Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume IB Part 2, Chapter 4: Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would maintain most existing transportation patterns in Yosemite Valley. A total of 550 parking spaces for day visitors would be provided in Yosemite Village, and a total of approximately 1,365 out-of-Valley parking spaces would be provided at Henness Ridge, Foresta, and El Portal. Traffic volumes and parking would be managed through a traveler information and traffic management system (similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). When the Valley parking area was full, day visitors would have the option of parking at the remote sites and riding shuttle buses to the Valley. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option to drive their vehicles into the Valley. Many day visitors who parked in the Valley would be able to walk to destinations in the Valley. As with the other action alternatives, shuttle bus services in the Valley would be expanded.

The impacts of Alternative 5 on conditions 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 discussed 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 5 would be approximately 60 minutes. This would constitute an increase of 19 minutes in Valley access travel time as compared to Alternative 1. The resulting long-term impact to travel time would be minor and adverse. Table 4-131 presents average travel times from entrance stations to the Valley Visitor Center by corridor. These average travel times are weighted by access mode, and include waiting time at the transit terminal and at shuttle bus stops.

Under Alternative 5, approximately 49% of all Valley visitors (70% of day visitors) on typically busy days would access the Valley by transit. This would be a major increase in transit access share of 29%, constituting a long-term impact to access mode share.

The existing Valley road network and traffic circulation patterns would remain unchanged in Alternative 5, although one traffic lane would be converted to use as a multi-use paved trail on Southside Drive from El Capitan crossover to Swinging Bridge and on Northside Drive from Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) to El Capitan crossover. Vehicles traveling east of El Capitan crossover would be managed to assure that the number of vehicles did not exceed the capacity of parking and roads. Parking for day visitors (550 spaces) would be provided at Yosemite Village. Day visitors would be directed to the parking area by a new system of directional signs to minimize the amount of circulation on Valley roadways. Visitors would not need to circulate in search of parking spaces. When day visitors and overnight guests park their vehicles, they would be encouraged to walk or use alternative transportation modes, such as the Valley shuttle buses or bicycles to travel within the Valley.

Alternative 5 would result in a moderate, beneficial impact to daily vehicle miles traveled, with a reduction of 31% compared to Alternative 1. Table 4-132 presents daily Valley vehicle miles traveled by mode and estimated inbound vehicle trips passing the Yosemite Chapel under Alternative 5. Bus trips entering the east Valley at Yosemite Chapel would increase by 239 per day.

Similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, all visitors would be allowed to circulate by private automobile west of the El Capitan crossover under Alternative 5. In addition, some day visitors and all overnight visitors would have the option to drive to parking areas in the east Valley. However, as under Alternative 2, the share of trips within the Valley by transit under this alternative would be substantially higher than under Alternative 1. With the exception of west Valley circulation, the only visitor trips made by private vehicles within the Valley would be those either entering or leaving. The resulting impact to Valley visitors is expected to be major in both the short- and long-term.

Under Alternative 5, bus service within the Valley would be increased and shuttle buses would operate from remote parking areas to a transit center in the Village. The proposed transit service would result in 4,583 bus miles traveled on major Valley road segments (see table 4-133) a major increase over Alternative 1.

The primary factor affecting traffic flow for Alternative 5 would be a reduction in vehicle travel from the implementation of the traveler information and traffic management system and the change to one lane for traffic on Northside Drive and Southside Drive in the mid-Valley. The level of service for the intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive would improve to level of service B in both peak hours (see table 4-134). A major improvement would occur in the outbound peak hours at the Sentinel Drive/Northside Drive intersection. The other intersections would improve to level of service A in both peak periods. Since the traffic volumes on the roadways would be reduced, the level of service would improve slightly for most roadway segments. Southside Drive would improve to level of service C during the inbound peak hour. Northside Drive would improve to level of service C in both peak periods with a major improvement from level of service E in the outbound peak hour. El Portal Road would improve to level of service D during both peak hours.

Table 4-134 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 5		B/B		B/B	A/A	A/A
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 5	D/D		A/B	D/D	C/C	C/C

Implementing the operational transportation improvements proposed in Alternative 5 would create a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact by improving traffic flow.

Under Alternative 5, the average travel time to access the Valley would increase by 19 minutes compared to Alternative 1, resulting in a minor adverse impact to peak season daily visitors. There would be a moderate beneficial impact from a decrease in traffic volumes and a moderate improvement in traffic flow compared to Alternative 1.

Buses entering the Valley would increase to 239 trips per day and there would be a major increase in bus miles traveled per day in the Valley.

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 5 would be similar to those described for Alternative 2.

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

Traffic patterns would be the same as those in Alternative 1, but out-of-Valley shuttles would travel on the Valley road network as far east as Yosemite Village. It is assumed that these vehicles would produce sound levels similar to tour buses now operated in the Valley. Changes in sound events would occur along Southside Drive and Northside Drive west of El Capitan crossover, Southside Drive west of Sentinel Drive, Sentinel Drive and Yosemite Village, between Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge, west of Yosemite Lodge on Northside Drive, between Sentinel Drive and Curry Village on Southside Drive, and along Northside Drive between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village.

Sound levels from general traffic in the Valley would be reduced because the volume of vehicle traffic would be lower than in the No Action Alternative. While general traffic volumes would decline, the number of long-distance bus trips would increase, offsetting the noise decreases from general traffic with Alternative 5. Overall, noise levels would not change perceptibly in the Valley except that noise levels along Northside Drive between the Lodge and Yosemite Village would increase during the inbound and outbound peak hours, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. Unlike Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, there would be no areas in the Valley that would experience long-term, major sound level benefits because traffic would not be completely removed from any roadways. Sound level estimates for Northside Drive and Southside Drive are shown in tables 4-135 and 4-136.

