Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1061

Socioeconomics 

Affected Environment 

This section evaluates the likely socioeconomic consequences of the specific management actions 

contained in each alternative and how the alternatives would affect the regional economy. As 

documented in the “Visitor Experience/Recreation” section of this chapter, there were an estimated 

3.9 million annual visitors to Yosemite National Park in 2010 and 3.95 million in 2011, slightly fewer than 

the all-time record estimate of 4.0 million in 1996. Yosemite visitors spend millions of dollars on entrance 

fees, campgrounds, hotel lodging, meals, transportation, and other goods and services both inside the 

park and in gateway communities outside the park. As a result, visitor spending is an important source of 

income and employment for the park, the primary park concessioner, and the gateway communities. In 

addition, the National Park Service (NPS) operating budget pays employees and contractors to perform 

duties and provide services within the park, which, like visitor spending, provides revenue to support the 

economy of the surrounding region. 

The “Socioeconomics” section contains two subsections: regional economy and visitor expenditures. 

The first section characterizes the regional economy. The region affected by the park includes the four 

surrounding counties: Madera, Mariposa, Mono, and Tuolumne. Economic and statistical profiles 

were developed for each county to assess the importance of tourism and NPS spending to the region. 

The profiles provide an economic baseline with detailed information on the size of each county’s 

principal economic sectors in terms of economic output, employment, and other relevant economic 

indicators. Although historical trends and future projections are included for some socioeconomic 

measures (e.g., population), the primary focus is on 2010, which has been selected as the most recent 

year for which reliable data are available to use as a baseline for the alternatives analysis to be 

conducted later in this EIS process. 

The second section presents best estimates of baseline visitor spending. The NPS periodically surveys 

visitors to Yosemite and fortunately conducted a survey in 2009 as part of the Visitor Services Project 

(VSP). The results of this survey, as reported in the study, Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local 

Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009, have been adjusted using the Consumer Price Index to 

estimate spending patterns for the baseline year of 2010. 

Regional Economy 

The region evaluated in the socioeconomic analyses below includes all the gateway communities 

immediately adjacent to Yosemite National Park and the four counties that house them: Madera, 

Mariposa, Mono, and Tuolumne. This four-county region roughly coincides with the 50-mile radius 

for which spending was reported in the VSP survey. The four main access roads to the park pass 

through the four gateway counties; Highway 41 passes through Madera and Mariposa counties, 

Highway 140 passes through Mariposa County, Highway 120 east passes through Mono County, and 

Highway 120 west passes through Tuolumne County. 

Yosemite National Park is located primarily in Mariposa and Tuolumne counties, with a small 

southern portion in Madera County. The developed areas along the main river corridor and the 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1062 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

South Fork Merced River, including Yosemite Valley, the El Portal Administrative Site, and Wawona 

are located within the jurisdiction of Mariposa County. Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Fresno 

Counties were excluded from the affected region because, in these much more populous and urbanized 

counties, it is difficult to distinguish the portions of the tourist economies that are associated with 

Yosemite versus other tourist destinations. Also, tourism is a relatively small component of these 

counties’ overall economies. 

Regional Comparison 

Population 

In 2010 the population of the region of economic study was almost 240,000. Table 9-162 shows the 

historical growth rates for this region during the past 40 years. The table also shows the state 

population and growth rates. The region containing the gateway communities to Yosemite National 

Park has been growing much more rapidly than the state of California as a whole, though it is 

important to note that this regional growth percentage is relative to the small baseline of four counties 

that are largely rural in character. Furthermore, while population at both geographic levels continues 

to grow, the rates of growth are slowing down. 

TABLE 9-162: HISTORICAL POPULATION BY COUNTY: 1970-2010 

County 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 

Madera 41,519 63,116 88,090 123,109 150,865 

Mariposa 6,015 11,108 14,302 17,130 18,251 

Mono 4,016 8,577 9,956 12,853 14,202 

Tuolumne 22,169 33,928 48,456 54,504 55,368 

Total 4-Co. Region 73,719 116,729 160,804 207,596 238,686 

10-Year Growth 58% 38% 29% 15% 

California 19,953,134 23,667,902 29,760,021 33,873,086 37,253,956 

10-Year Growth 19% 26% 14% 10% 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2010] 

Table 9-163 indicates that substantial growth is projected to continue into the future, both in the 

region of impact and in the state as a whole. The projections currently available from the California 

Department of Finance were made before the 2010 Census was available and before the full effects of 

the current recession were obvious. As a result, the actual 2010 population fell short of the predictions, 

and future populations are likely to be smaller by a similar proportion. 

Income 

Table 9-164 summarizes several key household demographic and income characteristics for the fourcounty study area. Incomes in all four of the counties are less than the average for California as a 

whole. Per-capita incomes are lowest in Madera County, though household sizes tend to be larger; 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1063

TABLE 9-163: PROJECTED POPULATION BY COUNTY: 2000-2050 

County 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

Madera 124,696 162,114 212,874 273,456 344,455 413,569 

Mariposa 17,150 19,108 21,743 23,981 26,169 28,091 

Mono 13,013 14,833 18,080 22,894 29,099 36,081 

Tuolumne 54,863 58,721 64,161 67,510 70,325 73,291 

Total 4-Co. Region 209,722 254,776 316,858 387,841 470,048 551,032 

10-Year Growth 21% 24% 22% 21% 17% 

California 34,105,437 39,135,676 44,135,923 49,240,891 54,226,115 59,507,876 

10-Year Growth 15% 13% 12% 10% 10% 

SOURCE: California State Department of Finance 2011 

TABLE 9-164: HOUSEHOLD INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE FOUR-COUNTY STUDY AREA

Key Demographic Characteristics Madera Mariposa Mono Tuolumne California

Persons per household, 2006–2010 3.30 2.28 2.61 2.28 2.89 

Per-capita money income in past 12 months 

(2010 dollars) $18,724 $27,064 $27,321 $25,483 $29,188 

Median household income 2006–2010 $46,039 $49,098 $55,087 $47,462 $60,883 

Persons below poverty level, percent, 2006–

2010 19.3% 12.5% 12.0% 11.7% 13.7% 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts 2010 

therefore, with more potential workers per household, household incomes in Madera are comparable 

to those in the neighboring counties. The poverty rate is also the highest in Madera County. 

Employment 

Table 9-165 presents employment figures including all waged, salaried, and self-employed jobs in each 

county, and both full-time and part-time workers. In 2010 total employment was approximately 

102,000 in the four-county area. Madera County, with the largest and most urbanized population, had 

the largest employment base in the region, accounting for approximately 57% of total employment. 

Mariposa County, which includes Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona, accounted for 

approximately 8% of total employment in the affected region. Table 9-165 provides total employment 

estimates for the counties by industry sector. The Service sector, which includes most of the businesses 

most directly impacted by tourism and visitor spending, accounts for 45% of the total region, and 59% 

of Mariposa County, which includes Yosemite Valley. The figures are used as the baseline for 

employment conditions. 

According to the Local Area Unemployment Statistics program of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

in 2010 the total civilian labor force in the four-county region was 106,429, of which 90,509 were 

employed. The statewide unemployment rate in California at the time was 12.4%. Only Mariposa 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1064 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-165: 2010 EMPLOYMENT BY COUNTY AND MAJOR INDUSTRY SECTOR

Industry Sector 

Individual Counties Total 

Madera Mariposa Mono Tuolumne Study Area 

Total 58,309 8,037 10,608 25,319 102,273 

Agriculture 12,701 294 105 519 13,619 

Mining 88 79 24 118 310 

Construction 2,258 478 687 1,692 5,115 

Manufacturing 2,990 175 113 764 4,043 

Transp. & Utilities 1,468 128 110 368 2,074 

Trade 5,593 619 938 3,164 10,314 

Service 21,816 4,755 6,493 12,905 45,970 

Government 11,393 1,509 2,136 5,789 20,828 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

County was slightly better off with an unemployment rate of 12.1%. The other three counties were 

between 14.0% and 15.6% (with the highest in the most populous county, Madera). The region’s 

average unemployment rate in 2010 was 14.8%. 

Economic Output 

Economic output is a measure of productivity. Measures of economic output vary, depending on the 

Industry sector. For the Agricultural and Trade sectors, output is measured by the value of products 

sold. In the Manufacturing sector, output is a measure of the value added by the manufacturer or the 

value of shipments. In the Service sector, output is measured as receipts in dollars. In 2010, the 

estimated total output of goods and services for the four-county region was approximately 

$12.5 billion, as presented in table 9-166. Madera and Tuolumne counties, which are more urbanized 

with cities such as Madera and Sonora, produce the majority of the region’s economic output. The 

almost entirely rural counties of Mariposa and Mono contributed only 16% of the output. However, 

57% of Mariposa’s output was generated in the tourism-heavy services sector. 

Taxable Retail Sales 

Taxable retail sales are good indicators of annual spending in the Travel Service sectors because these 

sales represent taxes paid on transactions with consumers. The total taxable retail sales figures from 

the state Board of Equalization also include the taxes paid by businesses on raw materials and services. 

In 2010, the total taxable retail sales for the four counties in table 9-167 were just over $2.0 billion. The 

previous years’ retail volumes have also been converted to constant 2010 dollars for comparison 

purposes. In real terms, retail sales were actually greater in 2001 at $2.1 billion; grew at a healthy rate 

through 2006; and then declined with the recession, showing the most dramatic drops in 2008 and 

2009. The data suggest that retail sales volumes have stabilized recently. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1065

TABLE 9-166: 2010 ECONOMIC OUTPUT BY COUNTY AND MAJOR INDUSTRY SECTOR (IN CONSTANT 2010

$1,000,000S) 

Industry Sector

Individual Counties Total 

Madera Mariposa Mono Tuolumne Study Area 

Total $7,699 $885 $1,159 $2,791 $12,535 

Agriculture $1,675 $42 $27 $42 $1,786 

Mining $26 $9 $4 $26 $65 

Construction $327 $63 $99 $225 $714 

Manufacturing $1,201 $39 $47 $170 $1,456 

Transp. & Utilities $337 $38 $20 $133 $527 

Trade $499 $52 $70 $238 $858 

Service $2,774 $501 $682 $1,517 $5,475 

Government $861 $142 $210 $441 $1,654 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2010 

TABLE 9-167: TOTAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES BY COUNTY (IN CONSTANT 2010 $1,000,000S) 

County 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a

Madera $1,063 $1,110 $1,194 $1,299 $1,464 $1,550 $1,512 $1,344 $1,119 $1,159

Mariposa $160 $160 $161 $179 $190 $182 $175 $173 $163 $164

Mono $248 $263 $267 $292 $307 $322 $281 $259 $205 $215

Tuolumne $660 $670 $685 $723 $727 $704 $679 $616 $533 $508

Total 4-Co. Region $2,131 $2,204 $2,306 $2,492 $2,688 $2,758 $2,648 $2,392 $2,019 $2,047

a Annual total estimated by Land Economics Consultants from first three-quarters of data available. 

SOURCES: Calif. State Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California Annual Reports, Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI-U)

Madera County 

According to the California Employment Development Department, almost a quarter of Madera 

County employment (23%) was on farms in 2010. When the Food Processing, Service, and Trade 

sectors of the economy are considered as well, agriculture’s dominance in Madera County is obvious. 

The Leisure and Hospitality sector of the economy accounted for a little more than 6% of the jobs. 

Federal employment amounted to 300 jobs, or approximately 0.7% of county employment. In terms of 

fiscal resources, the transient occupancy tax only accounts for approximately 1% of Madera County’s 

General Fund. 

Madera County reaches from the crest of the Sierra Nevada range to the San Joaquin River on the 

Central Valley floor. The majority of the county’s population and employment are concentrated along 

the Highway 99 corridor in the Central Valley. None of the developed parts of Yosemite National Park 

are in Madera County, but the county includes the headwaters of both the South Fork and the main 

stem of the Merced River in the high country at the southern end of the park. Because of its large 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1066 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

geographic size and diversity of the economy of Madera County, tourism associated with the park is 

not particularly important to the county as a whole. On the other hand, the eastern communities in the 

county, specifically Oakhurst and Bass Lake, are much more dependent on Yosemite tourism. 

Mariposa County 

According to the Employment Development Department, tourism is Mariposa County’s main industry 

and the area’s largest employer, with more than a third (37%) of all jobs in the Leisure and Hospitality 

sector in 2010. The county’s primary recreation area/tourist attraction is Yosemite National Park, 

much of which lies within the county, including the developed areas of Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and 

El Portal Administrative Site. Other major recreation areas in Mariposa County include Stanislaus 

National Forest and Sierra National Forest, as well as the U.S. Forest Service/Bureau of Land 

Management recreation areas along the Merced River. Other recreation resources in Mariposa County 

include Lake Don Pedro, Lake McSwain, and Lake McClure where camping is available. 

Mariposa County’s economy is very different than Madera County’s. Less than 1% of Mariposa 

employment is on farms. In contrast, with the national park and forests, federal employment is much 

more important, accounting for approximately 800 jobs or 16% of county employment in 2010. 

From a fiscal standpoint, Mariposa is the most dependent on tourism of the four counties. Almost a 

quarter of the $42 million Mariposa County General Fund is derived from the Transient Occupancy Tax 

(TOT), or approximately $10 million in the most recent fiscal year. The TOT is levied at the rate of 10% 

of the room rate and is collected from Bed and Breakfasts and transient rentals (e.g., Vacation Rentals by 

Owner), as well as from traditional hotels and motels. In addition, there is another 1% tax on transient 

rooms in the form of a Tourism Business Improvement District Assessment (TBID). All of the 

accommodations in Yosemite Valley, as well as those in Wawona, contribute to Mariposa’s General 

Fund through the TOT and generate money for the TBID, as well. 

Another way to look at it is Mariposa County collects 62% of the entire TOT generated within the 

four-county region. 

Mono County 

Mono County is one of the least populated counties in California and is the gateway county for visitors 

entering through the eastern park entrance. Park access via this entrance is limited in the winter because 

the entrance is typically closed from November to late May as a result of snowfall. Lodging, food, 

beverage, and other services are central to Mono County’s economy, which is also bolstered by extensive 

natural resources and recreational opportunities. As home to the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Mono 

County is a significant tourism destination in the winter. During summer, Mono County is a popular 

destination for such resort communities as Mammoth Lakes and June Lakes and for backcountry 

visitation to the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. 

According to Employment Development Department data for 2010, the Leisure and Hospitality sector 

accounted for almost half (49%) of all employment in Mono County. Federal employment constituted 

approximately 200 jobs or about 3% of all employment. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1067

Mono County only collects about $2 million per year in Transient Occupancy Taxes, but because it is 

such a small county, that amount constitutes 7% of the county’s General Fund. 

Tuolumne County 

The Tuolumne River watershed portion of Yosemite National Park is in the southeastern portion of 

Tuolumne County. The county also contains significant national forest lands and the Emigrant 

Wilderness, with recreation destinations scattered throughout. In addition to Yosemite, other 

recreational attractions in Tuolumne County include Columbia State Park, Stanislaus National Forest, 

Dodge Ridge Ski Area, and Pinecrest Lake. 

