| Table of Contents | Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D | Appendix E | Appendix F | Appendix G |
| Appendix H | Appendix I | Appendix J | Appendix K | Appendix L | Appendix M | Appendix N |

---

Appendix J — Socioeconomic Analysis Methods

The key methods and assumptions used in the socioeconomic analysis for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are provided below. The methods and assumptions are presented and discussed according to three issue areas: (1) visitor demand and park visitation projections, (2) regional economic impacts, and (3) cumulative impacts.

Visitor Demand and Park Visitation Projections

For purposes of the impact analysis, visitor demand for park access was projected to remain unchanged in the future from its current conditions. The rationale for this assumption is discussed below. In addition, 1998 park visitation levels were used as the baseline conditions for the visitation analysis, and it is estimated that summer day visitation averaged 10,950 visitors per day. During the summer, visitation is typically greater during the weekends. As a result, day visitor use on the busiest days of the year would be higher than 10,950.

Table J-1 shows the expected visitor use based on overnight and day-visitor parking facilities for each alternative. These expected visitor use levels were compared with the baseline conditions (1998 park visitation levels shown in Alternative 1) to evaluate whether projected future visitation demand could be accommodated.

Using the methodology and assumptions discussed above, future day use was projected for each of the action alternatives. These visitation projections were compared with the baseline conditions to evaluate the type and magnitude of day visitor impacts for each alternative.

Future Visitor Demand And Park Visitation Projections

Projecting the magnitude and nature of future day visitation is difficult due to the complexities associated with the proposed alternatives and numerous uncertainties associated with other independent factors that may affect future visitor demand for park access.

Table J-2 identifies the major factors that may influence an increase or decrease in future day use at Yosemite National Park. Past visitation and visitor use patterns are important factors influencing future Yosemite-related visitation and spending, and numerous other factors are shown that may affect future day use. While some of these factors relate to the proposed alternatives (such as future environmental restoration and changes in transportation and access), several other significant factors operate independently of the proposed alternatives (such as underlying visitor demand for outdoor recreation and population growth).

Many of the factors influencing future day use may have countervailing influences. For example, relocating parking out of the east Valley may add time to day visitors’ trips into the park, but the resulting reduced congestion may increase visitation demand. It is not possible to determine the net influences of these and other factors on future day use for several reasons. First, the number and variety of factors potentially influencing future visitation cannot be easily combined to estimate a net impact on day use. Second, there is insufficient information on current visitor demand and attitudes on which to base any future visitor response to the proposed changes at Yosemite. Third, social and econimic data for many of these factors is insufficiently detailed to fully understand the likely effects on potential visitors. Fourth, visitors may respond to changes in park facilities and operations by changing their demand for park access, their spending behavior, their use patterns and/or their length of stay. These responses cannot be predicted easily, especially when complex and innovative changes are being proposed. Fifth, the identified visitation factors and influences are based on several basic assumptions about future Yosemite visitor demand (see the bottom of Table J-2). If these assumptions are not consistent with future conditions, then future day use may change markedly.

Due to uncertainties of the future influence of the factors identified above, for purposes of the impact analysis, it has been assumed that future visitor demand will be unchanged from 1998 levels. As a result, changes in future visitation among alternatives have been evaluated solely on the basis of visitor facility service capacity differences associated with the proposed alternatives. This assumption was considered to be a conservative approach that would allow for a clear comparison of the various alternatives and associated impacts.

Source: Dornbusch & Company, Inc.

Key Assumptions

Methods For Determining Regional Economic Impacts

The economic impacts of each Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternative on the affected region would result from: (1) spending to implement each of the project’s components, and (2) changes in the park’s lodging and campsite capacity. Regional and county-specific output and employment impacts were estimated for each of these project effects using the input-output IMPLAN (Impact Planning) model. IMPLAN was selected over several other input-output systems for a number of reasons including: (1) it closely follows the accounting conventions used in the widely cited "Input-Output Study of the U.S. Economy," by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, (2) it provides comprehensive and detailed data coverage of the entire United States, (3) it provides a high degree of flexibility in geographic coverage and model formulation, and (4) it allows for business sector aggregation by Standard Industrial Classification sector. IMPLAN provides estimates of the cumulative (or multiplied) economic effects that result directly and secondarily from an initial stimulus to an industrial sector (e.g., spending changes in construction, mining, manufacturing, retail, etc.).