Table 4-135 Equivalent Constant Sound Levels from Traffic Along Northside Drive
Time of Day	Distance from Centerline of Roadway	Alternative 1 (dBA)	Alternative 5 (dBA)
Inbound Peak Hour	50 feet	61	64
	100 feet	57	61
	200 feet	54	57
	400 feet	51	54
Outbound Peak Hour	50 feet	65	65
	100 feet	62	61
	200 feet	59	57
	400 feet	55	54

Table 4-136 Equivalent Constant Sound Levels from Traffic Along Southside Drive
Time of Day	Distance from Centerline of Roadway	Alternative 1 (dBA)	Alternative 5 (dBA)
Inbound Peak Hour	50 feet	64	63
	100 feet	61	60
	200 feet	57	57
	400 feet	54	53
Outbound Peak Hour	50 feet	63	63
	100 feet	59	60
	200 feet	55	57
	400 feet	52	53

The introduction of out-of-Valley shuttles would increase the number of noticeable sound events west of El Capitan crossover and west of Sentinel Bridge from 15 per hour to 33 per hour on Southside Drive. On Northside Drive, the same increase as on Southside Drive would occur between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover and west of El Capitan crossover. The sound impact in these areas would be long-term, major, and adverse.

A greater concentration of transit vehicles also would be found along Sentinel Drive and in the vicinity of Camp 6 and Yosemite Village. The number of noticeable sound events would increase from 15 per hour to 33 per hour. An additional 13 events which have quieter levels also would occur per hour. The impact of transit sound events would be long-term, major, and adverse in this portion of the Valley.

Between Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge, the number of noticeable sound events would increase from 11 to 29 per hour. Additionally, 23 more events which have quieter sound levels would occur along this portion of Northside Drive than with Alternative 1. The impacts in this area from transit sound events would be long-term, major, and adverse.

From Sentinel Bridge to Curry Village, the number of noticeable sound events on Southside Drive would remain the same as in Alternative 1, with 10 additional events which have quieter sound levels per hour. The impact in this area would be negligible. The portion of Northside Drive from Stoneman Bridge to Yosemite Village would experience no change in noticeable sound events and it would have an increase of lesser sound events from 10 to 20 events. The impacts of these sound changes would be long-term and negligible.

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 Henness Ridge, and 16 at Foresta. The impacts from the changes in sound events would be long-term, moderate, and adverse at El Portal and Henness Ridge. The impacts would be long-term, major, and adverse at Foresta.

This alternative would introduce additional long-distance bus traffic onto the Valley roadway system. Because the existing traffic patterns would be maintained with this alternative, the adverse impacts of the sound of the buses would be heard along all roadways from Yosemite Village to the west. Overall sound levels are expected to remain essentially unchanged, with negligible impacts in the long term. Individual sound events, however, would increase, which would have long-term, major, adverse impacts on the sound environment in most parts of the Valley. Increases in bus-related sound events would result in long-term, moderate to major, and adverse impacts at the out-of-Valley parking areas, with major, adverse impacts occurring at Foresta.

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 along the same routes. These two actions would have cumulative impacts on sound levels in the Valley similar to those described in Alternative 2 (long-term, beneficial). Alternative 5 would not change the vehicle types or operating characteristics of either the new shuttle buses or the YARTS buses.

The reduction of 525 beds in the Valley would result in an overall reduction in housing-related ambient noise levels, the least among the action alternatives. Housing-related noise at Curry Village would change in character due to the transition from canvas-sided cabins to hard-sided cabins and improved dining facilities, and would decrease overall due to reduction in total beds. Housing-related noise would be eliminated at the concessioner stable near North Pines. Housing-related noise at Yosemite Lodge would be eliminated due to the removal of the modular housing units. Housing-related noise would remain the same at the Yosemite Village Historic District. Housing related-noise at Yosemite Village and The Ahwahnee would be slightly reduced, due to reductions in employee housing units. Overall, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact would be experienced by residents and visitors.

The relocation of some operational functions (e.g., parkwide maintenance functions, wildland fire, National Park Service headquarters, concession headquarters, etc.) would result in an overall reduction in operations-related noise. The National Park Service maintenance area would be substantially changed, but ambient noise level would not likely change, due to other activities moved into the area. The National Park Service stable would remain in its existing location, and ambient noise level would not change. The concessioner stable would be relocated; its ambient noise level would not change but would occur in another location. A long-term, minor, beneficial impact, compared to the No Action Alternative, would be experienced by residents and visitors.

There would be a minor increase in nonvehicle noise associated with parking facilities in east Yosemite Valley due to more formalized use of the area facility 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 loud as associated vehicle activity. A long-term, minor, adverse impact would be experienced primarily by visitors, but also by residents.

Lodging-related noise at Housekeeping Camp would decrease due to the reduction of 102 units, possibly a minor benefit. Lodging-related noise at Yosemite Lodge would increase as a result of the addition of 195 lodging units, potentially a moderate, adverse impact. Lodging-related noise at Curry Village would be reduced due to the reduction in number of tent cabins, an impact similar to that of Alternative 2, a moderate benefit. Lodging-related noise at The Ahwahnee would not change. In aggregate, a long-term, negligible, adverse impact would be experienced by visitors.

Campground-related noise would increase overall, compared to Alternative 1, as a result of the increase of 238 campsites. Campground-related noise would be slightly reduced at Lower Pines and North Pines Campgrounds with the reduction in campsites and would be eliminated at Backpackers Campground with the removal of the campground. Campground-related noise would increase at Upper Pines, with the increase of campsites, and would be reintroduced into the Upper and Lower River areas, with the re-establishment of campsites. Campground-related noise would be introduced at the Tenaya Creek Campground walk-in sites and at South Camp backpacker and group camp, and would remain the same at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground). A long-term, moderate, adverse impact would be experienced primarily by visitors, but also by residents.