The bulk of Tuolumne County’s economy is clustered on private lands along Highways 49 and 108, as 

well as centered in the town of Sonora. The primary driver of the Tuolumne County economy is the 

service sector, which is indicative of a large retirement and second home based population in the 

surrounding Gold Country area of the foothills. According to the Employment Development 

Department, the Leisure and Hospitality sector accounted for about 12% of the jobs in Tuolumne 

County in 2010. Federal employment was approximately 400 jobs at that time, or about 3% of county 

jobs. The TOT in Tuolumne County generates about $2 million per year, representing approximately 

4% of the General Fund. 

Trends in Visitation to the Park 

Socioeconomic impacts are highly correlated with overall visitation. Figure 9-46 shows the trend in 

estimated total recreational visitation to Yosemite National Park over the last century. According to these 

estimates, visitation grew explosively at the beginning of the 20th century, only to crash along with the 

economy in the early 1930s. Then, growth began again, only to be halted by World War II. The post-war 

era showed strong, long-term growth, peaking in 1996. In 1987, when the Merced was designated a Wild 

and Scenic River, estimated visitation to the park stood at 3.2 million. The effects of the flood in early 

1997, which dramatically reduced the inventory of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley, can 

be seen over the decade subsequent to 1997. The strong growth trend observed prior to 1997 can be seen 

again in recent years. 

Visitor Expenditures 

Average Visitor Expenditures 

The NPS’s Visitor Services Project (VSP surveys) collected data in 2009 on expenditures of visitor 

groups inside the park and within 50 miles of the park. This data was analyzed in the February 2011 

study, Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009. Spending 

averages in 2009 were computed per visitor group per day (or per night) for different market segments 

defined by the type and location of accommodations used. The observed 2009 spending averages were 

adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to 2010 dollars, as presented in table 9-168. On a 

visitor group per day basis, average spending was $75 for day trips by local residents, $87 for day trips 

by nonlocal visitors, $371 per night for visitors staying in park lodges or cabins, and $170 per night for 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1068 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Figure 9-46 

Estimated Number of Recreational Visitors to Yosemite National Park

TABLE 9-168: AVERAGE SPENDING PER DAY/NIGHT FOR VISITOR GROUPS IN 2010 DOLLARS

Spending Category 

Average Spending per Day/Night Visitor Groups in 2010 Dollarsa

Local Day Trip Motel-in Camp-in

Motelout Campout Other 

Overnight

Motel, hotel, cabin, transient 

rental, or Bed & Breakfast $0.00 $0.00 $213.91 $2.52 $144.52 $0.00 $0.00 

Camping fees $0.00 $0.00 $1.67 $34.49 $1.31 $28.59 $0.00 

Restaurants & bars $21.99 $17.04 $61.09 $23.18 $49.04 $24.46 $12.12 

Groceries & takeout food $18.98 $10.98 $18.61 $20.98 $17.08 $16.07 $4.55 

Gas & oil $17.21 $16.63 $18.72 $30.01 $26.34 $31.00 $9.84 

Local transportation $0.00 $3.94 $9.82 $0.80 $31.09 $4.35 $1.63 

Admission & fees $11.71 $23.68 $25.35 $38.26 $22.51 $12.94 $5.79 

Souvenirs & other expenses $4.74 $14.43 $22.02 $19.79 $21.07 $13.40 $3.61 

Total per Visitor Group $74.64 $86.71 $371.17 $170.02 $312.95 $130.81 $37.54 

a Adjusted from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, by industry 

category. 

SOURCE: Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009, February, 2011[ 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

190619091912191519181921192419271930193319361939194219451948195119541957196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011

Recreational Visitors to Yosemite National Park

Recreational Visitors
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1069

park campers. Visitors staying in motels, cabins, lodges, or bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) outside the park 

spent an average of $313 per night during their trips and those camping outside the park spent 

$131 per night. The “other overnight” column includes visitors staying in backcountry locations or 

with friends and relatives, and includes spending within the four-county area as visitors approach and 

leave the park. 

The VSP Survey found that about 47% of visitor groups’ total spending is inside the park and 53% is 

outside the park. As one would expect, visitor groups staying overnight inside the park spent the 

majority of their money inside the park, and visitor groups staying outside the park spent most of their 

money in surrounding communities. A higher percentage of campers’ spending is on groceries, 

whereas visitor groups staying in lodges, cabins, and motels spend more on restaurant meals. 

Total Visitor Expenditures and Economic Impacts 

The total economic impact on the four-county study area from Yosemite National Park visitor 

spending and the NPS payroll in the baseline year of 2010 was recently calculated as part of an ongoing 

effort to estimate the economic benefits of national parks to their local communities (Stynes 2011). 

The summary statistics from this effort are presented in table 9-169. For the analysis of alternatives to 

follow, a model of the four-county economy has been constructed, and the impacts of visitor spending 

and the NPS payroll are analyzed using IMPLAN and the NPS Money Generation Model (MGM2), as 

described in the “Environmental Consequences Methodology” section, below. The model was 

calibrated using the published summary statistics in table 9-166 as control totals. 

TABLE 9-169: TOTAL SPENDING AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS:

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, 2010 

Summary Statistics 

Public Use Data 

2010 Recreation Visits 3,901,408 

2010 Overnight Stays 1,720,909 

Visitor Spending 2010 

All Visitors $354,689,000 

Nonlocal Visitors $350,244,000 

Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending 

Jobs 4,602 

Labor Income $132,465,000 

Value Added $215,932,000 

SOURCE: Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation 

and Payroll, 2010, December 2011 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1070 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Environmental Consequences Methodology 

Use of Established Regional Economic Analysis Models 

To quantitatively analyze the alternatives, including the Alternative 1 (No Action), a series of 

interlinked economic models has been developed that calculate economic impacts within the fourcounty region containing Yosemite National Park. The methodology for this EIS has been built in 

consultation with the ongoing providers of analyses of this type to the NPS. The central model for 

estimating economic impacts is the Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2) developed by Stynes et al. 

The three main inputs to the MGM2 version used here, and their sources, are 

1. annual number of visitors to Yosemite broken down by lodging-based market segments, with a 

baseline calibrated using 2010 actual totals from NPS Public Use Data 

2. spending averages for each lodging-based market segment from the Visitor Services Project, 

with the most recent survey data having been collected in 2009 and updated to 2010 dollars 

3. economic multipliers generated by IMPLAN1

 from the four-county region for 2010 

Data for the calendar year 2010 were used for development and calibration of a baseline set of models 

for this socioeconomic analysis. The year 2010 is the most recent for which IMPLAN multipliers are 

available. Fortunately, 2010 is also a U.S. Census year and at this time is the most recent year for which 

historical data are reliably available across a wide variety of socioeconomic measures. In 2010, the 

number of visitors to the park was approximately equal to the highest recorded numbers, with the 

previous record set in 1996 before the flood damage in early 1997. The goal of the baseline 

socioeconomic analysis was to create a series of operable economic models that can reproduce the 

results of ongoing economic impact estimation conducted for the NPS (as reported in the “Affected 

Environment” section, above). Having calibrated the operable set of models for the baseline year of 

2010, the same models can be used to analyze the Alternative 1 as well as Alternatives 2–6 (the action 

alternatives) to produce results that can be reliably compared. In essence, the modeling of alternatives 

will be driven by the levels of annual visitation resulting from the management plans for each 

alternative as if each were in place today. Based on visitor spending patterns, the total level of 

economic activity generated in the region can be estimated. Visitor spending impacts are thus 

estimated in terms of 2010 dollars but for numbers of visitors appropriate to each alternative, 

compared to the number of visitors under Alternative 1 during the same time frame. Under the no 

action alternative it is expected that the number of people seeking to visit the park will continue to 

grow at approximately 3% per year over the next five years. 

 

1 IMPLAN is a proprietary model (IMpact for PLANning) developed originally for the federal government in the 1980s 

at the University of Minnesota and now vended by MIG, Inc. (formerly the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) to 

estimate the economic impacts of projects or policy changes on specific regions of study. Among other things, the 

model produces multipliers that facilitate the estimation of major economic impacts from input variables.
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1071

Economic Modeling Focuses on the Regional Level 

An economic impact analysis that involves IMPLAN modeling is typically concerned with the economic 

development potential of projects or management plans for a region. Thus, such an analysis typically 

ignores local spending transfers within the region and focuses only on new income that is derived from 

outside the region as the measure of “economic impact.” However, this analysis is interested in how 

alternative management plans might affect the use of the park by local residents of the gateway 

communities in the surrounding four counties. A less frequent but no less legitimate application of 

IMPLAN is to estimate total “economic activity,” which is a measure of total economic importance and 

which includes the economic activity stimulated by the spending of local residents associated with 

recreation in Yosemite. For the alternatives analyses in this EIS, spending by locals has been included so 

that changes in their recreation or spending patterns can be considered. Although spending by locals 

would not be included in a traditional economic impact analysis, the term “economic impact” (rather 

than “economic activity”) is used throughout this narrative to conform to the expectations of readers of 

NEPA analyses. 

Two Primary Economic Drivers: Visitor Spending and NPS Spending 

The majority of the economic activity, including all the direct employment in concessioner-run 

facilities in the park, is driven by visitors. A minor portion of the economic activity is driven by the 

payroll and spending of the NPS itself, which will be estimated separately after the visitor-driven 

impact analysis. 

Because socioeconomic analysis is concerned with matters such as job creation and business 

opportunities, an annual perspective is required (e.g., jobs are created by flows of money sufficient to 

support living wages and incomes; business viability depends on ongoing revenue potential, including 

off seasons as well as high seasons, etc.). The NPS’s MGM2 model is built to analyze economic impacts 

for an entire year of a park’s operation. Furthermore, for this analysis, a parkwide perspective, 

including all river segments, must be adopted in order to capture all visitor spending. The visitor 

spending data were collected for the entire park visit, including travel two and from the park, and 

included spending anywhere within the four-county host region for the park. For example, even 

visitors staying in backpacking camps in the wilderness depend on purchases made earlier, and 

visitors’ purchases of supplies in gateway communities, although modest, still contribute to the size of 

the four-county economy. For these reasons, an estimate of the annual, parkwide visits resulting from 

each alternative management plan is required as an input to the socioeconomic models. 

Derivation of the Impact on Visitor Spending 

Table 9-170 presents a means of providing the future annual parkwide visitor estimate required for 

each alternative, based on the experience of the most recent calendar year, but considering the 

potential for future growth in demand for visits at approximately 3% per year, and differences in the 

supply of overnight accommodations and day use facilities in Yosemite Valley under the various 

management plans. In the analysis of transportation, the number of vehicles was tracked on a daily 

basis for 2011. Using a factor of 2.9 people per vehicle on the average, it was possible to estimate the 

number of visits to Yosemite Valley on each day in 2011. Under the No Action Alternative it was 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1072 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-170: ANNUAL PARKWIDE VISIT ESTIMATES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 

Estimated Maximum Daily 

Visitation to the Valley 20,900 13,900 13,200 17,000 19,900 21,800 

Number of Days Where 

Maximum Would Be Exceeded 0 87 91 68 10 1 

Estimated Park-Wide Annual 

Visitation in 2011a 3,951,393 3,951,393 3,951,393 3,951,393 3,951,393 4,192,033 

Change from Park-Wide 

Annual Visitation (People) 0 (306,514) (365,857) (74,039) (2,698) (1,116) 

Estimated Park-Wide 

Visitation Achievable 

Within Maximums 

3,951,393 3,644,879 3,585,536 3,877,354 3,948,695 4,190,917 

a 2011 Estimate from National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office for Alts 1 - 5. Alt 6 includes 2 years growth at 3%/year. 

SOURCE: Estimates by Land Economics Consultants2012 

estimated the Valley was able to handle a maximum of 20,900 people in a day, which was consistent 

with a total estimated visitation in the park during 2011 of 3,951,000. 

The different plans for infrastructure and facilities for each action alternative would result in a 

different maximum number of visitors that could be accommodated in the Valley. Under Alternatives 2 

through 5, those maximums are smaller than the No Action Alternative, and for each alternative total 

parkwide visitation is projected to be less than what was observed in 2011 by the number of visitors 

that would have exceeded the daily maximums in the Valley. For example, for Alternative 3 a 

combined total of 366,000 visitors would have not been able to visit the Valley during 105 days that the 

maximum was exceeded. Total parkwide estimated visitation was thus reduced to a projected 

3,586,000 for Alternative 3. 

The proposed mix of infrastructure and facilities in Alternative 6 would allow for a higher maximum 

daily visitation to the Valley then under the No Action Alternative. In that case, visitation could 

continue to grow for two more years at the assumed rate of 3% per year before the same pattern of 

exceeding maximums on several peak days is experienced. After two years of growth, the maximum 

would be exceeded on three days, reducing visitation by 1,116, and resulting in an estimate for 

parkwide visitation at that point of approximately 4,191,000. These estimates on the bottom line of 

Table 9-113 will be used as inputs to the economic impact analysis of visitor spending in the sections to 

follow. 

In reality, total annual visits to the park will most likely not decrease by as much as the estimates at the 

bottom of table 9-113 due to two effects commonly observed in economic market systems: 

1. A “substitution effect” is possible during high-demand periods. That is, when people are 

unable to secure their first-choice lodging type, some will likely substitute a second-choice 

mode of visiting the park. For example, unable to get a reservation for concessioner lodging in 

the Valley, some people will likely opt for a motel in a gateway community and be repeat day 

visitors to the park during their stay. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1073

2. A displacement or “time-shift effect” is possible, as well. Unable to secure reservations for their 

first-choice time period to visit the park, some people will likely change their plans to visit the 

park during a less popular period, but still contributing to the annual visitation numbers. 

Although the extent of these human behaviors is unquantifiable at this time, it is highly likely that some 

combination of these and other mechanisms for economic adaptation will reduce the severity of 

adverse economic impacts, and it is possible that adverse impacts would be eliminated altogether. It is 

also possible that with continued growth in demand into the future, total parkwide annual visitation 

would continue to grow through these mechanisms, expanding into previously low-demand seasons 

and thereby continuing to increase visitor spending in the four-county economy. Economic expansion 

could also occur as Gateway business communities’ market alternative activities and destinations so 

that people stay in the area longer even though they are not spending the entire time in Yosemite. 

To match visitor types with the visitor spending patterns quantified by the 2009 VSP Survey, other 

results from the visitor survey will be used below for each alternative to first apportion the total annual 

visits from Table 9-113 into lodging-based market segments and then to convert total number of 

visitors entering the park into visitor group nights (or days) by taking into account factors for: 

 average visitor group size 

 length of stay (days or nights) 

 re-entry rate (park entries per trip) 

The number of visitor group nights will then be multiplied by the spending patterns for each group, 

and the total impact on the four-county economy will be estimated for each alternative. 

