Environmental Consequences

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 3

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

This alternative emphasizes that the full range of recreational opportunities and educational experiences be offered to a most diverse public. The widest possible range of visitor groups is sought out to acquaint, educate, and foster an appreciation of the natural environment in a more diverse park clientele. Most current facilities continue to be used and maintained. Historic structures and fabric are preserved without adaptive reuse. Trails are developed to provide access to a broad range of the park’s ecosystems and environments. Partnerships with other public and private entities are fostered to provide a wide range of educational and interpretative services to the public. Some interpretative activities and opportunities occur outside the park. Staffing levels increase for ranger and interpretative activities adding 5.5 full- time FTE’s. A transit system is evaluated and possibly developed to provide access for the public to some areas of the park. A base operating budget of $5,454,900 is needed to fund this alternative.

Achieving these changes in park operations requires the expenditure of additional funds in the amount of $3,934,000 – which is $134,000 less than the no- action alternative. These funds are spent over the life of the plan for various projects 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 indictors within the affected area 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.

Commercial businesses/concessions, such as tours, would continue within the park and such businesses would be encouraged to provide interpretative information and services to park visitors. Any expansion of these businesses would provide additional employment opportunities.

The pattern of increasing visitation is expected to continue. Providing additional programs, services, and outreach would encourage more visitor use at the parks. The amount of additional use is indeterminate at this time. Also, attracting more visitors and offering visitor programs outside the park may result in additional tourism- related spending within the region and gateway towns, increasing business opportunities, income, and employment which would benefit some retail establishments, restaurants, or motels in the travel corridors.

The need for additional staff may increase the need for housing. Combined with this, the increasing desirability of living in the gateway communities adds to the demand for local housing and other locally provided goods. Hiring additional staff results in a small increase in the local population that contributes to the overall growth in the gateway communities. As described above, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, alternative 3 would have minor to moderate long- term beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic climate of the local gateway communities but these changes in benefits are 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 alterative 3 have been identified during this planning process, which has included public participation and input. 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 employees 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 $3,934,000 (in addition to ongoing actions and projects) would be spent over the life of the plan on various projects, and an increase of only $134,000 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 implementation (timing) of the projects over the next 15 to 20 years. The actions of this alternative may 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.