Noise related to picnic areas would be similar to that of Alternative 2, except that an additional picnic area would be established at Curry Orchard. This would result in an additional adverse impact, compared to the No Action Alternative. In sum, a long-term, negligible, adverse impact would be experienced by visitors.

Trail-related noise would be introduced at the new multi-use paved trails and bike paths in west Yosemite Valley. Although one lane of Northside Drive would be closed to vehicle traffic and designated a multi-use paved trail, peak noise levels along this road would be similar to those in Alternative 1. The impacts of nonvehicle noise would be negligible. Valleywide, a long-term, minor, adverse impact would be experienced by visitors due to the introduction of new trails.

Construction-related noise impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2, except that activities related to developing a traffic check station would be located at El Capitan Crossover. Types of construction noise would be the same. Overall, peak nonvehicle noises during construction and deconstruction would have short-term, major, adverse impacts, affecting both visitors and residents.

No additional transit or administrative facilities are proposed in these areas. Therefore, Alternative 5 would have no noise impacts.

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 5 would be similar to Alternative 1, in that the impacts of nonvehicle noise on the human environment would be concentrated primarily around development areas. Much like Alternative 2, Alternative 5 would reduce housing units in Yosemite Valley would result in reductions in ambient noise levels, a moderate benefit. Likewise, increases in housing numbers in El Portal and Wawona would result in minor, adverse impacts. New trails would put typical trail-related noises into new areas, but these impacts would be minor. Increases in campsite and lodging numbers would result in long-term, moderate, adverse effects. National Park Service and concession operations in Yosemite Valley would be reduced, but with light maintenance for transit being in the Valley, benefits would be moderate. Overall, the nonvehicle noises would be reduced in Yosemite Valley, and benefits would be moderate and long-term. The greatest increases in noise would be in El Portal and the other out-of-Valley staging areas in Foresta and Henness Ridge, where adverse impacts would be moderate and long-term.

The projects that would have cumulative impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative 2. When considering the overall minor, beneficial impacts of Alternative 5 in combination with the more dominant noises associated with other projects, sources, and vehicles, cumulative impacts of nonvehicle noise in Alternative 5 would remain long-term, minor to moderate, 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 5 on these social and economic environments are discussed below.

Potential impacts of Alternative 5 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 are population, housing location, types and condition of housing, distance of employee commutes from outlying areas, community services and amenities, and the community infrastructure.

Under this alternative, 525 beds would be removed from Yosemite Valley. Impacts on social and community services would be largely the same as described under Alternative 2.

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

Under this alternative, 351 employees, mostly primary concessioner employees, would be relocated from Yosemite Valley into new housing in El Portal. An additional 389 bed spaces would be constructed to meet future and currently unmet demand for employee housing. In addition, 80 El Portal residents currently living at the Trailer Village, Arch Rock, or Cascades would be relocated into new housing facilities in El Portal. The total net increase in El Portal’s residential employee population would be 740 (351 plus 389).

The park’s existing primary concessioner, Yosemite Concession Services, was the primary source of employee demographic information. No similar information was available from the other park concessioners or the National Park Service. More than 95% of the new housing in El Portal would be occupied by primary concessioner employees. Therefore, Yosemite Concession Services 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, approximately 15% of employee spouses are not employed within the park. Therefore under this alternative, an additional 22 spouses would be expected to relocate to El Portal (740 ´ 20% ´ 15%). Of these 22 spouses, approximately 10 would be relocated from the Valley, and 12 would be married to new employees.

According to Yosemite Concession Services, under this alternative, 73 managerial personnel currently living in managerial housing would be relocated from the Valley to El Portal, while 17 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 65 children are expected to be relocated from Yosemite Valley. Of the 389 future new employees, 47 are projected to be managerial staff. Based on the current employee demographics, these staff would bring an additional 18 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 845 (740 + 22 + 65 + 18). It is also expected that 10% of the employees housed in El Portal would be seasonal employees. Therefore, the winter residential population in El Portal would be approximately 761 (845 ´ 90%).

The National Park Service estimates that the existing 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 existing winter population is approximately 760. Under this alternative, changes in employee housing would result in about a 28% increase in El Portal’s summer population, and a 100% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on the El Portal social environment, although it is expected that this projected population growth would occur gradually.

The impacts of reconstructing 14 homes lost in the A-Rock fire would be as described in Alternative 2.

The location of approximately 660 parking spaces near Foresta would cause an increase in traffic in the area. However, most traffic would be confined to the road segments located between the Big Oak Flat Road and the Old Coulterville Road. Notwithstanding, Foresta residents would experience additional traffic congestion in the area. The location of parking would not cause a change to the demographics at Foresta; however, some change to the level of solitude could be expected. These impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2.

The impacts to the Cascades and Arch Rock communities are expected to be as described under Alternative 2.

The location of 370 parking spaces at Henness Ridge near Yosemite West would cause an increase in local traffic from transit related shuttle buses and other vehicles. Some congestion may occur during commuting hours; however, length of commute is not expected to increase. Transit related impacts are fully evaluated in the Transportation section of this chapter. The placement of parking at Yosemite West is not expected to affect the demographics of the community or alter the services, amenities, or infrastructure. Therefore, based upon this evaluation, impacts to the social environment of Yosemite West would be long-term, minor (slightly perceptible), and adverse.

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

Approximately 65 children of concession employees would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal. In addition, 18 children are expected to be added to the local population from the future growth in managerial staff at the park. This variance is not expected to change impact intensity, duration, or type on county schools and local child care facilities.