Derivation of the Impact on NPS Spending 

An additional source of economic expansion within the four-county area is direct NPS spending. 

Therefore, the impact of NPS employment and operations and maintenance spending must also be 

estimated for each alternative. Table 9-171 presents a method for estimating the impact of each 

management plan on NPS employment and budget for employee compensation. This is a very simple 

extrapolation of data that correlates with present headcount, provided as an illustration of possible 

impacts of employee spending in the region. Starting with the estimation of annual visits, NPS 

employment is also assumed to vary with the annual volume of visitors parkwide. However, 

employment is subject to separation into fixed and variable costs. An analysis of the last five fiscal years 

of budgets for the park (2007 through 2011) has shown that 56% of the budget has come from 

“appropriated funds” and 44% from “revenue funds.” Given that the appropriated funds are relatively 

fixed, and that the term “revenue funds” implies that they fluctuate somewhat with the number of 

visitors, table 9-110 assumes that 56% of employment and compensation are fixed (i.e., would remain 

the same in all alternatives), and that 44% of NPS jobs would vary in proportion to the increase or 

decrease in visitor volumes. 

In the long run, concessioner employment and operations and maintenance costs are funded by the 

revenues available to the concessioner, which are derived from visitor spending, and thus are already 

included in the analysis. In other words, the visitor spending profiles estimated total spending by each 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1074 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-171: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AND BUDGET FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 

Estimated Parkwide Visits 

Considering Constraints 3,951,393 3,644,879 3,585,536 3,877,354 3,948,695 4,190,917 

Difference from Alternative 1 

(No Action) 100% 92% 91% 98% 100% 106% 

Total National Park Service Direct 

Employment in 2010 (Jobs)1 892 

Portion of Jobs Assumed Fixed 56% 

Portion of Jobs Assumed to Vary 

With Visitor Volume 44% 

Estimated Direct National Park 

Service Jobs for Each Alternative 892 862 856 885 892 916 

Total National Park Service Direct 

Employee Compensation (2010 

$1,000s)a

$49,406 

Portion Assumed to be Fixed Cost 56% 

Portion Assumed to Vary with Visitor 

Volume 44% 

Estimated Direct National Park 

Service Compensation for Each 

Alternative (2010 $1,000s) 

$49,406 $47,720 $47,393 $48,999 $49,391 $50,724 

a As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCE: Estimates by Land Economics Consultants 2012 

visitor group both inside and outside the park. For some visitors, spending on lodging supported hotel 

workers outside the park, for other visitors spending on lodging inside the park supported hotel 

workers employed by the concessioner. 

It is assumed that park partner activities would remain the same under all alternatives. 

One-Time Impacts of NPS Spending on Restoration and Construction Projects 

In addition to ongoing spending discussed above that will continue on, year after year, for “in-house” 

NPS staff and their activities, there is additional work performed every year by contractors on specific 

restoration projects, major road maintenance and other infrastructure projects, on environmental 

processing and planning, and for similar activities. The budgets for these activities vary significantly 

year by year as funding is identified for specific projects. Over the last five years (2007-2011) the total 

Yosemite National Park budget has ranged from $70 to $103 million, and has averaged $89 million. 

After deducting the $49 million in NPS staff costs discussed above, the average budget for contractor 

activities has been approximately $40 million per year. The majority of contractor activity, estimated at 

80%, is in the construction sector of the economy, with most of the remainder, estimated at 20%, in 

the professional services sector (e.g., architects, environmental planners, engineers, etc.) Thus, under 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1075

the No Action Alternative, approximately $32 million per year is spent on construction sector projects, 

and $8 million per year for the professional services to plan and design those projects. 

In addition to the ongoing spending to maintain and repair the park, each action alternative essentially 

proposes a new plan for infrastructure and facilities that will guide future spending on projects, most 

of which will be carried out by contractors as described above. There will be one-time spending by 

NPS on the various project elements required to restore areas and construct facilities to implement 

each of the action alternatives. Although this spending will be spread out over a number of years 

during implementation as financial resources are identified, each project element will be built only 

once. The current estimates for the total implementation cost are as follows: 

 Alternative 1 — There would be no additional costs for Alternative 1 (No Action) 

 Alternative 2 — $263,000,000 

 Alternative 3 — $187,000,000 

 Alternative 4 — $223,000,000 

 Alternative 5 — $235,000,000 

 Alternative 6 — $418,000,000 

Characterization of Impacts for NEPA 

Proposed management actions under Alternative 1 and for Alternatives 2–6 will be evaluated in terms 

of the context, intensity, and duration of socioeconomic impacts and whether impacts were 

considered beneficial or adverse to the socioeconomic environment. 

 Context. The context of the impact considers whether the impact would be local or regional. 

Unlike the analysis of most other topic areas, socioeconomics differs in that even “local” impacts 

are not confined to any one river segment. Although it is true that the largest concentration of 

commercial facilities within the park is in Yosemite Valley, visitors to the Valley may also make 

expenditures elsewhere within the region during their visits (e.g., stopping for gasoline in a 

gateway community). The indirect and induced effects quickly ripple away from the initial point 

of sale where the direct impact occurs, and total economic impacts are only measurable at the 

regional level. For purposes of this analysis, local impacts would be those that occur parkwide 

within Yosemite National Park. Regional impacts would be impacts in the four-county area 

around the park (Tuolumne, Mono, Mariposa, and Madera), including all gateway communities. 

Socioeconomic impacts will be discussed under the heading of “All River Segments.” 

 Intensity. The intensity of the impact considers whether effects would be negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major. 

- Negligible impacts are considered not detectable and are expected to have no 

discernible effect on the social and economic environment. When the socioeconomic 

impacts are quantifiable, negligible impacts would generally be expected to correspond 

to proportional changes of 2.5% or less in the specific economic resource. 

- Minor impacts are slightly detectable and are not expected to have an overall effect on 

the character of the social and economic environment. When the socioeconomic 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1076 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

impacts are quantifiable, minor impacts would generally be expected to correspond to 

proportional changes between 2.5% and 5% in the specific economic resource. 

- Moderate impacts are detectable, without question, and could have an appreciable 

effect on the social and economic environment. Such impacts would have the potential 

to initiate an increasing influence on the social and economic environment (particularly 

if other factors have a contributing effect). When the socioeconomic impacts are 

quantifiable, moderate impacts would generally be expected to correspond to 

proportional changes between 5% and 10% in the specific economic resource. 

- Major impacts are considered to have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on the 

social and economic environment and could be expected to alter that environment 

over the long run. When the socioeconomic impacts are quantifiable, major impacts 

would generally be expected to correspond to proportional changes greater than 10% 

in the specific economic resource. 

In addition, impacts are recognized as indeterminate if the intensity of their effects on the 

social and economic environment could not be readily identified (especially when compared 

with the potential influence of other social and economic factors and/or when data limitations 

exist).2

 Duration. The duration of the impact considers whether the impact would occur in the short 

term or the long term. A short-term impact would be temporary and would be associated with 

transitional types of activities. A long-term impact would have an ongoing effect on the 

socioeconomic environment. 

 Type of Impact. Impacts were evaluated in terms of whether they would be beneficial or 

adverse to the socioeconomic environment. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would improve 

the social or economic conditions in the park or in the affected region. Beneficial impacts 

include mechanisms that attract additional visitors and spending into the region, create new 

jobs, or promote growth in the size of the regional economy. Adverse socioeconomic impacts 

would negatively alter social or economic conditions in the park or in the affected region, or 

would affect low-income populations. Adverse impacts include mechanisms that discourage 

some visitors from coming and spending money in the region, reductions in the number of 

jobs, or actions that retard the growth of the economy. Another, more specific, form of 

socioeconomic impact is the effect actions could have on the budgets of public agencies. 

Increases in revenues and reductions in costs are beneficial, and the inverse is adverse. 

Changes in economic activity levels can also stimulate changes in local housing markets. 

Increasing demand for housing due to economic expansion is generally seen as beneficial by 

housing providers, but adverse by low-income housing consumers. 

 

2 The extent to which quantified socioeconomic analysis of the alternatives can be performed will depend directly on 

the degree to which: (1) the no-action alternative is quantitatively characterized; (2) alternatives are quantifiable 

distinct from the no-action alternative and amongst the action alternatives; and (3) that the action alternatives’ effects 

on future park visitation can be adequately projected. 

 Differences in the magnitude of future annual visitation will be a potential primary factor resulting in quantifiable 

effects to local and regional socioeconomic resources. In addition, changes to the type of visitation (e.g., day use versus 

overnight use, length of stay, visitor activity type and/or location) or the visitor profile (e.g., age and income) could be 

used to project related socioeconomic impacts. However, given the multitude of factors involved with visitors’ 

recreation decision-making, it may in some cases be too difficult or speculative to project the changes in visitation 

patterns within the park and future visitor responses resulting from proposed ORV and facility changes. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1077

Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 (No Action) 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values 

In concept, actions to protect and enhance river values may make visiting the Merced River corridor 

more or less attractive to recreationists seeking different types of experiences, but in practice it would 

be the actions that manage visitor use and facilities that primarily would determine the number of 

people that are able to visit the corridor each year, and all socioeconomic impact analysis will be 

discussed under that topic heading for each alternative. 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

The number of visitors (as presented in table 9-113 above) and the spending patterns (as presented in 

table 9-107 above) are both used as inputs to the MGM2 model. To conform to the visitor group per 

night/day format required by the MGM2 model, the total number of recreation visits counted at the 

entrances to the park is translated first into “Visits in Party-Days/Nights” in table 9-172. The 

translation of individual visitors to groups takes into account factors for 

 each visitor market segment’s share of total entries to the park 

 re-entry rate (park entries per trip) 

 average visitor group size 

 length of stay (days or nights) 

The MGM2 model analyzes spending and impacts by visitor market segment, defined as follows: 

 Local-Day User: corresponds to people who live within the four-county region who recreate 

in the park. 

 Non-Local-Day User: person living or staying outside the four-county region who is able to 

visit the park on a day use basis. 

 Motel-In: people staying inside the park within any of the types of lodging accommodations 

available, other than campgrounds. 

 Camp-In: people staying overnight inside the park in developed campgrounds. 

 Motel-Out: people staying in commercial lodging outside the park, but within the four-county 

region. 

 Camp-Out: people staying in campgrounds outside the park, but within the four-county region. 

 Other Overnight: a miscellaneous category used by the model that includes, among other 

things, people staying in the backcountry. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1078 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-172: ANALYSIS OF TOTAL VISITATION BY MARKET SEGMENT

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Visitor 

Market 

Segment 

Share of 

Park Entriesa

Calculated 

Distribution 

of Visitors 

ReEntry 

Ratea

Visitor 

Trips to 

the Park

Ave. 

Group 

Sizea

Visitor 

Groups 

Length 

of Stay 

(Nights or 

Days)a

Visits in 

PartyDays / 

Nights 

Total Visitors: 

Alt. 1 3,951,393 

Local-Day User 4.0% 158,056 1.1 143,687 2.2 65,312 1.0 65,312 

Non-Local-Day 

User 

24.0% 948,334 1.1 862,122 3.0 287,374 1.0 287,374 

Motel-In 11.5% 454,410 1.1 413,100 3.5 118,029 2.4 283,269 

Camp-In 9.5% 375,382 1.3 288,756 3.5 82,502 2.8 231,005 

Motel-Out 36.5% 1,442,258 1.7 848,387 3.1 273,673 2.2 602,081 

Camp-Out 4.0% 158,056 1.9 83,187 3.8 21,891 3.1 67,863 

Other Overnight 10.5% 414,896 1.4 296,354 2.8 105,841 2.5 264,602 

Totals 100.0% 3,951,393 2,935,594 954,622 1,801,506 

a Findings from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results as reported in Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local Economy: 

Yosemite National Park, 2009, February, 2011 

SOURCE: As noted, with Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

The MGM2 model first calculates total visitor spending as presented in table 9-173. Within a 50-mile 

radius of the park, Yosemite visitors spent over $381 million measured in 2010 dollars for the baseline 

visitor year. This is a measure of the most directly observable socioeconomic impact visitors have on 

the region before estimating multiplier effects. 

TABLE 9-173: VISITOR GROUPS AND THEIR TOTAL SPENDING BY MARKET SEGMENT FOR THE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE

Segment 

Visits in PartyDays/Nights Average 

Spending ($) 

Total Spending 

in 2010 $1,000s 

Percent of 

Spending 

Local-Day User 65,312 $74.64 $4,875 1% 

Non-Local-Day User 287,374 $86.71 $24,917 7% 

Motel-In 283,269 $371.17 $105,142 28% 

Camp-In 231,005 $170.02 $39,276 10% 

Motel-Out 602,081 $312.95 $188,424 49% 

Camp-Out 67,863 $130.81 $8,877 2% 

Other Overnight 264,602 $37.54 $9,933 3% 

Totals 1,801,506 $211.74 $381,444 100% 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 1 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1079

Table 9-174 presents the output of the MGM2 modeling for Alternative 1. Visitor spending generates 

over 5,300 jobs and over a quarter billion dollars in value added for the four-county region. Value 

added is technically the sum of labor income, profits and rents, and indirect business taxes, and serves 

as the best overall measure of the total socioeconomic significance of visitor spending within the fourcounty study region. 

TABLE 9-174: TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (FOUR COUNTY REGION) DUE TO VISITOR SPENDING FOR

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Sector/Spending Category Sales $1,000s Jobs 

Labor Income 

$1,000s 

Value Added 

$1,000s 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel, cabin, transient 

rental, or B&B 

$148,186 1,409 $39,236 $84,127 

Camping fees $11,168 145 $3,508 $5,066 

Restaurants & bars $63,385 1,098 $21,287 $34,596 

Admissions & fees $39,551 705 $10,618 $23,671 

Local transportation $23,545 495 $11,866 $18,020 

Grocery stores $6,855 103 $3,441 $5,004 

Gas stations $8,631 47 $4,323 $6,420 

Other retail $14,907 261 $6,876 $11,206 

Wholesale trade $1,510 10 $530 $1,123 

Local Production of goods $189 1 $27 $75 

Total Direct Effects $317,926 4,274 $101,712 $189,308 

Indirect and Induced Effects $125,729 1,083 $36,317 $76,447 

Total Effects $443,655 5,357 $138,029 $265,754 

Multiplier 1.40 1.25 1.36 1.40 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

Ongoing NPS Spending 

Visitor spending accounts for the majority of economic activity, but direct spending by the NPS, through 

its operating budget, payroll/staffing, and capital projects, also generates economic activity in the fourcounty study area. Table 9-175 analyzes the economic effects of the NPS payroll and employment 

within the four-county region. Although the NPS only supported 892 jobs directly from its payroll in 

2010, total job creation within the four-county economic region included another 294 induced jobs, for a 

total employment impact of almost 1,200. Similarly, the $49 million NPS payroll generated over 

$63 million in economic value to the surrounding economy. 

