Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The emphasis of this alternative is to manage the park and its resources to provide greater opportunities for visitors to experience diverse recreational, educational, and research opportunities. Some additional staff persons (5.5 FTE) would be hired. Changes to the park’s infrastructure are called for to support this shift in park emphasis. The park’s base budget would be increased by $700,380. Development projects (such as building new trails and backcountry camping sites, improving roadways, pullouts, parking areas, etc.) require the expenditure of additional funds for development in the amount of $4,743,000 – which is $943,000 more than the no - action alternative. These monies spent over the life of the plan for various projects would provide some impacts (e.g., increase in income, creation of jobs, etc.) to individual firms and workers which would be moderate to major, short term, and beneficial. Impacts on the economic indicators within the affected area described in the “Affected Environment” chapter would be negligible because of the relative size of the regional economy (approximately $5.0 billion in earnings and about 187,000 jobs in 2001) and the phasing of the projects over the next 15 to 20 years.

The pattern of increasing visitation is expected to continue. Concession services may be expanded to cover additional tours or research partnerships. Providing additional facilities and programs would encourage more visitor use at the parks. The amount of additional use is indeterminate at this time. However, this increased use could result in some additional spending within the gateway communities or region, which would benefit some retail establishments, restaurants, or motels in the travel corridors.

Moving some administrative or operational functions to areas outside the park as the need for space increased would result in the purchase or long- term lease of land and building(s) and/or the construction of new buildings in gateway areas. New facility construction would result in a short- term, positive impact on the regional economy, mostly affecting the construction sector of the economy. The purchase of privately owned land on a willing- buyer/willing- seller basis would benefit both the private landowner and the Park Service. Land or real estate acquisition by the federal government would result in some long- term loss of local real- estate tax revenue. However, the amount of property tax revenue lost to the three counties would be minor compared to the tax revenues collected by Douglas County (tax revenues $ 58.2 million in 2002/03), Jackson County (tax revenues $148.1 million in 2002), and Klamath County (tax revenues of about $37 million, 2002). Acquisition of other federally owned land for these purposes would not result in any change in real estate taxes.

Improving facilities within the parks would further contribute positive economic benefits – in the form of direct spending – to the growing regional economy. More visitors might result in additional tourism- related spending within the region and gateway towns ,increasing business opportunities, income, and employment. The need for housing for additional park staff combined with the increasing desirability of living in the gateway communities might add to the demand for local housing and other locally provided goods. Hiring additional staff would result in a small increase in the local population that would contribute to the overall growth in the gateway communities. As described above, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, the preferred alternative would have minor to moderate, long- term, beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic climate of the local gateway communities, but these benefits would be negligible at the three- county regional level.

Cumulative Impacts. Additional changes or shocks (either positive or negative) to the local and regional socioeconomic environment are not expected. No other actions that could have cumulative effects when combined with the impacts of alternative 2 have been identified during this planning process. In conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, no additional cumulative impacts are expected.

Conclusion. An increase in park staffing levels by 5.5 full- time FTE’s, along with a budget increase to $4,727,380 (current + leasing + staffing) would have a moderate impact on the local gateway communities’ economies and a negligible impact on the regional economy. Additional employees would likely purchase some goods and services from within the gateway communities.

Approximately $4,743,000 would be spent over the life of the plan on various projects, an increase of only $943,000 compared to the no- action alternative. These expenditures could result in moderate to major, short- term, beneficial impacts on individual firms and employees (increased business and profits, increased employment opportunities, increased income, etc.). Overall impacts on the regional economy (effects on the economic indicators of income, unemployment rate, poverty rate, etc.), however, would be negligible because of the size and the phasing of the projects over the next 15 to 20 years. These projects might encourage some increased visitation to the parks, with beneficial effects on the region and adjacent communities in terms of increased visitor expenditures for locally provided goods and services.

Moving some administrative functions and park employee housing outside the parks as space requirements dictate would result in the purchase or long- term lease of land and the construction of buildings in local gateway areas, with short- term, beneficial impacts on the local economy, mostly affecting the construction sector and a few landowners. The purchase of privately owned land (on a willing- buyer/willingseller basis) by the federal government would result in some long- term loss of local real- estate tax revenue. However, the amount of property tax revenue lost to the three counties would be minor compared to the tax revenues collected by the three counties. Acquisition of other federally owned land for these purposes would not result in any change in real estate taxes.