Relocation of concession employees is expected to increase the law enforcement requirements in El Portal, and correspondingly reduce those within Yosemite Valley. Based on the population shift from Yosemite Valley and future employee growth, it is estimated that approximately 37 arrests could occur in El Portal that would otherwise have been expected to occur within the Valley. Also, the addition of 389 new employees also would be expected to add approximately 41 additional arrests a year. This would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on law enforcement services. However, these projections do not consider the beneficial impacts that improvements to employee living conditions and/or 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 satellite parking lot in El Portal would provide day-visitor parking for up to 335 vehicles. Therefore, impacts on county law enforcement are projected to be the same as described under Alternative 2.

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

Impacts on the county court system would be the same as for Alternative 2, and would be expected to be long-term, moderate, and adverse. Although a minor increase in the fire incidence rate could occur under this alternative (due to the number of new buildings constructed), the impact to fire protection services provided by Mariposa County to the entire El Portal area would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

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

Changes in the employee population residing in El Portal would result in about a 28% increase in El Portal’s summer population, and a 100% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on the El Portal social environment, although it is expected that this projected population growth would be gradual.

Impacts to the social environment in Foresta would be the same as described in Alternative 3.

With 370 parking spaces at Henness Ridge, impacts to the social environment of Yosemite West would be long-term, minor, and adverse.

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 summer days, up to 12,350 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 increased.

Currently, park visitation peaks on weekends during the summer. As a result, it may be possible that during the busiest peak days, the proposed parking and transit facilities may be unable to accommodate all the visitors that otherwise may have entered the park under Alternative 1. In this case, some visitors may be displaced from accessing the park during typically busy days. However, this adverse impact could be mitigated by 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, because peak period visitation would theoretically be shifted to less busy days (i.e. weekdays).

Under this alternative, several changes to the park’s lodging facilities are proposed. The total number of Valley lodging units would be reduced from 1,260 to 1,012 units, a decrease of 248 lodging units, which represents a 19.7% decrease in lodging capacity. While a variety of types of lodging would remain, the number of rustic lodging units would decrease by nearly 64%, and the number of economy units would increase by nearly 147%. In addition, 110 new campsites are proposed.

Under this alternative, 110 additional campsites would be built, for a total of 585 campsites within Yosemite Valley. This represents a 23% increase over the current 475 Valley campsites. The total number of campsites would still be less than the 806 campsites that existed in the Valley before the 1997 flood.

Based on pre-flood visitor demand for Valley campsites, it is estimated that the new campsites would have an average occupancy rate of nearly 85%, and that they would operate between mid-April and mid-October. Accordingly, it is estimated that approximately 15,800 overnight campsite stays would be gained, which would allow an additional 67,300 visitors to camp overnight within the Valley annually (assuming an average of 4 overnight visitors per campsite). This would represent a major, long-term, beneficial impact.

Table 4-137 summarizes the overnight visitation changes expected under this alternative. A major net increase in overnight park visitation is projected. The combined impact of the proposed lodging and campsite changes is estimated to be a net increase in 38,400 room-nights annually. This represents an additional 120,600 overnight visitor stays within Yosemite Valley annually, which equates to a 10.1% increase from 1998 overnight visitation (1.2 million overnight visitors). These overnight visitation increases are based on the expected high level of visitor demand for the additional Yosemite Lodging facilities and campsites. This increase represents a long-term, major, beneficial impact on park overnight visitation.

Table 4-137 Estimated Potential Overnight Visitation Impacts
Lodging	Change in Capacity	Projected Change in Room-Nights	Projected Change in Overnight Visitor Stays
Yosemite Lodge	124	39,800	126,300
Curry Village	(208)	200	600
Housekeeping Camp	(164)	(18,400)	(73,600)
Camping	110	16,800	67,300
TOTAL	(138)	38,400	120,600

Impacts on minority and low-income visitors would be similar as described under Alternative 2 except that under this alternative a major increase in camping units is proposed which would lessen the adverse impacts associated with the overall decrease in rustic-style accommodations.

Under this alternative, Yosemite Valley’s lodging capacity is proposed to decrease by 138 lodging units, yet a net increase of 120,600 visitor overnight stays annually is projected. This is equivalent to a 10.1% increase from 1998 overnight visitation, which represents a long-term, major, beneficial impact. Day visitation would remain unchanged. Due to the limitations of available data and the potential influence of other factors, impacts to low-income and minority visitors are qualitatively determined to be long-term, minor, and beneficial.

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

The primary effects on visitor spending within the region would be related to changes in park visitor population projected under this alternative. As discussed, the increase in overnight visitation within the park is the only impact on park visitation associated with this alternative. It is projected that approximately 120,600 additional visitor overnight stays would be gained under this alternative. To be conservative, it is assumed that these overnight visitors to the park would replace an equal number of day visitors; therefore, no net change in park visitation is expected. Visitor spending in the affected region would be affected because the typical spending behavior of park overnight visitors and day visitors differ. Any changes in visitor spending in the affected counties would impact output and employment in those counties, particularly within their lodging, food and beverage, retail, and transit sectors.

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 spending and day-visitor spending) multiplied by the increased overnight visitation (120,600), which would equate to approximately $4.3 million in visitor spending. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to Yosemite visitor spending.

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

There would still be potential for future growth in day visitation under this alternative. It is estimated that an additional 43,400 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 also could 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.

Table 4-138 presents the estimated impact on Yosemite visitor spending in each of the affected counties caused by changes in lodging and camping facilities. It indicates that, except in Mariposa County, the estimated impacts of this alternative on Yosemite visitor spending within the affected region counties would be negligible. In Mariposa County, Yosemite visitor spending would be expected to increase by approximately 3.1% over current levels which would represent a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Overall, Yosemite visitor spending within the five-county region would be expected to increase by about 1.8%; this would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on Yosemite visitor spending within the regional economy.