For the No Action Alternative it is also necessary to account for the portion of the Yosemite National 

Park budget that goes to purposes other than direct employee compensation. As was discussed in the 

methodology section, over the last five years this spending has averaged approximately $40 million per 

year. Table 9-176 presents an analysis of the regional impact of that spending, starting with the 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1080 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-175: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PAYROLL AND EMPLOYMENT

Yosemite National Park 

Direct 

Effects 

Economic 

Multipliersa

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Total of Direct, 

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Employment 

National Park Service Jobs 892 1.33 294 1,186 

Labor Income 

NPS Payrollb 

Salaries $1,000s $39,283 

Benefits $1,000s $10,123 

Total Compensation $49,406 1.15 $7,643 $57,049 

Value Added 

Total Compensation $49,406 1.29 $14,155 $63,561 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

a Multipliers are from IMPLAN sector 439, federal government/nonmilitary employment and payroll. 

b As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

TABLE 9-176: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE NON-PAYROLL PORTION OF THE NPS BUDGET IN THE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE

Spending by Sector 

Average 

Annual Budget Value Added Employment 

Assumed 

Percent (Millions $) Multipliera (Millions $)

Multiplier 

(Jobs/ 

$ million)b

No. of 

Jobs 

Construction Sector 80% $32.0 0.66 $21.1 10.93 231 

Professional Services 20% $8.0 0.81 $6.5 19.42 126 

Total 100% $40.0 $27.6 357 

a Multipliers are averages of IMPLAN sectors 34 and 36, and 369 and 375. 

b Employment multipliers are number of jobs per million dollars of value added in the region. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants analysis 

assumption that approximately 80% goes into the construction sector and 20% into such professional 

services as architecture, engineering, environmental and other technical consulting services. Not all of 

the NPS spending on contractor activities is captured within the four-county region because some firms 

are from beyond this area, resulting in multipliers that are less than 1.00. Including the direct, indirect 

and induced effects on value added, however, the majority stays within the region and supports the 

equivalent of approximately 357 additional jobs in the four counties. 

It is assumed that a comparable average annual spending of approximately $40 million will continue to 

occur in all of the action alternatives in order to maintain the park’s facilities and infrastructure over the 

long run. As such there will be no differential impact between alternatives from this activity. On the other 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 1 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1081

hand, there will be different one-time costs to modify facilities and infrastructure to implement each 

alternative, and those impacts will be discussed below for each alternative. 

Note that some projects have been undertaken by park partners in the past, which in theory would have 

added more spending and employment to what is formally in the NPS budget. Future actions of park 

partners, however, are expected to be independent of which management alternative NPS selects for the 

Merced River, and thus would be the same for all alternatives. As such, there is no need to treat them 

further in this analysis. 

Also note that all concessioner employment is supported by concessioner revenues derived from visitor 

spending in concessioner operated facilities. In other words, all concessioner socioeconomic impacts are 

included in the analysis of visitor spending above. 

Summary of Impacts Under Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Current trends would be expected to continue under Alternative 1. These trends include full occupancy of 

lodging and day parking in the park during peak use periods, which implies there is additional demand for 

visits to the park that is currently being unmet, and would continue to be unmet during peak periods in the 

future. Some of that unmet demand may increase the demand for visitor services in gateway communities. 

Cumulative socioeconomic impacts are derived from changes in the visitor recreation experience and 

are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region 

(local and regional) in combination with potential effects of each alternative. Actions evaluated include 

primarily those that could affect the level of visitation parkwide and/or the amount of spending by 

visitors to Yosemite National Park. In addition, changes to NPS staffing levels, operating budget 

outlays, or capital projects that could affect the economy in the four-county region containing the park 

are also evaluated. 

Past Actions 

Today’s mix of facilities and infrastructure to accommodate visitors in the park and the attractiveness of 

the recreational activities available has essentially been created by the cumulative effects of past actions. 

The more people that visit the park, and the longer they stay in the four-county region, the more likely 

they are to spend money, which benefits the regional economy. Past actions that have generally resulted in 

beneficial socioeconomic effects are those that enhance the visitor experience or provide better 

transportation infrastructure. Past actions generating beneficial socioeconomic effects include El Portal 

Road Improvement Project, Rehabilitate Yosemite Valley Campground Restrooms, Yosemite Valley 

Shuttle Bus Procurement, Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements, Wawona Road Rehabilitation 

Project, and the Lower Yosemite Fall Project. Such projects help to incrementally accommodate high 

volumes of visitors, to satisfy strong demand and visitor spending is a resulting consequence. 

The Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan is an example of an action that has reduced access for some 

visitors and improved the experience for other visitors. In economic terms, such actions have the 

potential to reduce the number of visitors but increase the “willingness to pay” or strength of demand 

among those who remain. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1082 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

However, other past actions (or inactions after natural events) have had adverse impacts on the size of 

the regional economy by reducing overnight lodging and camping facilities in Yosemite Valley. Major 

examples include: 

 1997 Flood – The Park sustained heavy impacts to campgrounds, roads, and lodging. The 

subsequent closure of the Upper & Lower River Campgrounds resulted in the loss of 376 

campsites, and approximately one-half of the units at the Yosemite Lodge (there had been 

440 units, which decreased to approximately 245). The El Portal Road was under construction 

for a year (which had regional impacts to Mariposa County from pass through visitors). 

 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan – The mandatory mass transit element proposed in the YVP to this 

day causes confusion among potential visitors and may be affecting visitation. 

 2006 Ferguson Rockslide – This had an adverse effect on parts of the regional economy, 

primarily the Mariposa area, when Highway 140 was closed for approximately 6 months 

(during the summer of 2006) for road repairs; however Groveland and Oakhurst benefited 

from traffic rerouting through those gateways. 

 2008 Rock falls in Curry Village – Approximately one-third of the overnight accommodations 

were lost due to the establishment of a rockfall hazard zone. This had an effect on both the 

concessioner and Mariposa County in terms of TOT. However, a portion of the 

accommodations were re-established in Boys Town – a.k.a. the “signature tents.” 

 2012 Hanta virus in Curry Village – Not only has this situation caused a decline in stays at 

Curry Village, there have been thousands of systemic cancelations parkwide as a result. 

Decisions not to immediately replace units lost through natural disasters have exacerbated a shortage 

of accommodations during periods of high demand and thus reduced the amount of economic activity 

attainable during peak periods. 

Present Actions 

Similar to past actions, some present actions may result in beneficial socioeconomic effects by 

improving visitor access, providing recreational opportunities, or adding facilities that offer 

educational and cultural experiences. Specific examples of present actions that have beneficial effects 

on socioeconomics include the following: 

Improved Facilities: Ahwahnee Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan, Rehabilitate Wawona Road, 

Tioga Road Rehabilitations, and Tioga Road Corridor Campground Accessibility Improvements 

Opportunities for Unique Recreational Experiences: Commercial Use Authorization for 

Commercial Activities 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Future actions could have both beneficial and adverse socioeconomic effects. Parkwide visitation may 

be affected to some degree by the Tuolumne River Plan once the Record of Decision is reached and 

the plan implemented. Future natural events may also have an impact, with weather, waterfall volumes, 

forest fires and other events affecting visitation. Demand for visits to the park will also likely evolve in 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 1 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1083

the future due to changing demographics of visitors to Yosemite. New facilities planned for the 

reasonably foreseeable future can also affect visitation and include: 

New Visitor Facilities: Wahhoga Indian Cultural Center and Henness Ridge Environmental 

Education Center 

Overall Cumulative Impact 

Future management of Yosemite National Park, particularly areas within or near the Merced River 

corridor, could result in either beneficial or adverse effects on total economic activity within the fourcounty region as described above. The socioeconomic impacts of the future management plans 

embodied in Alternatives 2–6 will be estimated by examining their differences between them and 

Alternative 1. Except as modified by present and reasonably foreseeable future actions already 

planned, Alternative 1 would essentially leave conditions as they exist today. Alternative 1 would not 

meaningfully expand the inventory of camping and overnight lodging opportunities in Yosemite 

National Park. Although this would not have a cumulatively additive effect compared with current 

conditions, it would when compared with conditions at the time of designation (1987) and would 

represent a continued reduction in camping opportunities. 

The overall cumulative effect of Alternative 1 would be that visitation is likely to continue to grow at an 

average rate of approximately 3% per year in the near term (i.e., the next five years). Without new 

accommodations in Yosemite Valley, growth could occur during peak periods if people substitute 

accommodations outside the park for preferred in-park camping and lodging. Growth could also occur if 

the numbers of visitors increases during nonpeak periods. Current total annual visitation is near the 

historic high of approximately 4 million visitors, though visitor volumes have ranged as low as 3.2 million 

over the last decade, and the 10-year average is 3.5 million per year. The baseline year in Alternative 1 of 

3.95 million is very close to the highest visitation ever experienced. Based on these considerations, the 

cumulative economic impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when combined 

with those of Alternative 1, would be regional, long term, negligible, and beneficial. 

Environmental Consequences to Actions Common to Alternatives 2–6 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

Changes in management policies can have impacts on the regional economy that will follow effects 

commonly observed in market economies. A general qualitative description of some of the more 

common effects includes the following: 

 For people seeking a visitor experience that includes more than just a daytrip to the park, 

demand for overnight accommodations tends to focus on Yosemite Valley first and then 

radiate outwards, filling motels and campgrounds in gateway communities and beyond as 

those closer fill up. Restriction on supply of accommodations in the park can increase demand 

outside, and building new campsites or lodging units in the park can decrease demand for 

accommodations in gateway communities. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1084 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

 Due to the substitution effect described above, some people seeking an overnight experience 

in the park but unable to secure accommodations may be willing to substitute a lodging unit in 

a gateway community for their preferred unit in the Valley, and effectively become repeat day 

visitors to the park. Their willingness to move to a gateway location would depend in part, 

however, on their certainty of being able to access the park on a day use basis. A day-use 

reservation system that assures them that they will have access to the park, even if they are not 

staying in it, may increase demand for lodging in gateway communities. 

 Due to the displacement, or time-shift, effect described above, some people unable to find 

accommodations in peak seasons may reschedule a planned visit to the park for a lower 

demand season. But because weather can be less predictable in the shoulder seasons, not all 

types of accommodations are conducive to this type of time shifting. While hard-sided cabin 

units may be able to accommodate travelers year round, camping and tent accommodations 

may not work as well in shoulder seasons. 

 The single private business most heavily impacted by Alternatives 2–6 within the park would 

be the concessioner. A reduction in the inventory of lodging, or in the commercial recreational 

activities allowed, would decrease concessioner revenues and ultimately reduce the number of 

concessioner employees needed. With fewer supplies needed and with less employee spending 

coming out of the park, there would be further reductions through the multiplier effects to the 

size of the four-county regional economy. But at the same time demand that can no longer be 

satisfied within the park may shift outside to gateway communities to some extent. This may 

create new business opportunities there, which would also have multiplier effects that expand 

the regional economy. The net effects would likely be less dire than the adverse impacts 

estimated when looking at the concessioner and park alone. 

 The existing concessioner is on a short-term extension of an older contract during the study 

process now underway. Once a management alternative is selected, and the framework for a 

new concession operation is established, a new concession contract would be executed. The 

standard NPS process requires that the new agreement represent a viable business, even if it is 

dramatically different than the business operation that was in place before. In other words, 

within the park there would be a one-time change to the business model for the concession 

operation that is agreeable to all parties. To the extent that the new concession business is 

smaller than what was there before, additional private business opportunities may be created 

outside the park. 

 Each action alternative includes a set of project elements that would restore specific areas or 

construct and rehabilitate facilities to support visitor use. One-time spending on these capital 

projects would temporarily employ people in the construction industry within the four-county 

region. Some specialized construction skills and materials may be imported from beyond the 

adjacent four counties, but these projects would generate some new income for residents of 

the region, and the respending of that income would ripple outwards and further expand the 

economy of the region. The one-time beneficial impacts of construction would subside once 

the set of projects is fully implemented. 

In terms of specific quantitative impacts created by the primary drivers of socioeconomics—spending 

by visitors and the NPS—each action alternative would have a unique impact, and no impacts would 

be common to all alternatives. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Actions Common to Alternatives 2–6 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1085

Spending by park partners is assumed to be independent from NPS management decisions and 

constant across all alternatives. Because the incremental difference between Alternative 1 and 

Alternatives 2–6 is zero in all cases, park partner activities are not analyzed further below. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2: Self-reliant Visitor Experiences and 

Extensive Floodplain Restoration 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

Alternative 2 would create the greatest reduction in lodging units among Alternatives 2–6, with 43% 

fewer units than under Alternative 1. Camping spaces in Yosemite Valley would be slightly reduced, by 

about 3%. The peak day-use parking and transportation infrastructure in Yosemite Valley would be 

reduced by 37%. As a result, total annual visitation under Alternative 2 would be a reduction to 

approximately 3.6 million visitors per year. Table 9-177 applies results of the VSP survey findings to 

translate that total annual visitation estimate into visitor groups by market segment, which is necessary 

for input to the economic models. 

TABLE 9-177: ALTERNATIVE 2 — ANALYSIS OF TOTAL VISITATION BY MARKET SEGMENT

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Share of Park 

Entriesa

Calculated 

Distribution 

of Visitors 

Re-Entry 

Ratea

Visitor Trips 

to the Park 

Ave. 

Group 

Size 

Visitor 

Groups 

Length of 

Stay 

(Nights or 

Days)a

Visits in 

Party-Days 

/ Nights 

Total Visitors: 

Alt. 2 3,644,879 

Local-Day User 4.0% 145,795 1.1 132,541 2.2 60,246 1.0 60,246 

Non-Local-Day 

User 

24.0% 874,771 1.1 795,246 3.0 265,082 1.0 265,082 

Motel-In 11.5% 419,161 1.1 381,056 3.5 108,873 2.4 261,295 

Camp-In 9.5% 346,264 1.3 266,357 3.5 76,102 2.8 213,085 

Motel-Out 36.5% 1,330,381 1.7 782,577 3.1 252,444 2.2 555,377 

Camp-Out 4.0% 145,795 1.9 76,734 3.8 20,193 3.1 62,599 

Other Overnight 10.5% 382,712 1.4 273,366 2.8 97,631 2.5 244,077 

Totals 100.0% 3,644,879 2,707,877 880,571 1,661,761

a Findings from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results as reported in Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local 

Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009, February, 2011 

SOURCE: As noted, with Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

Table 9-178 summarizes total spending derived from the level of visitation produced by analysis of the 

full pattern of spending within the MGM2 model. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1086 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-178: ALTERNATIVE 2 — VISITOR GROUPS AND TOTAL SPENDING BY MARKET SEGMENT

Market Segment 

Visits in PartyDays/Nights Average 

Spending ($) 

Total Spending 

in 2010 $000s 

Percent of 

Spending 

Local-Day User 60,246 $74.64 $4,497 1% 

Non-Local-Day User 265,082 $86.71 $22,985 7% 

Motel-In 261,295 $371.17 $96,986 28% 

Camp-In 213,085 $170.02 $36,229 10% 

Motel-Out 555,377 $312.95 $173,807 49% 

Camp-Out 62,599 $130.81 $8,188 2% 

Other Overnight 244,077 $37.54 $9,163 3% 

Totals 1,661,761 $211.74 $351,855 100% 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

The MGM2 model also estimates total economic activity in terms of job creation, income to workers, 

and value added to the four-county regional economy, as presented in table 9-179. Table 9-179 

summarizes the total economic activity associated with visitor spending for Alternative 2. Table 9-180 

calculates the economic impacts of NPS spending. 