Secondary impacts include indirect effects and induced effects. Direct multipliers are those which determine the immediate effect within the sector(s) of the economy where the initial stimulus occurs. Induced multipliers represent the impact of the initial stimulus on the economy from changes in personal consumption (as a result of changes in employee income). Indirect multipliers represent the impact of the initial stimulus on the economy as a result of changes in business spending. IMPLAN can be used to estimate each of these multipliers separately. Once these multipliers are calculated they can be combined to quantify the total impacts of an actual or hypothetical shift in spending in a specific economic sector. Once the impacts are estimated they can be compared to a baseline of economic data for the specific area of study to evaluate the magnitude (or significance) of the impact.

Significance thresholds applied in the evaluation of magnitudes are as follows:

These thresholds are based on best professional judgement.

Impacts Of Construction Spending

It is estimated that construction proposed under each of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS action alternatives would take fifteen years to finish and be approximately 65% and 95% complete five and ten years, respectively, after the start of construction. For the analysis of construction-spending impacts, a gravity model was used to develop a reasonable estimate of the construction spending distribution among the counties surrounding Yosemite that are expected to supply the majority of the material and labor resources needed to implement the Yosemite Valley Plan. The model weighs each county by the ratio of its population over the distance of its largest city from the proposed project site squared (similar to the approach used to measure the gravitational pull between two bodies in physics where population is a proxy for mass).

Ultimately how the Yosemite Valley Plan is implemented would effect how construction spending impacts occur in the five Yosemite-area counties, the use of a gravity model is necessary since specific details of project implementation are not determined. The gravity model results are used to estimate output and employment impacts resulting from project construction for the five-county affected region as a whole. In addition, the projected construction spending impacts on Mariposa County are evaluated separately.

The gravity model results indicate that about 70% of the total project’s construction cost (excluding planning) would be spent within the affected Yosemite region. Similarly, it is estimated that 15% of the total project’s construction cost (excluding planning) would be spent within Mariposa County alone. The percentages were used to calculate the portion of the total construction cost for the development proposed under each alternative, excluding planning costs, expected to be spent within the affected region as a whole and Mariposa County specifically. (Historically, the majority of engineering and planning work on infrastructure and facility development at Yosemite has been conducted outside the Yosemite region. Therefore, the analysis assumes that none of the Yosemite Valley Plan construction planning costs would be spent within the Yosemite region.)

Impacts Of Visitor Spending

Following implementation of each alternative, visitation patterns to the park will likely change. The distribution of the resulting visitor-spending impacts among the counties in the Yosemite region was estimated from a combination of: (1) recent traffic count along routes entering and exiting Yosemite as compiled by BRW, Inc., and (2) visitor lodging and spending patterns within the affected region. Although visitation may also be affected during implementation of proposed projects, (particularly any new Valley lodging during the first ten years of project construction), the visitor spending impacts associated with project implementation were not estimated for several reasons. First, the actual schedule for the implementation of specific Yosemite Valley Plan development proposals has yet to be determined. Second, no studies have been conducted to evaluate the potential effects on visitor and employee access of those proposals. Third, the National Park Service would work to minimize the impacts of Yosemite Valley Plan implementation on visitors through a combination of signage, construction timing (e.g., work during off-peak hours, etc.) and other measures, and the details of these approaches are not available. Fourth, it is the intention of the National Park Service to permit use of all Valley lodging units planned for removal until new units are completed.

Methods For Determining Cumulative Impacts

Under each alternative, an array of development projects would be implemented in the region, as identified in Appendix H (Cumulative Impacts Scenario). Implementation of these projects is likely to be gradual and coordinated. Nonetheless, these projects could have an appreciable impact on various elements of the region’s socioeconomy, including: (1) visitation and visitor spending, (2) local construction spending, and (3) employment and housing. Cumulative impacts represent the impacts of these projects in combination with the projects proposed under each alternative.