Table 4-138 Estimated Visitor Spending Impacts
County	Estimated Total Yosemite Visitor Spending ($million/yr)	Estimated Impact on Spending ($million/yr)	Impact on Spending as a Percentage of Total Yosemite Visitor Spending
Madera	$38.1	($0.10)	(0.2%)
Mariposa	$143.4	$4.48	3.1%
Merced	$4.8	($0.03)	(0.6%)
Mono	$30.8	($0.06)	(0.2%)
Tuolumne	$22.2	$0.02	0.1%
All	$239.3	$4.31	1.8%

Increasing the overnight lodging capacity would increase the future total overnight visitation within the Valley. This would have a minor, long-term, beneficial impact on Yosemite visitor spending by increasing the number of visitors (and hence visitor spending) that can be accommodated overnight in the Valley.

Table 4-139 shows the total direct and secondary visitor spending impacts anticipated under this alternative. The anticipated change in overnight capacity and associated visitor spending would cause total regional output to increase by about $6.52 million dollars annually. Most of this change would be driven by an approximately $6.8 million increase in the annual output of Mariposa County. The portion of this spending expected to occur in the county’s lodging sector would result in an approximately $349,500, or 7%, increase in the county’s recent average annual hotel occupancy tax revenues, a long-term, major, beneficial impact.

Table 4-139 further indicates that impacts to employment in Madera, Merced, Mono, and Tuolumne Counties would be negligible. Mariposa County would experience an increase of about 120 jobs, an approximately 1.5% increase in recent countywide employment. This represents a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to Mariposa County.

Table 4-139 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	($0.10)	($0.15)	(2.7)
Mariposa	$4.48	$6.82	120.4
Merced	($0.03)	($0.05)	(0.8)
Mono	($0.06)	($0.10)	(1.7)
Tuolumne	$0.02	$0.03	1.4
All	$4.31	$6.52	116.6

Construction costs proposed under this alternative total approximately $482.0 million in 2000 dollars. In 1998 dollars, this cost corresponds to approximately $454 million. The development cost estimates include about $21.8 million for a bus fleet in 1998 dollars. This spending is expected to occur outside the region. In addition, a considerable portion of the other construction spending would occur outside the affected region. As a result, total expected construction spending within the five-county affected region is estimated to be approximately $280.1 million. Table 4-140 presents the expected average annual construction spending the 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 $35.2 million of additional output per year in the five-county region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to a 4.9% increase over recent regional construction-sector output, and represents a short-term, moderate, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would cause total annual industrial output (direct and secondary) in the region to increase by approximately $50.3 million in 1998 dollars (including construction- and nonconstruction-sector output). This is equivalent to a 0.4% increase over recent regional industrial output, and represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-140 also shows that during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 409 full-time-equivalent jobs in the region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an almost 4.5% increase over 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 628 jobs (including construction- and nonconstruction-sector jobs). This translates to a 0.38% increase in total employment in the region and represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-140 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	35.2	35.2	50.3	409	628
6-10	17.2	17.2	24.6	200	307
11-15	3.6	3.6	5.1	41	63
Total	280.1	280.1	400.3

Table 4-141 presents the project’s expected annual construction spending schedule within Mariposa County. The table also shows the countywide 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 $7.7 million of output per year in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an approximately 22% increase over recent output in that sector, and represents a short-term, major, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would cause total annual industrial output (direct and secondary) in the county to increase by approximately $11.0 million in 1998 dollars. This is equivalent to a 2.2% increase in the county’s total industrial output, and represents a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Table 4-141 also shows that during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 92 full-time-equivalent jobs in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is equivalent to an approximately 20% 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 140 jobs. This translates to about a 1.7% increase in total employment in the county, and represents a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Output and employment generated would decrease by more than 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 4-141 Estimated Average Annual Construction Spending and Associated Output Employment Impacts (Mariposa County)
Period (Years)	Average Annual Construction Spending ($million/yr)	Direct Construction Sector Output Impacts ($million/yr)	Total Construction Spending-Associated Output Impacts¹ ($million/ yr)	Direct Construction Sector Employment Impacts (FTE)	Total Construction Spending-Associated Employment Impacts² (FTE)
1 - 5	7.7	7.7	11.0	92	140
6 - 10	3.8	3.8	5.4	45	69
11 - 15	0.8	0.8	1.1	9	14
Total	61.1	61.1	87.7

Following implementation of projects proposed under Alternative 5, it is expected that approximately $18.2 million (1998 dollars) would be spent annually within the affected region to operate and maintain the park’s new visitor in-Valley transit shuttle system, to meet the staffing requirements of expanded park visitor facilities and employee housing, and to pay for additional operation and maintenance expenses incurred by the concessioner associated with new employee housing and visitor facilities. Table 4-142 indicates that this spending would generate about $27.6 million of output per year, and 441 jobs within the affected region. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the region’s economy.

The table also indicates that new park-operations—related spending is expected to generate $13.8 million dollars in additional output per year within Mariposa County. This would represent a 2.7% increase over recent county output, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the county’s economy. Furthermore, park-operations—related employment is expected to increase employment in Mariposa County by 267 jobs (including 131 National Park Service positions), a 3.3% increase over recent county employment levels. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the county’s economy.

Table 4-142 Estimated Average Annual Park and in-Valley Transit System Operations (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	$8.5	$13.8	131	267.1
Yosemite Region	$18.2	$27.6	131	441.1

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.

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

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

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

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

Spending by these park employees would mostly represent new spending income for Mariposa County (although many would be seasonal employees, so the spending benefits to the county would be limited). The primary direct benefit to the county’s economy would be from additional sales tax revenues from this employee spending.