TABLE 9-179: ALTERNATIVE 2 — TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY DUE TO VISITOR SPENDING (FOUR COUNTY REGION) 

Sector/Spending Category 

Sales 

$000s Jobs 

Labor Income 

$000s 

Value Added 

$000s 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel cabin, transient 

rental, or B&B 

$136,691 1,299 $36,193 $77,601 

Camping fees $10,302 134 $3,236 $4,673 

Restaurants & bars $58,468 1,013 $19,636 $31,913 

Admissions & fees $36,483 650 $9,794 $21,835 

Local transportation $21,718 456 $10,946 $16,622 

Grocery stores $6,323 95 $3,174 $4,616 

Gas stations $7,961 44 $3,988 $5,922 

Other retail $13,750 241 $6,343 $10,337 

Wholesale trade $1,393 9 $489 $1,036 

Local Production of goods $174 1 $25 $69 

Total Direct Effects $293,264 3,943 $93,822 $174,623 

Indirect and Induced Effects $115,976 999 $33,500 $70,517 

Total Effects $409,240 4,941 $127,322 $245,139 

Multiplier 1.40 1.25 1.36 1.40 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 2 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1087

TABLE 9-180: ALTERNATIVE 2 — ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPENDING

Yosemite National Park 

Direct 

Effects 

Economic 

Multipliersa

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Total of Direct, 

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Employment 

National Park Service Jobsb 862 1.33 284 1,146 

Labor Income 

NPS Payrollb 

Salaries $000's $37,942 

Benefits $000's $9,777 

Total Compensation $47,720 1.15 $7,383 $55,102 

Value Added 

Total Compensation $47,720 1.29 $13,672 $61,392 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

a Multipliers are from IMPLAN sector 439, federal government/nonmilitary employment and payroll. 

b As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

Summary of Impacts from Alternative 2: Self-reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive 

Floodplain Restoration 

The measure of Alternative 2’s socioeconomic impact is the degree to which it differs from Alternative 1. 

Employment has been adopted as the single best indicator of relative economic impact. The number of 

jobs would be roughly proportional to other possible measures of socioeconomic impact, such as the 

impact on personal income (which is the wage and salary income associated with jobs) or the impact on 

total value added within the regional economy (which, as described under Alternative 1, is technically the 

sum of labor income, profits and rents, and indirect business taxes). The difference in jobs supported 

under Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 is presented in table 9-181, with a detailed breakout by industrial 

sector within the four-county regional economy. Alternative 2, with its mix of reduced overnight lodging 

facilities and day use infrastructure, would support 517 fewer jobs than Alternative 1. 

The adverse impacts of Alternative 2 might not be as intense as indicated by the job reduction 

calculated above. As described in the “Environmental Consequences Methodology” section, 

substitution and time-shift effects could offset some of the visitation displaced during peak times and 

seasons and soften ore even negate the economic impact portrayed here. In the context of total 

employment within the four-county region, Alternative 2 would support 456 fewer jobs than 

Alternative 1, and because it would be less than 2.5% fewer jobs the impact would be regional, long 

term, negligible, and adverse (see table 9-182). 

Job reduction would be more substantial in specific industry sectors within the four-county region, 

however. In the lodging industry alone, the reduction in jobs resulting from Alternative 2 would be a longterm, minor, adverse impact. However, to the extent that hotel and motel occupancy increases in gateway 

communities as a result of the Alternative 2 reduction in Yosemite Valley accommodations, some or all of 

the adverse impact could be compensated. Similarly, to the extent that overnight visitors to Yosemite 

Valley are displaced but shift their visits to a different time, the adverse impact could be mitigated. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1088 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-181: ALTERNATIVE 2 — IMPACT ON JOBS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR (FOUR COUNTY REGION) 

Sector/Spending Category 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 1 

(No Action) 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 2 

Difference 

in Jobs 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel cabin, or B&B 1,409 1,299 (109) 

Camping fees 145 134 (11) 

Restaurants & bars 1,098 1,013 (85) 

Admissions & fees 705 650 (55) 

Local transportation 495 456 (38) 

Grocery stores 103 95 (8) 

Gas stations 47 44 (4) 

Other retail 261 241 (20) 

Wholesale trade 10 9 (1) 

Local Production of goods 1 1 (0) 

Total Direct Effects 4,274 3,943 (332) 

Indirect and Induced Effects 1,083 999 (84) 

Total Effects of Visitor Spending 5,357 4,941 (416) 

National Park Service Total Employment Effects 1,186 1,146 (40) 

Total Job Creation in Four Counties 6,543 6,087 (456) 

SOURCE: MGM2 model, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

TABLE 9-182: ALTERNATIVE 2 – CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE

Industry Sector 

Total Jobs 

in the 

4-County 

Region 

Alt. 2: Net 

Impact on 

Jobs 

Impact as 

% of Total 

Characterization of 

Impact Significance 

Total Impacts (including Indirect & 

Induced Effects) 102,273 (456) -0.4% Negligible Adverse 

Direct Impacts on Specific Sectorsa

Agriculture 13,619 0 0.0% No Impact 

Mining 310 0 0.0% No Impact 

Construction 5,115 0 0.0% No Impact 

Manufacturing 4,043 0 0.0% No Impact 

Transportation (and Public Utilities) 2,074 (38) -1.9% Negligible Adverse 

Retail Stores (and Wholesale Trade) 10,314 (33) -0.3% Negligible Adverse 

Lodging Industry 3,637 (121) -3.3% Minor Adverse 

Restaurants and Bars 5,887 (85) -1.4% Negligible Adverse 

All Other Service Industries 36,446 (55) -0.2% Negligible Adverse 

Government (Local, State, & Fed.) 20,828 (40) -0.2% Negligible Adverse 

a Indirect and induced effects would be spread throughout all the sectors of the economy and would have a negligible impact. 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 2 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1089

For the Restaurant and Bar sector of the regional economy, the long-term, adverse impact on jobs 

would be negligible in intensity. The intensity could be reduced by substitution and time-shift effects 

that maintain volumes of visitors and spending. 

Within the four-county regional economy, the single business in the Lodging and Restaurant sectors 

most affected by Alternative 2 would be the concessioner within the park. This would also constitute 

the one impact felt in the local context of the park, and a 43% reduction in lodging would no doubt be 

seen as a noticeable adverse impact by the existing concessioner. In the long term, however, a new 

concession agreement would result from the issuance of a Contract Prospectus describing the business 

opportunity offered under the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). 

Prior to issuing a prospectus to the public, the NPS must determine that a financially feasible business 

opportunity exists that would mitigate this local impact by realigning the financial performance 

expectations of the concessioner with the new facilities and infrastructure to support commercial 

visitor service in the park. 

In the Transportation sector of the regional economy, the long-term, adverse impact on jobs would be 

negligible in intensity. Note, however, that in addition to the potential mitigating substitution and 

time-shift effects, the more intensive transportation management efforts under Alternative 2 might 

require additional staffing for regional public transportation systems and for traffic and parking 

management in the park. 

Just as impacts are felt with different intensities in different sectors of the economy, intensities of 

impacts would also vary geographically within the four-county regional economy. In the smaller 

counties of Mariposa and Mono, where the Leisure and Hospitality sector comprises a third to half of 

all jobs, impacts derived from visitor spending would be more noticeable than in the larger and more 

diversified economies of Madera and Tuolumne counties. Within counties, gateway communities 

would experience impacts more intensely than larger and more distant cities that have more diversity 

in their economic support. 

Mariposa County, and the gateway community of Mariposa within it, are likely to be the most 

noticeably impacted geographic areas because they combine both dependency on tourism industry 

spending and proximity to the park. A fiscal connection also exists because concessioner lodging in 

Yosemite Valley lies within Mariposa County, which receives the transient occupancy tax revenue 

collected there. El Portal Administrative Site falls within Mariposa County. Mariposa is further 

impacted because it is the closest place for park and concessioner employees to live who do not have 

housing within the park. Changes in the park workforce living in Mariposa County could cause 

increases or decreases in demand for county services and affect county revenues. Changes in the 

park workforce could also change school enrollment, affecting both costs and revenues for local 

schools. 

The maximum fiscal impact of Alternative 2 on Mariposa County could include a reduction of 

$716,000 in TOT revenue, based on the 10% tax rate and the difference in spending between 

Alternatives 1 and 2 for all types of lodging, both inside and outside the park. This would be equivalent 

to a 1.7% reduction in General Fund revenue for the county. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1090 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

In addition to the ongoing socioeconomic impacts analyzed above, there would be one-time impacts 

generated by NPS spending on construction and restoration projects to implement Alternative 2, 

estimated to cost a total of $168 million. If these implementation projects took place evenly over a 

five-year period, the $34 million per year would be equal to a 4.7% increase in Construction sector 

output within the region (table 9-124). This impact on the Construction sector would be regional, 

short term, minor, and beneficial. If the implementation were spread evenly over a longer period of 

20 years, the intensity of the impact would drop to negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 2 

Past Actions 

Past actions would affect Alternative 2 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Present Actions 

Present actions would affect Alternative 2 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

For socioeconomic impacts, the cumulatively considerable factors would be the same as those 

described above for Alternative 1. These would include the effects of private decisions made in the 

gateway communities and elsewhere in the four-county region, as well as those of public decisions in 

the region and within the park. Over the long run, one of the most functional features of market 

economies is that they trend toward self-correction. If public management actions reduce the supply 

of lodging and other commercial amenities within the park, demand pressures may build to the point 

that private interests may expand supply in surrounding areas by developing additional lodging, 

restaurants, and other facilities. These effects are likely to be strongest in areas closest to the park, and 

due to its proximity Mariposa County could be a beneficiary of this additional market demand. 

Specific present actions that could facilitate the capture of additional development include 

 Mariposa County General Plan Housing Element Update 

 Mariposa County General Plan (Update) 

Short of new construction, additional demand may be satisfied by increasing hours and seasons of 

operations, adding additional staff, and other business operating responses to expand capacities in 

gateway communities. In the short run, management policies within the park can alter the flow of 

visitors and shift the mix of overnight and day visitors, but in the long run market adaptations can 

continue to increase the annual volumes of people visiting the park. Based on these considerations, the 

cumulative economic impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when 

combined with those of Alternative 2, would be regional, long term, negligible, and adverse. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 2 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1091

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources for Alternative 2 

For the most part, socioeconomic actions are reversible in the sense that markets adapt to changing 

circumstances and public policies can change strategies over time. On the other hand, 

the implementation of Alternative 2 would require the one-time expenditure of approximately 

$168 million to implement the various actions proposed. Once expended, those financial resources 

would no longer be available for other possible uses, and relatively permanent changes to facilities and 

infrastructure in the park would have been made. Physical changes made for Alternative 2 may be 

reversed in the future, but additional financial resources would be required to do so. 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity for Alternative 2 

Construction and restoration projects to implement Alternative 2 would create short-term disruptions 

to visitor use patterns during construction. There would also be a short-term, one-time change to the 

business model for the concessioner in the park, with a new concession agreement put in place to be 

consistent with the objectives and scale of facilities produced by Alternative 2. In the long term, a new 

pattern of economic flows in the region would emerge that would supply visitor services to meet the 

new level of visitor demand. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experiences and 

Extensive Riverbank Restoration 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

Alternative 3 would create the second largest reduction in lodging units, with 38% fewer units than 

under Alternative 1. The inventory of camping spaces in Yosemite Valley would increase slightly, by 

about 2%. The day use infrastructure in the Valley would see the largest reduction of all the 

alternatives, by 44%. As a result, total annual visitation under Alternative 3 would be a reduction to 

3.6 million visitors per year. Table 9-183 applies results of the VSP survey findings to translate that 

total annual visitation estimate into visitor groups by market segment, which is necessary for input to 

the economic models. 

Table 9-184 summarizes total spending derived from the level of visitation produced by analysis of 

the full pattern of spending within the MGM2 model. The MGM2 model also estimates total 

economic activity in terms of job creation, income to workers, and value added to the four-county 

regional economy, as presented in table 9-185. Table 9-186 calculates economic impacts of NPS 

spending.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1092 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-183: ALTERNATIVE 3 — ANALYSIS OF TOTAL VISITATION BY MARKET SEGMENT

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Visitor 

Market 

Segment 

Share of 

Park Entriesa

Calculated 

Distribution 

of Visitors 

ReEntry 

Ratea

Visitor 

Trips to 

the Park 

Ave. 