Visitation And Visitor Spending

The park itself is the primary destination for more than 50% of the visitors to Yosemite National Park. Accordingly, most of the future non residential projects in the region would be designed to accommodate park visitors. Several projects in the cumulative impacts scenario are planned to enhance visitor experience, such as the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System and shuttle bus stop improvements. Yet, Yosemite National Park is already one of the major tourist attractions in the United States, primarily because of its scenic resources and natural conditions. Therefore, new projects designed to provide relatively minor enhancements to visitor experience would not be expected to generate significant increases in visitation or visitor spending.

Impacts on visitation and visitor spending were assumed to occur as a result of lodging projects in the cumulative impacts scenario. 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 if there is additional capacity. This may translate into an increase in overnight visitation and visitor spending. This is a relatively conservative assumption because it assumes that there would be no net increase in visitation associated with increases in the region’s lodging capacity (only a switching of day visitors to out-of-park overnight visitors).

The cumulative impacts scenario identified 757 lodging units to be constructed on seven properties in the region. The number of additional overnight stays was estimated by multiplying the number of new lodging units by 3.17 guests per room, assuming 60% occupancy. These additional stays would represent out-of-park overnight visitors, who spend an average of $61.30 per capita per day. Assuming that these out-of-park overnight visitors would otherwise be day visitors, the net economic impact of each additional overnight stay would be $35.76 ($61.30 - $25.54), or daily per capita spending by out-of-park overnight visitors less day visitors. If additional visitors are attracted to the region by the increase in lodging capacity, visitor spending growth would be even higher and the impact would be even greater.

Actual impacts on the local economy would result when businesses and individuals respend money locally that was earned from new visitor spending. These secondary impacts were calculated using IMPLAN in the same manner as the direct economic impacts of the alternatives were calculated. (See Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.)

Local Construction Spending

Local construction spending would be generated primarily by housing, transportation, and other commercial projects in the region. Appendix H (Cumulative Impacts Scenario) shows that over 35,700 new housing units (including 23,500 in the City of Merced and 12,000 in the proposed university community at the University of California, Merced) are planned for construction over the next 15 years. Construction spending for these housing projects was estimated using a unit cost of $65.80 per square foot (based on 1999 Uniform Building Code valuation data for Dwellings [Type V-Masonry] in California). The average square footage per unit was assumed to be 1,500 square feet.

Construction spending estimates for transportation projects were obtained from project proponents.

Commercial projects in Appendix H (Cumulative Impacts Scenario) include new lodging units, conference facilities, office space, and restaurants. A total of 757 new lodging units were identified in the cumulative impacts scenario. Construction spending was estimated for these projects using a unit cost of $64.86 per square foot (based on 1999 Uniform Building Code valuation data for Hotels and Motels [Type V-N] in California). The average square footage per unit was assumed to be 288 square feet.

Other commercial projects identified in the cumulative impacts scenario would result in over 3.6 million square feet of new construction. Construction spending for these projects was calculated assuming an average construction cost per square foot of $63.75.

Additional construction spending would generate output impacts, not only directly but also secondarily, as a result of local spending on material inputs and wage spending by project labor. These impacts were estimated using IMPLAN.

Employment And Housing

When available, employment impacts associated with the projects identified in Appendix H (Cumulative Impacts Scenario) were obtained directly from project proponents. Otherwise, employment impacts were calculated as a function of spending impacts. County multipliers were used to determine the number of new full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs that would be generated per one million dollars in increased construction spending. In addition, the number of jobs associated with increased spending for lodging, food and beverages, retail, and transit were calculated based on county multipliers.

Housing impacts were determined based on the amount of new workers that would need to be accommodated in the region as a result of employment impacts.

---

| Table of Contents | Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D | Appendix E | Appendix F | Appendix G |
| Appendix H | Appendix I | Appendix J | Appendix K | Appendix L | Appendix M | Appendix N |

Yosemite National Park Home Page http://www.nps.gov File created/updated Yosemite National Park Web Manager