Mariposa County currently assesses a 1.25% tax on all retail and restaurant sales within the county, including the majority of the conccessioner’s sales within Yosemite National Park. The average concessioner employee’s wages are low, and it is estimated that the annual earnings of the employees would be approximately $4.8 million. Of these wages, only a small proportion would be available for purchasing taxable goods and services in the region. Even if 10% of their gross income was spent on purchasing goods within Mariposa County, the sales tax revenues would be only $4,800, 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 approximately $500,000 in housing incentives annually for employees relocating out of the Valley to El Portal and Wawona. Any additional spending generated by this additional revenue would also 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 appreciable 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 concession operations are significantly affected.

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

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 the demand for private housing 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.

Of the 403 additional employees anticipated as part of this alternative, a minimum of 49 employees could be required to seek housing outside the park. The adjacent areas of Mariposa, Madera, and Tuolumne counties have been assessed for their ability to accommodate these private housing needs. Although Mono County is included in some analysis in this chapter, it is not included here because it is unlikely that the employees associated with this alternative would seek housing in Mono County due to its distance from the Valley, and the seasonal closing of Highway 120 (Tioga Pass Road ). The addition of a minimum of 49 employees seeking private housing would bring the total number of employees privately housed from its current level of 563 to 617.

As indicated on table 3-32, population growth in Mariposa, Madera and Tuolumne counties is projected to increase between the years 2000 and 2020 by approximately 9,500 (or 47%), 80,100 (or 60%) and 31,300 (or 47%), respectively. The need for additional employees associated with this alternative will occur gradually over a 15—20 year period as various elements of the plan are implemented. Therefore, the addition of 49 employees in the region as a result of this alternative represents approximately 0.04% of this projected regional growth over this timeframe.

Based upon economic and demographic information for these three counties provided by the State of California Department of Finance (California Department of Finance 2000), Mariposa, Madera, and Tuolumne counties have an existing single family and multi-family housing stock of 9,146, 39,018 and 28,252 units, respectively, and existing housing vacancy rates of approximately 27.2% (2,487 units), 8% (2,466 units) and 28.8% (8,136 units), respectively, based on 1999 data. These vacancy rates have remained at these levels since 1990. In addition, new single family and multi-family housing authorizations in 1998 for each of these three counties were 71, 633 and 413, respectively. Assuming these trends in housing data presented above continue into the future for these three counties, accommodating a minimum of 49 employees in private housing in the three-county region would be feasible. Therefore, the addition of a minimum of 49 employees privately housed in the region would have a negligible, long-term, adverse affect on regional housing demands.

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

Economic impacts of this alternative on the affected environment would result primarily from project construction spending. During the first five years of development, over $35 million in annual spending would expand the regional economy by about $50.6 million of output. This would represent a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. In Mariposa County, however, the estimated $11.1 million project-related increase in annual output during the 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 630 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 141 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, overnight capacity of the park 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 $8.9 million in 1998 dollars.

Project-related increases in regional spending by Yosemite visitors is expected to have a beneficial output, and employment impacts of Alternative 5 would result from expansion of National Park Service operations and the new park visitor transit system.

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

For Mariposa County, the overall economic impacts of the changes would be long-term, major, and beneficial. This overall impact would result from the combined effect of the moderate, beneficial impact from increased visitor spending, and the moderate, beneficial impact from increased park operations.

The overall combined economic impacts of this spending change on the surrounding counties would be long-term, negligible, and beneficial. This beneficial impact would result from a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact in Mariposa County and a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact in Tuolumne County. In fact, each of the other surrounding counties would experience a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on their economies from the expected spending change. Adverse impacts to these counties, however, may decrease as the counties attract additional park visitors to replace the day visitors who converted to in-park overnight visitors as a result of increased in-park capacity.

Assuming that housing trends in Mariposa, Madera and Tuolumne Counties continue in the future as they have in the recent past, accommodating a minimum of 49 employees in private housing in the three-county region would be feasible and have a negligible, long-term, adverse affect on regional housing demands.

Although none of the projects identified in Appendix H would be expected to attract additional visitors to the park, these projects would be expected to change the lodging patterns of the visitor population. As described under Alternative 1, the new lodging units identified in Appendix H would be expected to accommodate approximately 525,500 overnight stays per year, and these stays would be filled by park visitors who would otherwise have been day visitors. Under Alternative 5, therefore, the increase in lodging capacity in the Valley would be augmented by the new lodging units in the region. Combined with the net increase of 120,600 stays described above, the cumulative impact would be an increase of approximately 646,100 overnight stays per year.

In addition to the increase in lodging capacity in the Valley under this alternative, there would be an increase in lodging capacity from the projects described 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 $23.1 million under this alternative. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Secondary impacts generated by $23.1 million in additional visitor spending is estimated to be $12.4 million. At full build-out, therefore, the total estimated impact on annual output under this alternative would be $35.5 million, a long-term, minor, 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.

While project-related increases in regional spending by Yosemite visitors are expected to have a beneficial impact on the Yosemite region, the majority of the expected beneficial output and employment impacts of Alternative 5 would result from expansion of National Park Service operations and the new park visitor transit system.

Local construction spending from the projects identified in Appendix H is estimated to average $255.0 million annually. Under this alternative, an additional $18.7 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 from projects described in Appendix H would be approximately $272.1 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 $272.1 million, secondary impacts would be estimated at approximately $116.8 million. The total change in annual output (direct and secondary) would therefore be $388.9 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 $27.6 million in output per year in the Yosemite Region.

The equivalent of up to 731 jobs would be supported by the increase in visitor spending in the region. In addition, the equivalent of approximately 2,900 to 9,200 full-time jobs would be supported each year from construction spending in the region. An additional 441 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, Merced 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 cumulative impact scenario.

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 impact 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 concessioner operations and the proposed alternatives to estimate future operational and financial impacts on the concessioner 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 (FF&E) 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 includes an evaluation of whether concessioner profits will be adequate to allow the concessioner to earn a reasonable return relative to its investment and operating risk. To evaluate the impact of the Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives on the concessioner, the analysis began by evaluating the concessioner’s current capacity to earn a profit and then considered how each aspect of the Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives would impact that capacity.