Group 

Sizea

Visitor 

Groups 

Length 

of Stay 

(Nights 

or Days)a

Visits in 

PartyDays / 

Nights 

Total Visitors: 

Alt. 3 3,585,536 

Local-Day User 4.0% 143,421 1.1 130,383 2.2 59,265 1.0 59,265 

Non-Local-Day 

User 24.0% 

860,529 1.1 782,299 3.0 260,766 1.0 260,766 

Motel-In 11.5% 412,337 1.1 374,851 3.5 107,100 2.4 257,041 

Camp-In 9.5% 340,626 1.3 262,020 3.5 74,863 2.8 209,616 

Motel-Out 36.5% 1,308,721 1.7 769,836 3.1 248,334 2.2 546,335 

Camp-Out 4.0% 143,421 1.9 75,485 3.8 19,864 3.1 61,580 

Other Overnight 10.5% 376,481 1.4 268,915 2.8 96,041 2.5 240,103 

Totals 100.0% 3,585,536 2,663,789 866,234 1,634,706 

a Findings from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results as reported in Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local 

Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009, February, 2011 

SOURCE: As noted, with Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

TABLE 9-184: ALTERNATIVE 3 – VISITOR GROUPS AND TOTAL SPENDING BY MARKET SEGMENT

Market Segment 

Visits in PartyDays/Nights Average 

Spending ($) 

Total Spending 

in 2010 $000s 

Percent of 

Spending 

Local-Day User 59,265 $74.64 $4,423 1% 

Non-Local-Day User 260,766 $86.71 $22,610 7% 

Motel-In 257,041 $371.17 $95,407 28% 

Camp-In 209,616 $170.02 $35,640 10% 

Motel-Out 546,335 $312.95 $170,978 49% 

Camp-Out 61,580 $130.81 $8,055 2% 

Other Overnight 240,103 $37.54 $9,014 3% 

Totals 1,634,706 $211.74 $346,127 100% 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 3 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1093

TABLE 9-185: ALTERNATIVE 3 — TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY DUE TO VISITOR SPENDING

Sector/Spending Category 

Sales 

$000s Jobs 

Labor Income 

$000s 

Value Added 

$000s 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel cabin, transient 

rental, or B&B 

$134,466 1,278 $35,603 $76,338 

Camping fees $10,134 132 $3,184 $4,597 

Restaurants & bars $57,516 996 $19,316 $31,393 

Admissions & fees $35,889 640 $9,634 $21,479 

Local transportation $21,365 449 $10,768 $16,351 

Grocery stores $6,220 94 $3,122 $4,541 

Gas stations $7,832 43 $3,923 $5,825 

Other retail $13,527 237 $6,239 $10,169 

Wholesale trade $1,370 9 $481 $1,019 

Local Production of goods $171 1 $25 $68 

Total Direct Effects $288,489 3,878 $92,295 $171,780 

Indirect and Induced Effects $114,088 982 $32,955 $69,368 

Total Effects $402,577 4,861 $125,249 $241,148 

Multiplier 1.40 1.25 1.36 1.40 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

TABLE 9-186: ALTERNATIVE 3 — ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPENDING

Yosemite National Park 

Direct 

Effects 

Economic 

Multipliersa

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Total of Direct, 

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Employment 

National Park Service Jobsb 856 1.33 282 1,138 

Labor Income 

NPS Payrollb 

Salaries $000s $37,683 

Benefits $000s $9,711 

Total Compensation $47,393 1.15 $7,332 $54,725 

Value Added 

Total Compensation $47,393 1.29 $13,579 $60,972 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

a Multipliers are from IMPLAN sector 439, federal government/nonmilitary employment and payroll. 

b As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1094 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Summary of Impacts from Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experiences and Extensive 

Riverbank Restoration 

The difference in jobs supported under Alternative 3 and Alternative 1 is presented in table 9-187,

with a detailed breakout by industrial sector within the four-county regional economy. Alternative 3, 

with its smaller inventory of overnight lodging facilities and reduced day use infrastructure, would 

support 544 fewer jobs than Alternative 1 (No Action). Similarly to Alternative 2, the adverse impacts 

of Alternative 3 might not be as intense as indicated by the job reduction calculated above due to 

substitution and time-shift effects. In the context of total employment within the four-county region, 

the reduction in jobs resulting from Alternative 3 would be a long-term, adverse impact, but because at 

-0.5% it is less than the -2.5% threshold for minor, it would be negligible in intensity (see table 9-188). 

For specific industry sectors within the four-county region, however, the job reduction would be more 

significant. In the lodging industry alone, the reduction in jobs resulting from Alternative 3 would be a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact. As noted above, to the extent that hotel and motel occupancies increase 

in gateway communities as a result of the Alternative 3 reduction in Yosemite Valley accommodations, 

some or all of the adverse impact could be mitigated. Similarly, to the extent that overnight visitors to the 

Valley are displaced but shift their visits to a different time, the adverse impact could be mitigated. 

In the Restaurant and Bar sector of the regional economy, the long-term, adverse impact on jobs 

would be negligible in intensity. The intensity could be reduced by substitution and time-shift effects 

that maintain volumes of visitors and spending. 

Within the four-county regional economy, the single business in the Lodging and Restaurant sectors 

most affected by Alternative 3 would be the concessioner within the park. This would also constitute 

the one impact felt in the local context of the park, and a 36% reduction in lodging would no doubt be 

seen as a noticeable adverse impact by the existing concessioner. In the long term, however, a new 

concession agreement would result from the issuance of a Contract Prospectus describing the business 

opportunity offered under the CMP. Prior to issuing a Prospectus to the public, the NPS must 

determine that a financially feasible business opportunity exists that would mitigate this local impact 

by realigning the financial performance expectations of the concessioner with the new opportunity for 

commercial visitor service in the park. 

In the Transportation sector of the regional economy, the long-term, adverse impact on jobs would be 

negligible in intensity. Note, however, that in addition to the potential mitigating substitution and 

time-shift effects, the more intensive transportation management efforts under Alternative 3 might 

require additional staffing for regional public transportation systems and for traffic and parking 

management in the park. 

Just as impacts are felt with different intensities in different sectors of the economy, intensities of 

impacts would also vary geographically within the four-county regional economy. In the smaller 

counties of Mariposa and Mono, where the Leisure and Hospitality sector comprises a third to half of 

all jobs, impacts derived from visitor spending would be more noticeable than in the larger and more 

diversified economies of Madera and Tuolumne counties. Within counties, gateway communities 

would experience impacts more intensely than larger and more distant cities that have more diversity 

in their economic support. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 3 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1095

TABLE 9-187: ALTERNATIVE 3 — IMPACT ON JOBS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

Sector/Spending Category 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 1 (No Action) 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 3 

Difference in 

Jobs 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel, cabin, or B&B 1,409 1,278 (130) 

Camping fees 145 132 (13) 

Restaurants & bars 1,098 996 (102) 

Admissions & fees 705 640 (65) 

Local transportation 495 449 (46) 

Grocery stores 103 94 (10) 

Gas stations 47 43 (4) 

Other retail 261 237 (24) 

Wholesale trade 10 9 (1) 

Local Production of goods 1 1 (0) 

Total Direct Effects 4,274 3,878 (396) 

Indirect and Induced Effects 1,083 982 (100) 

Total Effects of Visitor Spending 5,357 4,861 (496) 

National Park Service Total 

Employment Effects 1,186 1,138 (48) 

Total Job Creation in Four Counties 6,543 5,999 (544) 

SOURCE: MGM2 model, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

TABLE 9-188: ALTERNATIVE 3 — CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE

Industry Sector 

Total Jobs 

in the 

4-County 

Region 

Alt. 3: Net 

Impact on 

Jobs 

Impact as 

% of 

Total 

Characterization of 

Impact Significance 

Total Impacts (including Indirect & 

Induced Effects) 102,273 (544) -0.5% Negligible Adverse 

Direct Impacts on Specific Sectorsa

Agriculture 13,619 0 0.0% No Impact 

Mining 310 0 0.0% No Impact 

Construction 5,115 0 0.0% No Impact 

Manufacturing 4,043 0 0.0% No Impact 

Transportation (and Public Utilities) 2,074 (46) -2.2% Negligible Adverse 

Retail Stores (and Wholesale Trade) 10,314 (39) -0.4% Negligible Adverse 

Lodging Industry 3,637 (144) -4.0% Minor Adverse 

Restaurants and Bars 5,887 (102) -1.7% Negligible Adverse 

All Other Service Industries 36,446 (65) -0.2% Negligible Adverse 

Government (Local, State, & Fed.) 20,828 (48) -0.2% Negligible Adverse 

a Indirect and induced effects would be spread throughout all sectors of the economy and would have a negligible impact. 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1096 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Mariposa County, and the gateway community of Mariposa within it, is likely to be the most 

noticeably impacted geographic areas because they combine both dependency on tourism industry 

spending and proximity to the park. There is also a fiscal connection in that the concessioner lodging 

in Yosemite Valley lies within Mariposa County, which receives the transient occupancy tax revenue 

collected there. El Portal Administrative Site falls within Mariposa County. Mariposa is further 

impacted because it is the closest place for park and concessioner employees to live who do not have 

housing within the park. Changes in the park workforce living in Mariposa County could cause 

increases or decreases in demand for county services and affect county revenues. Changes in park 

workforce could also change school enrollment, affecting both costs and revenues for local schools. 

The maximum fiscal impact of Alternative 3 on Mariposa County could include a reduction of 

$855,000 in TOT revenue, based on the 10% tax rate and the difference in spending between 

Alternatives 1 and 3 for all types of lodging, both inside and outside the park. This would be equivalent 

to a 2.0% reduction in General Fund revenue for the county. 

Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experiences and Extensive 

Riverbank Restoration 

Past Actions 

Past actions would affect Alternative 3 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Present Actions 

Present actions would affect Alternative 3 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

For socioeconomic impacts, the cumulatively considerable factors would be the same as those 

described above for Alternative 1. These would include the effects of private decisions made in the 

gateway communities and elsewhere in the four-county region, as well as those of public decisions in 

the region and within the park. Over the long run, one of the most functional features of market 

economies is that they trend toward self-correction. If public management actions reduce the supply 

of lodging and other commercial amenities within the park, demand pressures may build to the point 

that private interests may expand supply in surrounding areas by developing additional lodging, 

restaurants, and other facilities. These effects are likely to be strongest in areas closest to the park, and 

due to its proximity Mariposa County could be a beneficiary of this additional market demand. 

Specific present actions that could facilitate the capture of additional development include 

 Mariposa County General Plan Housing Element Update

 Mariposa County General Plan (Update) 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 3 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1097

Short of new construction, additional demand may be satisfied by increasing hours and seasons of 

operations, adding additional staff, and other business operating responses to expand capacities in 

gateway communities. In the short run, management policies within the park can alter the flow of 

visitors and shift the mix of overnight and day visitors, but in the long run market adaptations can 

continue to increase the annual volumes of people visiting the park. Based on these considerations, 

the cumulative economic impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when 

combined with those of Alternative 3, would be regional, long term, negligible, and adverse. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources for Alternative 3 

For the most part, socioeconomic actions are reversible in the sense that markets adapt to changing 

circumstances and public policies can change strategies over time. On the other hand, the 

implementation of Alternative 3 would require the one-time expenditure of approximately 

$147 million. Once expended, those financial resources would no longer be available for other possible 

uses, and relatively permanent changes to facilities and infrastructure in the park would have been 

made. Physical changes made under Alternative 3 may be reversed in the future, but additional 

financial resources would be required to do so. 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity for Alternative 3 

Construction and restoration projects to implement Alternative 3 would create short-term 

disruptions during construction, but would produce desired changes to the park over the long term. 

There would also be a short-term, one-time change to the business model for the concessioner in the 

park, with a new concession agreement put in place to be consistent with the objectives and scale of 

facilities produced under Alternative 3. In the long term, a new pattern of economic flows in the 

region would be likely to emerge that would supply visitor services to meet the new level of visitor 

demand. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4: Resource-based Visitor Experiences 

and Targeted Riverbank Restoration 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

Alternative 4 would create a reduction in lodging units, with 20% fewer units than under Alternative 1 

(No Action). On the other hand, the inventory of camping spaces in Yosemite Valley would increase 

by about 50%. The peak day-use infrastructure in the Valley would see a reduction of 29%. As a 

result, total annual visitation under Alternative 4 was a reduction to approximately 3.88 million 

visitors per year. Table 9-189 applies results of the VSP survey findings to translate that total annual 

visitation estimate into visitor groups by market segment, which is necessary for input to the economic 

models. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1098 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-189: ALTERNATIVE 4 — ANALYSIS OF TOTAL VISITATION BY MARKET SEGMENT

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Visitor 

Market 

Segment 

Share of 

Park Entriesa

Calculated 

Distribution 

of Visitors 

ReEntry 

Ratea

Visitor 

Trips to 

the Park 

Ave. 

Group 

Sizea

Visitor 

Groups 

Length 

of Stay 

(Nights 

or Days)a

Visits in 

PartyDays / 

Nights 

Total Visitors: 

Alt. 4 3,877,354 

Local-Day User 4.0% 155,094 1.1 140,995 2.2 64,088 1.0 64,088

Non-Local-Day 

User 24.0% 930,565 1.1 845,968 3.0 281,989 1.0 281,989 

Motel-In 11.5% 445,896 1.1 405,360 3.5 115,817 2.4 277,961

Camp-In 9.5% 368,349 1.3 283,345 3.5 80,956 2.8 226,676

Motel-Out 36.5% 1,415,234 1.7 832,491 3.1 268,545 2.2 590,800

Camp-Out 4.0% 155,094 1.9 81,629 3.8 21,481 3.1 66,592

Other Overnight 10.5% 407,122 1.4 290,802 2.8 103,858 2.5 259,644

Totals 100.0% 3,877,354 2,880,588 936,735 1,767,751

a Findings from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results as reported in Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local 

Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009, February, 2011 

SOURCE: As noted, with Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

Table 9-190 summarizes the total spending derived from the level of visitation produced by analysis of 

the full pattern of spending within the MGM2 model. The MGM2 model also estimates total 

economic activity in terms of job creation, income to workers, and value added to the four-county 

regional economy, as presented in table 9-191. Table 9-192 calculates the economic impacts of NPS 

spending. 

TABLE 9-190: ALTERNATIVE 4 — VISITOR GROUPS AND TOTAL SPENDING BY MARKET SEGMENT

Market Segment 

Visits in PartyDays/Nights Average 

Spending ($) 

Total Spending 

in 2010 $000s 

Percent of 

Spending 

Local-Day User 64,088 $74.64 $4,783 1% 

Non-Local-Day User 281,989 $86.71 $24,451 7% 

Motel-In 277,961 $371.17 $103,172 28% 

Camp-In 226,676 $170.02 $38,540 10% 

Motel-Out 590,800 $312.95 $184,893 49% 

Camp-Out 66,592 $130.81 $8,711 2% 

Other Overnight 259,644 $37.54 $9,747 3% 

Totals 1,767,751 $211.74 $374,297 100% 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 4 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1099

TABLE 9-191: ALTERNATIVE 4 — TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY DUE TO VISITOR SPENDING

Sector/Spending Category 

Sales 

$000s Jobs 

Labor Income 

$000s 

Value Added 

$000s 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel cabin, transient 

rental, or B&B $145,409 1,382 $38,501 $82,551 

Camping fees $10,959 143 $3,443 $4,971 

Restaurants & bars $62,197 1,077 $20,888 $33,948 

Admissions & fees $38,810 692 $10,419 $23,227 

Local transportation $23,103 486 $11,644 $17,682 

Grocery stores $6,726 101 $3,376 $4,910 

Gas stations $8,469 46 $4,242 $6,299 

Other retail $14,627 256 $6,747 $10,996 

Wholesale trade $1,482 10 $520 $1,102 

Local Production of goods $185 1 $27 $74 

Total Direct Effects $311,969 4,194 $99,806 $185,761 

Indirect and Induced Effects $123,373 1,062 $35,637 $75,014 

Total Effects $435,342 5,256 $135,443 $260,775 

Multiplier 1.40 1.25 1.36 1.40 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

TABLE 9-192: ALTERNATIVE 4 — ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPENDING

Yosemite National Park 

Direct 

Effects 

Economic 

Multipliersa

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Total of Direct, 

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Employment 

National Park Service Jobsb 885 1.33 292 1,176 

Labor Income 

NPS Payrollb 

Salaries $000s $38,959 

Benefits $000s $10,040 

Total Compensation $48,999 1.15 $7,580 $56,579 

Value Added 

Total Compensation $48,999 1.29 $14,0359 $63,037 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

a Multipliers are from IMPLAN sector 439, federal government/nonmilitary employment and payroll. 

b As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park 

 Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1100 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Summary of Impacts from Alternative 4: Resource-based Visitor Experiences and Targeted 

Riverbank Restoration 

The difference in jobs supported under Alternative 4 and Alternative 1 is presented in table 9-193,

with a detailed breakout by industrial sector within the four-county regional economy. Alternative 4, 

with its different mix of facilities and infrastructure, would support 110 fewer jobs than Alternative 1. 

