttle bus stops, buildings, housing units, out-of-Valley parking lots, and changes in building functions from administrative to public use would require 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 extend throughout a longer period of the year.

To provide the levels of service considered necessary, it is estimated that approximately 29 additional roads and trails personnel would be needed. This would represent approximately $1,087,500 for additional salary and operations costs annually. A new parking lot and transit center in the west Valley would require additional maintenance (equipment and staffing) for snow removal. Three new parking lots in out-of-Valley locations (two of which are located above the traditional snowline in the spring and fall seasons) would require maintenance equipment and staffing, primarily for snow removal. This would be a long-term commitment of fiscal resources.

An increase in trails in the Valley and El Portal would create new workloads on 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 staff would be required to provide more pack trips or longer work shifts, as a result of the additional travel time for pack trips leaving from Yosemite Valley trail heads.

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

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

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

The overall impact to maintenance operations would be long-term, moderate, and adverse until funding is provided to meet the need. Once fully funded, the overall impact to maintenance operations would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

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. Regular patrols would have to be expanded to serve out-of-Valley parking areas. Removal of the court system and the detention facility and relocating them to El Portal, would require additional time 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, dealing with law enforcement cases.

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 search and rescue operations would be more difficult, while coordination of activities in other parts of the park would potentially improve.

Overall, Alternative 4 would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact until operational funding is acquired to fully implement the actions. Once fully funded, impacts would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Greatly expanded interpretive and educational facilities and programs would require an 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 29 additional interpretive personnel would be needed to provide prescribed levels of service. This would represent approximately $1,087,500 in additional salary and operations costs annually. The overall impact of this alternative would be long-term, major, and adverse until operational needs are fully funded. Once funded, the impact to the Interpretation Division would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

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 are also needed to implement the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) program. It is estimated that approximately seven additional resources management personnel would be needed to provide prescribed levels of service. This would represent approximately $262,500 in additional salary and operating costs annually, and would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact until operational needs are fully funded, the implementation of this alternative on the Resources Management Division would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Valley administrative operations would be shifted to El Portal. Administration support costs would be five positions at $187,000.

Management and monitoring of new concession operations and facilities would require one additional staff at $37,500 annually. Additional costs are needed to increase the level of service necessary to manage revised and refined concession services.

Depending on the location chosen by the park’s primary 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.

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

The annual recurring operations and maintenance cost of the bus fleet for this alternative is estimated to be $7,366,000. This cost would result in long-term, major, adverse impacts on this operation until fully funded. Once funded, the impacts would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

This alternative would require that approximately 130 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 $4,875,000 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, the impacts to park operations would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Cumulative impacts would result from other park planning projects and regional activities. There could be a moderate increase in the workloads of the Maintenance Operations, Interpretation, and Resources Management divisions as a result of the transit system developed by the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (inter-agency) due to increased needs in facility maintenance, custodial services, visitor education, and resource monitoring. This would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact because of these workload increases. There would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on Protection Operations as a result of YARTS due to the alleviation of traffic congestion. These effects, in combination with the moderate impacts of implementing in-park and 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 in the short term during initial planning and implementation. This would cause a short-term, minor, and adverse impact. This project would require a long-term commitment from and create an increased workload for the Interpretation Division. This project would have a major, adverse impact on the workload of the Interpretation Division. The Protection Operations and Maintenance Operations Divisions would achieve long-term moderate 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, and adverse operational impacts.

Fire Management planning and Wilderness Management planning would require an increase in 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 campus at Merced (UC Merced) would have long-term moderate to major benefits for the park as a whole, resulting from educational and research support and the creation of a viable recruitment pool for new employees.

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

Under Alternative 4, housing beds would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal and Foresta, and additional beds would be added to El Portal to accommodate existing 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 4-115 shows existing housing and estimated propane consumption for Alternative 1 and provides analogous data for Alternative 4.

Under Alternative 4, there would be an increase of about 300% 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 4 would be 60,020 gallons per year, or 17%, which would represent a minor, long-term, adverse impact on propane consumption.

Table 4-116 lists estimated fuel consumption for visitor-related travel to and from the Valley due to the Alternative 4 transportation plans, and for additional out-of-Valley employee commuting due to the relocation of residences from the Valley to El Portal. By 2015, Alternative 4 would result in a 56% decrease in visitor-related gasoline consumption and a 155% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption. This increase would be associated with the new shuttle buses operating from out-of-Valley day-visitor parking areas, the expanded in-Valley shuttle service, and the increased number of employees commuting from El Portal to Yosemite Valley.

A 56% decrease in gasoline consumption by the year 2015 represents a savings of 1,380,800 gallons over Alternative 1, whereas the 155% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption represents an increase of 330,300 gallons over Alternative 1. Overall, Alternative 4 by the year 2015 would yield a combined savings of 1,150,500 gallons of fuel. This is a decrease from Alternative 1 in overall motor fuel consumption of approximately 42% and represents a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. Similar energy savings are achieved for years 2005 and 2010 as well.

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 4 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 energy consumption, 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 savings for Alternative 4 in the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 would represent a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact.

Other actions in the immediate area and greater San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact on energy consumption under Alternative 4 would be associated with new housing and lodging developments outside the park. A moderate, long-term, adverse impact would result from these reasonably foreseeable projects in the region, as described for Alternative 2. Alternative 4, however, would represent a minimal contribution to the overall cumulative impact, since the net increase in employee housing for Alternative 4 would be only about 1% of new housing projected for the region.