The concessioner’s profit capacity may be understood as consisting of two components–its present profit plus the amount of its federal contribution. In other words, the concessioner’s financial contribution to the federal government represents the amount of money it is able to pay after earning a reasonable return. It is important to note that this judgment is based on the fact that the current Yosemite concessioner obtained the concession contract in a fair market competition in which it presumably is retaining reasonable profits that are neither insufficient nor excessive.

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

The total profit impact on the next concessioner’s operations associated with the proposed alternative is projected to be an annual decrease in its profits of $8.1 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 profits of $2.9 million annually. These profits would be obtained from annual revenue increases of approximately $4.0 million. The profit gains would primarily result from increasing the highly profitable Yosemite Lodge accommodations and adding to the number of campsites within the Valley.

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 (FF&E) replacement ($1.3 million, including the cost of capital for this expenditure), heat and utilities ($0.8 million), employee transportation ($0.6 million), insurance ($0.5 million), and wage increases to encourage employees to relocate out of the Valley ($0.5 million). Additional housing-related staff needs are estimated to cost less than $0.3 million. Other associated costs total approximately $0.9 million. It is estimated that annual repair and maintenance of the new concession-related facilities would cost approximately $6.0 million. Therefore, the impact on the next concessioner’s resulting total profit is projected to be an annual loss of $8.1 million ($2.9 million — $5.0 million — $6.0 million = —$8.1 million).

In summary, based on the analysis of proposed changes under this alternative, future concession operations would be expected to experience a $9.2 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 make a net contribution of approximately $1.8 million to the federal government annually. This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on concession operations.

Table 4-143 shows the projected financial impacts to Yosemite Concession Services under Alternative 5.

The projected revenue impact would represent a 4.6% 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 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 $1.8 million, a reduction of 82%, which would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact to the federal government.

Under this alternative, Yosemite Medical Clinic would remain in its existing location. Also, under Alternative 5, it is projected that approximately 38,400 additional room-nights would add 120,600 overnight stays annually within the Valley. This represents an increase of approximately 7.7% in park overnight stays, and corresponds to a 3.3% increase in total park visitation (compared to 1998 visitation levels). However, this increase is still less than the average pre-flood levels and would represent a long-term, moderate, 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 concessioner’s future sales cannot be quantified.

Under this alternative, The Ansel Adams Gallery would remain in its current location. Numerous modifications are proposed for the Yosemite Village Area: development of a new transit center in Yosemite Village near the Yosemite Village Store, 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. Day-visitor parking (550 spaces) would be developed at Camp 6 adjoining Yosemite Village.

Removal of nearby parking could reduce the Gallery’s annual sales. Currently most visitors take their purchases with them. Many visitors may be reluctant to make purchases if they must use the shuttle buses to return to their cars or overnight accommodations. However, the transit center would be a central component of the future Valley and out-of-Valley shuttle systems. It is expected that more park visitors would pass through the area, making Yosemite Village an increasingly important part of most park visitors’ travel itineraries. Also under this alternative, day-visitor parking would be located within walking distance of the Gallery. Therefore, it is expected that this alternative would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Ansel Adams Gallery by attracting more potential customers.

In addition, any changes in the park’s annual visitation may be expected to have a corresponding effect on sales by altering the Gallery’s customer base. However, the net effects 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 may be redesigned.

To provide a larger and more readily accessible space which would improve the Association’s ability to provide effective information and orientation service, as well as retail sales, it is expected that annual sales at the new visitor center may increase due to the improved facilities and visitor experience. This would represent a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to the Association.

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 cause a long-term, minor, adverse impact, as staff increases would exacerbate the housing problems noted above.

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, adding 149 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. These facilities would provide an adequate staging area and base of operations for the Yosemite Institute to perform the essential support for its field operations. Relocation of the administrative park operations would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute’s education programs.

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 throughout 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.

The operational and financial impacts to the primary concessioner would be as described above, including, a $8.1 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 $1.8 million to the federal government annually. This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on concession operation.

Projected increases in park visitation is expected to have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the Yosemite Medical Clinic.

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

The proposed changes to visitor interpretation facilities are expected to have a long-term, 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 adverse 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 moderate adverse impact, because program participants would need to use other newly built but more expensive lodging facilities. Relocation of the program’s administrative office out of the Valley is expected to have a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

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

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 resulting in a net federal contribution of $0.1 million by the concessioner is projected. This figure is the difference between a $1.8 million projected federal contribution by the concessioner, and 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 25 additional buildings and grounds personnel would be needed under this alternative. This would represent approximately $937,000 for additional salary and operations costs annually. Construction of new shuttle bus stops, buildings, housing units, out of valley parking lots, picnic areas, and changes in building functions from administrative to public use would require additional custodial service and facility maintenance.

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 be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on buildings and grounds operations in outlying districts, in that the levels of maintenance and custodial services required for peak season operations would be needed for a longer period of the year.

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 in the east Valley would require additional maintenance (equipment and staffing) for snow removal. Three new parking lots in out-of-Valley locations (two of which are located above the traditional snowline in the spring and fall seasons) would require maintenance equipment and staffing, primarily for snow removal.

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

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

Demand for trash pickup in the El Portal area and out-of-Valley parking areas would increase due to the relocation of administration functions, and 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 in additional salary and operations costs annually. Moving the parkwide functions to El Portal and retaining only a Valley shop space, constructing new buildings, and relocating utilities out of highly valued resource areas would impact the Utilities Branch. New service connections and, in the case of the out-of-Valley parking areas, entirely new utility systems would require an increase in the annual maintenance and operational costs to provide these additional levels of service and to meet state and federal regulations for public utility systems.