TABLE 9-193: ALTERNATIVE 4 — IMPACT ON JOBS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

Sector/Spending Category 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 1 (No 

Action) 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 4 

Difference 

in Jobs 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel, cabin, or B&B 1,409 1,382 (26) 

Camping fees 145 143 (3) 

Restaurants & bars 1,098 1,077 (21) 

Admissions & fees 705 692 (13) 

Local transportation 495 486 (9) 

Grocery stores 103 101 (2) 

Gas stations 47 46 (1) 

Other retail 261 256 (5) 

Wholesale trade 10 10 (0) 

Local Production of goods 1 1 (0) 

Total Direct Effects 4,274 4,194 (80) 

Indirect and Induced Effects 1,083 1,062 (20) 

Total Effects of Visitor Spending 5,357 5,256 (100) 

National Park Service Total Employment 

Effects 

1,186 1,176 (10) 

Total Job Creation in Four Counties 6,543 6,433 (110) 

SOURCE: MGM2 model, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

As described for other alternatives, the adverse impacts of Alternative 4 might not be as intense as 

indicated by the job reduction calculated above due to substitution and time-shift effects. In the context 

of total employment within the four-county region, the reduction in jobs resulting from Alternative 4 

would be a long-term, adverse impact, but it would be negligible in intensity (see table 9-194). 

For specific industry sectors within the four-county region, however, the job reduction would be more 

significant in terms of percentage changes within each sector. In the lodging industry, the reduction in 

jobs resulting from Alternative 4 would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact. As noted previously, 

to the extent that hotel and motel occupancies increase in gateway communities as a result of the 

Alternative 4 reduction in Yosemite Valley accommodations, some or all of the adverse impact could 

be mitigated. Similarly, to the extent that overnight visitors to the Valley are displaced but shift their 

visits to a different time, the adverse impact could be mitigated. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 4 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1101

TABLE 9-194: ALTERNATIVE 4 — CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE

Industry Sector 

Total Jobs 

in 4-County 

Region 

Alt. 4: Net 

Impact on 

Jobs 

Impact as % 

of Total 

Characterization of 

Impact Significance 

Total Impacts (including Indirect & 

Induced Effects) 102,273 (110) -0.1% Negligible Adverse 

Direct Impacts on Specific Sectorsa 

Agriculture 13,619 0 0.0% No Impact 

Mining 310 0 0.0% No Impact 

Construction 5,115 0 0.0% No Impact 

Manufacturing 4,043 0 0.0% No Impact 

Transportation (and Public Utilities) 2,074 (9) -0.4% Negligible Adverse 

Retail Stores (and Wholesale Trade) 10,314 (8) -0.1% Negligible Adverse 

Lodging Industry 3,637 (29) -0.8% Negligible Adverse 

Restaurants and Bars 5,887 (21) -0.3% Negligible Adverse 

All Other Service Industries 36,446 (13) 0.0% Negligible Adverse 

Government (Local, State, & Fed.) 20,828 (10) 0.0% Negligible Adverse 

a Indirect and induced effects would be spread throughout the economy and would have a negligible impact. 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 

In the Restaurant and Bar sector of the regional economy, the long-term, adverse impact on jobs 

would also be negligible in intensity. The intensity could be reduced by substitution and time-shift 

effects that maintain volumes of visitors and spending. 

Within the four-county regional economy, the single business in the lodging and restaurant sectors 

most affected by Alternative 4 would be the concessioner within the park. This would also constitute 

the one impact felt in the local context of the park, and a 20% reduction in lodging would no doubt be 

seen as a noticeable adverse impact by the existing concessioner. In the long term, however, a new 

concession agreement would result from the issuance of a Contract Prospectus describing the business 

opportunity offered under the CMP. Prior to issuing a Prospectus to the public, the NPS must 

determine that a financially feasible business opportunity exists that would mitigate this local impact 

by realigning the financial performance expectations of the concessioner with the new opportunity for 

commercial visitor service in the park. 

In the Transportation sector of the regional economy, the long-term, adverse impact on jobs would be 

negligible in intensity. Note, however, that in addition to the potential mitigating substitution and 

time-shift effects, the more intensive transportation management efforts under Alternative 4 might 

require additional staffing for regional public transportation systems and for traffic and parking 

management in the park. 

Just as impacts are felt with different intensities in different sectors of the economy, intensities of 

impacts would also vary geographically within the four-county regional economy. In the smaller 

counties of Mariposa and Mono, where the leisure and hospitality sector comprises a third to half of 

all jobs, impacts derived from visitor spending would be more noticeable than in the larger and more 

diversified economies of Madera and Tuolumne counties. Within counties, gateway communities 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1102 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

would experience impacts more intensely than larger and more distant cities that have more diversity 

in their economic support. 

Mariposa County, and the gateway community of Mariposa within it, is likely to be the most 

noticeably impacted geographic areas because they combine both dependency on tourism industry 

spending and proximity to the park. There is also a fiscal connection in that the concessioner lodging 

in Yosemite Valley lies within Mariposa County, which receives the transient occupancy tax revenue 

collected there. El Portal Administrative Site falls within Mariposa County. Mariposa is further 

impacted because it is the closest place for park and concessioner employees to live who do not have 

housing within the park. Changes in the park workforce living in Mariposa County could cause 

increases or decreases in demand for county services and affect county revenues. Changes in park 

workforce could also change school enrollment, affecting both costs and revenues for local schools. 

The maximum fiscal impact of Alternative 4 on Mariposa County could include a reduction of 

$173,000 in TOT revenue, based on the 10% tax rate and the difference in spending between 

Alternatives 1 and 4 for all types of lodging, both inside and outside the park. This would be equivalent 

to a 0.4% reduction in General Fund revenue for the county. 

Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 4: Resource-based Visitor Experiences and Targeted 

Riverbank Restoration 

Past Actions 

Past actions would affect Alternative 4 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Present Actions 

Present actions would affect Alternative 4 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

For socioeconomic impacts, the cumulatively considerable factors would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 1. These would include the effects of private decisions made in the gateway 

communities and elsewhere in the four-county region, as well as those of public decisions in the region 

and within the park. Over the long run, one of the most functional features of market economies is that 

they trend towards self-correction. If public management actions reduce the supply of lodging and 

other commercial amenities within the park, demand pressures may build to the point that private 

interests may expand supply in surrounding areas by developing additional lodging, restaurants, and 

other facilities. These effects are likely to be strongest in areas closest to the park, and due to its 

proximity Mariposa County could be a beneficiary of this additional market demand. Specific present 

actions that could facilitate the capture of additional development include 

 Mariposa County General Plan Housing Element Update 

 Mariposa County General Plan (Update) 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 4 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1103

Short of new construction, additional demand may be satisfied by increasing hours and seasons of 

operations, adding additional staff, and other business operating responses to expand capacities in 

gateway communities. In the short run, management policies within the park can alter the flow of 

visitors and shift the mix of overnight and day visitors, but in the long run market adaptations can 

continue to increase the annual volumes of people visiting the park. Based on these considerations, the 

cumulative economic impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when 

combined with those of Alternative 4, would be regional, long term, negligible, and adverse. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources for Alternative 4 

For the most part, socioeconomic actions are reversible in the sense that markets adapt to changing 

circumstances and public policies can change strategies over time. On the other hand, the 

implementation of Alternative 4 would require the one-time expenditure of approximately 

$168 million. Once expended, those financial resources would no longer be available for other possible 

uses, and relatively permanent changes to facilities and infrastructure in the park would have been 

made. Physical changes made under Alternative 4 may be reversed in the future, but additional 

financial resources would be required to do so. 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity for Alternative 4 

Construction and restoration projects to implement Alternative 4 would create short-term disruptions 

during construction, but would produce desired changes to the park over the long term. 

There would also be a short-term, one-time change to the business model for the concessioner in the 

park, with a new concession agreement put in place to be consistent with the objectives and scale of 

facilities produced under Alternative 4. In the long term, a new pattern of economic flows in the region 

would be likely to emerge that would supply visitor services to meet the new level of visitor demand. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternative 5: Enhanced Visitor Experiences and 

Essential Riverbank Restoration 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

Compared with Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 5 would create slightly more lodging units in the 

park, approximately 2% more. The camping unit inventory in Yosemite Valley would grow more 

substantially, by approximately 37%. Peak day-use infrastructure in the Valley, on the other hand, 

would be reduced by approximately 11%. As a result, and as discussed in the “Environmental 

Consequences Methodology” section above, the scenario for total annual visitation under Alternative 

5 maintains the level generally experienced today, approximately 3.95 million visitors per year. 

Table 9-195 applies results of the VSP survey findings to translate that total annual visitation estimate 

into visitor groups by market segment, which is necessary for input to the economic models. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1104 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-195: ALTERNATIVE 5 — ANALYSIS OF TOTAL VISITATION BY MARKET SEGMENT

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Visitor 

Market 

Segment 

Share of 

Park Entriesa

Calculated 

Distribution 

of Visitors 

ReEntry 

Ratea

Visitor 

Trips to 

the Park 

Ave. 

Group 

Size a

Visitor 

Groups 

Length 

of Stay 

(Nights 

or Days)a

 Visits in 

PartyDays / 

Nights 

Total Visitors: 

Alt. 5 3,948,695 

Local-Day User 4.0% 157,948 1.1 143,589 2.2 65,268 1.0 65,268

Non-Local-Day 

User 24.0% 947,687 1.1 861,533 3.0 287,178 1.0 287,178

Motel-In 11.5% 454,100 1.1 412,818 3.5 117,948 2.4 283,075

Camp-In 9.5% 375,126 1.3 288,558 3.5 82,445 2.8 230,847

Motel-Out 36.5% 1,441,274 1.7 847,808 3.1 273,486 2.2 601,670

Camp-Out 4.0% 157,948 1.9 83,130 3.8 21,876 3.1 67,817

Other Overnight 10.5% 414,613 1.4 296,152 2.8 105,769 2.5 264,422

Totals 100.0% 3,948,695 2,933,590 953,970 1,800,276

a Findings from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results as reported in Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local 

Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009," February, 2011 

SOURCE: As noted, with Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012

Table 9-196 summarizes total spending derived from this level of visitation produced by analysis of 

the full pattern of spending within the MGM2 model. The MGM2 model also estimates total 

economic activity in terms of job creation, income to workers, and value added to the four-county 

regional economy, as presented in table 9-197. Table 9-198 calculates the economic impacts of NPS 

spending. 

TABLE 9-196: ALTERNATIVE 5 — VISITOR GROUPS AND TOTAL SPENDING BY MARKET SEGMENT

Market Segment 

 Visits in PartyDays/Nights Average 

Spending ($) 

Total Spending 

in 2010 $000s 

Percent of 

Spending 

Local-Day User 65,268 $74.64 $4,871 1% 

Non-Local-Day User 287,178 $86.71 $24,900 7% 

Motel-In 283,075 $371.17 $105,070 28% 

Camp-In 230,847 $170.02 $39,249 10% 

Motel-Out 601,670 $312.95 $188,295 49% 

Camp-Out 67,817 $130.81 $8,871 2% 

Other Overnight 264,422 $37.54 $9,927 3% 

Totals 1,800,276 $211.74 $381,184 100% 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 5 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1105

TABLE 9-197: ALTERNATIVE 5 — TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY DUE TO VISITOR SPENDING

Sector/Spending Category Sales $000s Jobs 

Labor Income 

$000s 

Value Added 

$000s 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel cabin, transient rental, 

or B&B 

$148,085 1,408 $39,209 $84,070 

Camping fees $11,160 145 $3,506 $5,062 

Restaurants & bars $63,341 1,097 $21,272 $34,573 

Admissions & fees $39,524 704 $10,610 $23,655 

Local transportation $23,528 494 $11,858 $18,007 

Grocery stores $6,850 103 $3,438 $5,001 

Gas stations $8,625 47 $4,320 $6,415 

Other retail $14,897 261 $6,871 $11,199 

Wholesale trade $1,509 10 $529 $1,122 

Local Production of goods $189 1 $27 $75 

Total Direct Effects $317,709 4,271 $101,643 $189,179 

Indirect and Induced Effects $125,643 1,082 $36,293 $76,394 

Total Effects $443,352 5,353 $137,935 $265,573 

Multiplier 1.40 1.25 1.36 1.40 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics MISSING Consultants 2012 

TABLE 9-198: ALTERNATIVE 5 — ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPENDING

Yosemite National Park 

Direct 

Effects 

Economic 

Multipliersa

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Total of Direct, 

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Employment 

 National Park Service Jobsb 892 1.33 294 1,186 

Labor Income 

NPS Payrollb 

 Salaries $000s $39,271 

 Benefits $000s $10,120 

 Total Compensation $49,391 1.15 $7,641 $57,032 

Value Added 

 Total Compensation $49,391 1.29 $14,151 $63,542 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

a Multipliers are from IMPLAN sector 439, federal government/nonmilitary employment and payroll. 

b As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants analysis 2012 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1106 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Summary of Impacts from Alternative 5: Enhanced Visitor Experiences and Essential 

Riverbank Restoration 

The difference in jobs supported under Alternative 5 and Alternative 1 is presented in table 9-199, with a 

detailed breakout by industrial sector within the four-county regional economy. Alternative 5 would be 

essentially the same as Alternative 1 in terms of jobs; it would support the equivalent of four fewer jobs 

than Alternative 1. 

TABLE 9-199: ALTERNATIVE 5 — IMPACT ON JOBS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

Sector/Spending Category 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 1 (No Action) 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 5 

 Difference in 

Jobs 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel, cabin, or B&B 1,409 1,408 (1) 

Camping fees 145 145 (0) 

Restaurants & bars 1,098 1,097 (1) 

Admissions & fees 705 704 (0) 

Local transportation 495 494 (0) 

Grocery stores 103 103 (0) 

Gas stations 47 47 (0) 

Other retail 261 261 (0) 

Wholesale trade 10 10 (0) 

Local Production of goods 1 1 (0) 

Total Direct Effects 4,274 4,271 (3) 

Indirect and Induced Effects 1,083 1,082 (1) 

Total Effects of Visitor Spending 5,357 5,353 (4) 

National Park Service Total 

Employment Effects 1,186 1,186 (0) 

Total Job Creation in Four Counties 6,543 6,539 (4) 

SOURCE: MGM2 model, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

The long-term, regional, adverse impacts of Alternative 5 would be negligible. In the context of total 

employment within the four-county region, the support for jobs resulting from Alternative 5 would be 

almost the same as from Alternative 1 (see table 9-200). In the context of specific industry sectors 

within the four-county region, the long-term economic impacts would be slightly adverse but would 

also be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 5: Enhanced Visitor Experiences and Essential 

Riverbank Restoration 

Past Actions 

Past actions would affect Alternative 5 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for socioeconomic 

impacts. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 5 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1107

TABLE 9-200: ALTERNATIVE 5 — CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE

Industry Sector 

Total Jobs 

in the 

4-County 

Region 

Alt. 5: Net 

Impact on 

Jobs 

Impact as 

% of 

Total 

Characterization of 

Impact Significance 

Total Impacts (including Indirect & 

Induced Effects) 102,273 (4) -0.0% Negligible Adverse 

Direct Impacts on Specific Sectorsa 

Agriculture 13,619 0 0.0% No Impact 

Mining 310 0 0.0% No Impact 

Construction 5,115 0 0.0% No Impact 

Manufacturing 4,043 0 0.0% No Impact 

Transportation (and Public Utilities) 2,074 (0) 0.0% No Impact 

Retail Stores (and Wholesale Trade) 10,314 (0) 0.0% No Impact 

Lodging Industry 3,637 (1) 0.0% Negligible Adverse 

Restaurants and Bars 5,887 (1) 0.0% Negligible Adverse 

All Other Service Industries 36,446 (0) 0.0% No Impact 

Government (Local, State, & Fed.) 20,828 (0) 0.0% No Impact 

a Indirect and induced effects would be spread throughout all sectors of the economy and would have a negligible impact. 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants 2012 

Present Actions 

Present actions would affect Alternative 5 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

For socioeconomic impacts, the cumulatively considerable factors would be the same as those 

described above for alternative 1. These will include the effects of private decisions made in the 

gateway communities and elsewhere in the four-county region, as well as those of public decisions in 

the region and within the park. Over the long run, one of the most functional features of market 

economies is that they trend toward self-correction. If public management actions reduce the supply 

of lodging and other commercial amenities within the park, demand pressures may build to the point 

that private interests may expand supply in surrounding areas by developing additional lodging, 

restaurants, and other facilities. Short of new construction, additional demand may be satisfied by 

increasing hours and seasons of operations, adding additional staff, and other business operating 

responses to expand capacities in gateway communities. In the short run, management policies within 

the park can alter the flow of visitors and shift the mix of overnight and day visitors, but in the long run 

market adaptations can continue to increase the annual volumes of people visiting the park. Based on 

these considerations, the cumulative economic impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, when combined with those of Alternative 5, would be regional, long term, negligible, 

and adverse. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1108 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources for Alternative 5 

For the most part, socioeconomic actions are reversible in the sense that markets adapt to changing 

circumstances and public policies can change strategies over time. On the other hand, the 

implementation of Alternative 5 would require the one-time expenditure of approximately $183 million. 

Once expended, those financial resources would no longer be available for other possible uses, and 

relatively permanent changes to facilities and infrastructure in the park would have been made. Physical 

changes made for Alternative 5 may be reversed in the future, but additional financial resources would be 

required to do so. 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity for Alternative 5 

Construction and restoration projects to implement Alternative 5 would create short-term 

disruptions during construction, but would produce desired changes to the park over the long term. 

There would also be a short-term, one-time change to the business model for the concessioner in 

the park, with a new concession agreement put in place to be consistent with the objectives and 

scale of facilities produced under Alternative 5. In the long term, a new pattern of economic flows in 

the region would be likely to emerge that supplies visitor services to meet the new level of visitor 

demand. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and 

Selective Riverbank Restoration 

All River Segments 

Impacts of Actions to Manage Visitor Use and Facilities 

Compared with Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 6 would create the largest increase in the 

number of lodging units in the park, growing by approximately 20%. The camping unit inventory in 

Yosemite Valley would grow even more proportionately, by approximately 59%. Peak day-use 

infrastructure in the Valley, on the other hand, would be reduced by approximately 5%. As a result of 

these actions, the total annual visitor handling facilities and infrastructure of Alternative 6 would be 

approximately 7% larger than today. This would allow growth to continue at an assumed 3% average 

rate for another two years before the daily maximum number of visitors would start to be reached on 

peak days as was described in the methodology section. At that point the annual visitor volume would 

be approximately 4.19 million. Table 9-201 applies results of the VSP survey findings to translate that 

total annual visitation estimate into visitor groups by market segment, which is necessary for input to 

the economic models. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 6 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1109

TABLE 9-201: ALTERNATIVE 6 — ANALYSIS OF TOTAL VISITATION BY MARKET SEGMENT

Visitor Market 

Segment 

Visitor 

Market 

Segment 

Share of 

Park Entriesa

Calculated 

Distribution 

of Visitors 

ReEntry 

Ratea

Visitor 

Trips to 

the Park 

Ave. 

Group 

Sizea

Visitor 

Groups 

Length 

of Stay 

(Nights 

or Days)a

 Visits in 

PartyDays / 

Nights 

Total Visitors: 

Alt. 6 4,190,917 

Local-Day User 4.0% 167,637 1.1 152,397 2.2 69,271 1.0 69,271

Non-Local-Day 

User 24.0% 1,005,820 1.1 914,382 3.0 304,794 1.0 304,794 

Motel-In 11.5% 481,955 1.1 438,141 3.5 125,183 2.4 300,440

Camp-In 9.5% 398,137 1.3 306,259 3.5 87,503 2.8 245,007

Motel-Out 36.5% 1,529,685 1.7 899,814 3.1 290,263 2.2 638,578

Camp-Out 4.0% 167,637 1.9 88,230 3.8 23,218 3.1 71,977

Other Overnight 10.5% 440,046 1.4 314,319 2.8 112,257 2.5 280,642

Totals 100.0% 4,190,917 3,113,543 1,012,489 1,910,709

a Findings from the 2009 Visitor Services Project survey results as reported in Cook, Philip S., Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local 

Economy: Yosemite National Park, 2009, February, 2011 

SOURCE: As noted, with Land Economics Consultants 2012 

Table 9-202 summarizes total spending derived from the level of visitation produced by analysis of the 

full pattern of spending within the MGM2 model. The MGM2 model also estimates total economic 

activity in terms of job creation, income to workers, and value added to the four-county regional 

economy, as presented in table 9-203. Table 9-204 calculates the economic impacts of NPS spending. 

TABLE 9-202: ALTERNATIVE 6 — VISITOR GROUPS AND TOTAL SPENDING BY MARKET SEGMENT

Market Segment 

Visits in PartyDays/Nights Average 

Spending ($) 

Total Spending 

in 2010 $000s 

Percent of 

Spending 

Local-Day User 69,271 $74.64 $5,170 1% 

Non-Local-Day User 304,794 $86.71 $26,428 7% 

Motel-In 300,440 $371.17 $111,516 28% 

Camp-In 245,007 $170.02 $41,657 10% 

Motel-Out 638,578 $312.95 $199,845 49% 

Camp-Out 71,977 $130.81 $9,415 2% 

Other Overnight 280,642 $37.54 $10,536 3% 

Totals 1,910,709 $211.74 $404,567 100% 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1110 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-203: ALTERNATIVE 6 — TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY DUE TO VISITOR SPENDING

Sector/Spending Category Sales $000s Jobs 

Labor Income 

$000s 

Value Added 

$000s 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel, cabin, or B&B $157,169 1,494 $41,615 $89,227 

Camping fees $11,845 154 $3,721 $5,373 

Restaurants & bars $67,227 1,164 $22,577 $36,693 

Admissions & fees $41,949 748 $11,261 $25,106 

Local transportation $24,972 525 $12,586 $19,112 

Grocery stores $7,270 109 $3,649 $5,308 

Gas stations $9,154 50 $4,585 $6,809 

Other retail $15,810 277 $7,293 $11,886 

Wholesale trade $1,602 11 $562 $1,191 

Local Production of goods $200 1 $29 $80 

Total Direct Effects $337,198 4,533 $107,878 $200,783 

Indirect and Induced Effects $133,350 1,148 $38,519 $81,081 

Total Effects $470,548 5,682 $146,396 $281,864 

Multiplier 1.40 1.25 1.36 1.40 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

SOURCE: MGM2 model built for Merced River Alternatives Analysis, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

TABLE 9-204: ALTERNATIVE 6 — ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPENDING

Yosemite National Park 

Direct 

Effects 

Economic 

Multipliersa

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Total of Direct, 

Indirect and 

Induced Effects 

Employment 

 National Park Service Jobsb 916 1.33 302 1,218 

Labor Income 

NPS Payrollb 

 Salaries $000s $40,331 

 Benefits $000s $10,393 

 Total Compensation $50,724 1.15 $7,847 $58,571 

Value Added 

 Total Compensation $50,724 1.29 $14,533 $65,257 

NOTE: Current economic impacts are measured in 2010 dollars. 

a Multipliers are from IMPLAN sector 439, federal government/nonmilitary employment and payroll. 

b As reported in Stynes, D.J., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010, Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR--2011/481. 

SOURCES: As noted; Land Economics Consultants 2012 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 6 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1111

Summary of Impacts from Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective 

Riverbank Restoration 

The difference in jobs supported under Alternative 6 and Alternative 1 is presented in table 9-205, 

with a detailed breakout by industrial sector within the four-county regional economy. Alternative 6 

would support approximately 356 more jobs than Alternative 1 

TABLE 9-205: ALTERNATIVE 6 — IMPACT ON JOBS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

Sector/Spending Category 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 1 

Jobs Under 

Alt. 6 

Difference 

in Jobs 

Direct Effects 

Motel, hotel cabin, transient rental, or B&B 1,409 1,494 85 

Camping fees 145 154 9 

Restaurants & bars 1,098 1,164 67 

Admissions & fees 705 748 43 

Local transportation 495 525 30 

Grocery stores 103 109 6 

Gas stations 47 50 3 

Other retail 261 277 16 

Wholesale trade 10 11 1 

Local Production of goods 1 1 0 

Total Direct Effects 4,274 4,533 259 

Indirect and Induced Effects 1,083 1,148 66 

Total Effects of Visitor Spending 5,357 5,682 325 

National Park Service Total 

Employment Effects 

1,186 1,218 32 

Total Job Creation in Four Counties 6,543 6,899 356 

SOURCE: MGM2 model, Land Economics Consultants 2012 

The long-term, regional socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 6 would be beneficial, but they would 

also be negligible. In the context of total employment within the four-county region, the support for 

jobs resulting from Alternative 6 would be approximately 0.3% larger than Alternative 1 and well 

within the 0-2.5% categorization for negligible (see table 9-206). For specific industry sectors within 

the four-county region, the beneficial socioeconomic impacts would also be negligible, except in the 

lodging industry sector where the long-term, regional, beneficial impacts would be minor in intensity. 

As was discussed under the other action alternatives, Mariposa County, and the gateway community of 

Mariposa within it, are likely to be the most noticeably impacted geographic areas because they 

combine both dependency on tourism industry spending and proximity to the park. There is also a 

fiscal connection in that the concessioner lodging in Yosemite Valley lies within Mariposa County, 

which receives the transient occupancy tax revenue collected there. Mariposa is further impacted 

because it is the closest place for park and concessioner employees to live who do not have housing 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1112 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 9-206: ALTERNATIVE 6 — CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE

Industry Sector 

Total Jobs 

in the 

4-County 

Region 

Alt. 6: Net 

Impact on 

Jobs 

Impact as 

% of Total 

Characterization of 

Impact Significance 

Total Impacts (including Indirect & 

Induced Effects) 102,273 356 0.3% Negligible Beneficial 

Direct Impacts on Specific Sectorsa 

Agriculture 13,619 0 0.0% No Impact 

Mining 310 0 0.0% No Impact 

Construction 5,115 0 0.0% No Impact 

Manufacturing 4,043 0 0.0% No Impact 

Transportation (and Public Utilities) 2,074 30 1.4% Negligible Beneficial 

Retail Stores (and Wholesale Trade) 10,314 26 0.2% Negligible Beneficial 

Lodging Industry 3,637 94 2.6% Minor Beneficial 

Restaurants and Bars 5,887 67 1.1% Negligible Beneficial 

All Other Service Industries 36,446 43 0.1% Negligible Beneficial 

Government (Local, State, & Fed.) 20,828 32 0.2% Negligible Beneficial 

a Indirect and induced effects would be spread throughout all sectors of the economy and would have a negligible impact. 

SOURCE: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. data; Land Economics Consultants 2012 

within the park. Changes in the park workforce living in Mariposa County could cause increases or 

decreases in demand for county services and affect county revenues. Changes in park workforce could 

also change school enrollment, affecting both costs and revenues for local schools. 

The maximum fiscal impact of Alternative 6 on Mariposa County could include an additional $560,000 

in TOT revenue after two additional years of growth in visitation to the park, and based on the 10% 

tax rate and the difference in spending between Alternatives 1 and 6 for all types of lodging, both 

inside and outside the park. This would be equivalent to a 1.3% increase in General Fund revenue for 

the county. 

Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective 

Riverbank Restoration 

Past Actions 

Past actions would affect Alternative 6 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Present Actions 

Present actions would affect Alternative 6 to the same degree they affect Alternative 1 for 

socioeconomic impacts. 
Analysis Topics: Sociocultural Resources 

Socioeconomics – Alternative 6 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 9-1113

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

For socioeconomic impacts, the cumulatively considerable factors would be the same as those 

described above for Alternative 1. These will include the effects of private decisions made in the 

gateway communities and elsewhere in the four-county region, as well as those of public decisions 

within the park. Over the long run, one of the most functional features of market economies is that 

they trend toward self-correction. If public management actions reduce the supply of lodging and 

other commercial amenities within the park, demand pressures may build to the point that private 

interests may expand supply in surrounding areas by developing additional lodging, restaurants, and 

other facilities. Short of new construction, additional demand may be satisfied by increasing hours and 

seasons of operations, adding additional staff, and other business operating responses to expand 

capacities in gateway communities. In the short run, management policies within the park can alter the 

flow of visitors and shift the mix of overnight and day visitors, but in the long run market adaptations 

can continue to increase the annual volumes of people visiting the park. Based on these considerations, 

the cumulative economic impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when 

combined with those of Alternative 6, would be regional, long term, negligible, and beneficial. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources for Alternative 6 

For the most part, socioeconomic actions are reversible in the sense that markets adapt to changing 

circumstances and public policies can change strategies over time. On the other hand, the 

implementation of Alternative 6 would require the one-time expenditure of approximately 

$259 million. Once expended those financial resources would no longer be available for other possible 

uses, and relatively permanent changes to facilities and infrastructure in the park would have been 

made. Physical changes made for Alternative 6 may be reversed in the future, but additional financial 

resources would be required to do so. 

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity for Alternative 6 

Construction and restoration projects to implement Alternative 6 would create short-term disruptions 

during construction, but would produce desired changes to the park over the long term. There would 

also be a short-term, one-time change to the business model for the concessioner in the park, with a 

new concession agreement put in place to be consistent with the objectives and scale of facilities 

produced by Alternative 6. In the long term, a new pattern of economic flows in the region is likely to 

emerge that supplies visitor services to meet the new level of visitor demand. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

9-1114 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

This page intentionally left blank