Moving the stable to McCauley Ranch would increase the travel time for the back country utilities operation to Valley trailheads but would decrease travel times to destinations in the Tioga Road corridor. However, there would be an impact to the backcountry utilities operation due to increased logistic maneuvering when leaving from Yosemite Valley trailheads.

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

It is estimated that approximately 27 additional visitor protection personnel would be needed to provide prescribed levels of service. This would represent approximately $1,012,500 in additional salary and operations costs annually. Newly restored areas would need to be protected, security for the newly constructed museum expansion would need to be provided, and regular patrols of out-of-Valley parking areas would be needed.

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

Greatly expanded interpretive and educational facilities and programs would require a large increase in staffing for the Interpretation Division. The new museum and library with expanded public access would also require increased staffing. The Interpretation Division would have to operate additional visitor contact facilities and conduct additional interpretive programs. It is estimated that approximately 30 additional interpretive personnel would be needed to provide prescribed levels of service. This would represent approximately $1,125,000 in additional salary and operations costs annually.

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

Valley administrative operations would be shifted to El Portal. This would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on administration operations as a result of increases in logistic maneuvering. Administrative operations would be increased by five positions and $187,700 to support park operations.

Management and monitoring of new concession operations and facilities would require two additional staff at $75,000 annually. This would have a short-term, moderate, adverse impact on concessions management, in that there would be an increase in costs for increasing the level of service required under this alternative during the period when concession services would be revised and refined.

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

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

The annual recurring costs for operations and maintenance of the bus fleet for this alternative would be $8,448,000. This cost would be long-term, major, and adverse impact to this operation until fully funded. Once funded, the impacts would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

This alternative would require that approximately 131 additional park personnel be added to current staffing levels in the Maintenance Operations, Protection Operations, Interpretation, Resources Management, and Administrative Divisions. This would require an additional $4,912,500 annually (or approximately $37,500 per person) in additional park funding for salary and operations costs above those discussed under Alternative 1. The cost for the additional park personnel would represent a long-term, moderate, adverse impact until funded. Once funded, there would be a long-term, negligible, and neutral impact to these operations.

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 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 workload increases. YARTS operations would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on protection operations due to the alleviation of traffic congestion. These moderate effects, in combination with the major impacts of implementing in-park and in-Valley transit systems, would result in adverse operational impacts that are long-term and major 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 be a short-term, minor, 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. This 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 adverse impacts would remain short-term, but major.

Numerous proposed residential and commercial developments along each entrance corridor would have no long-term, major 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, there would be some impacts unless cooperative agreements were adopted and financial support was available from involved county governments. Short-term, moderate to major, 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 a long-term, moderate to major benefit 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 5, housing beds would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta, and additional beds would be added to El Portal and Wawona to accommodate present unmet needs and potential future growth as a result of operational changes associated with this alternative. Table 4-144 summarizes existing housing (Alternative 1) and estimated propane consumption and analogous data for Alternative 5.

Under Alternative 5, there would be an increase of about 340% in propane consumption in El Portal, a 275% increase in Wawona, a small increase in Foresta, and a decrease of about 40% in the Valley. However, when combined, the overall propane consumption increase as a result of implementation of Alternative 5 would be 79,110 gallons per year, or 23%, which would represent a moderate, long-term, adverse impact on propane consumption.

Table 4-145 lists estimated fuel consumption for visitor-related travel to and from the Valley due to the Alternative 5 transportation plans, and for additional out-of-Valley employee commuting due to the relocation of residences from the Valley to El Portal and Wawona. By 2015, Alternative 5 would result in a 44% decrease in visitor-related gasoline consumption and a 120% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption. This increase would be associated with new shuttle buses operating from out-of-Valley day-visitor parking areas and the expanded Valley shuttle service.

A 44% decrease in gasoline consumption by the year 2015 would represent a savings of 1,080,800 gallons over Alternative 1, whereas the 120% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption would represent an increase of 258,200 gallons over Alternative 1. Overall Alternative 5 by the year 2015 would yield a combined savings of 822,600 gallons of fuel. This is a net decrease from Alternative 1 in motor fuel consumption of approximately 30% and would represent a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. Similar energy savings would be achieved for years 2005 and 2010 as well.

Table 4-145 Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Alternative	Total (Gal/Yr)		Total Fuel Consumption (Gal/Yr)
Alternative	Gasoline	Diesel or Alternative Fuel	Total Fuel Consumption (Gal/Yr)
2000
Alternative 1	2,905,800	230,200	3,136,000
Alternative 5	NA	NA	NA
2005
Alternative 1	2,695,100	224,500	2,920,600
Alternative 5	1,521,600	494,200	2,015,800
2010
Alternative 1	2,555,400	219,100	2,774,500
Alternative 5	1,442,200	483,000	1,925,200
2015
Alternative 1	2,480,800	213,800	2,694,600
Alternative 5	1,400,000	472,000	1,872,000

Employee housing space-heating consumption would decrease in the Valley, but would increase at El Portal and Wawona during the 2000-2015 time frame. Overall, there would be a minor increase in total housing units for Alternative 5 and an associated minor, long-term, adverse impact on home energy consumption.

The reduction in gasoline consumption in 2015 relative to Alternative 1 reflects the shift by park visitors from private vehicles to shuttle buses, as well as a fleet turnover to vehicles with improved fuel economy over time. The increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption would be attributable to the deployment of shuttle buses for visitors. The combined motor fuel savings for Alternative 5 in the years 2005, 2010 and 2015 would represent a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact.

Other actions in the immediate area and greater San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact on energy consumption under Alternative 5 would be associated with new housing and lodging developments outside the park. A moderate, long-term, adverse impact would result from these reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region, as described for Alternative 2. Alternative 5, however, would represent minimal contribution to the overall cumulative impact, because the net increase in employee housing for Alternative 5 would be only about 1% of new housing projected for the region.