3.10  socioeconomics

This section assesses the effects of the proposed action on socioeconomics in the vicinity of the treatment areas, and addresses employment, population, and impacts of the project on housing. The Region of Influence for socioeconomics is Sacramento County and the nine-county Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties).

3.10.1  Environmental Setting

The Bay Area, with a regional population of approximately 6.8 million people, is one of California's major urban and economic centers. By 2020, the regional population is projected to grow to approximately 8.1 million, representing a 17 percent increase (Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] 2000). Population refers to the number of persons residing within the Region of Influence, the incorporated communities and sub-county areas.

ABAG (2000) estimated that the Bay Area economy supported 3.7 million jobs during 2000. The distribution of the jobs within the nine Bay Area counties is shown in Table 3.10-1. During 2000, approximately 49 percent of the jobs in the Bay Area were located in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. These counties support the largest populations of the Bay Area counties (ABAG 2000), and the most jobs. The majority of jobs in the nine-county Bay Area, about 37 percent, were in the services industry, which includes business services. Retail trade and manufacturing (includes the high technology industry) industries accounted for 15 percent each of regional jobs in 2000. The remaining 33 percent of the region's jobs were distributed among the following industry categories: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and government. Employment refers to the number of full- and part-time jobs by category or sector for the Bay.

Table 3.10-1. Distribution of Jobs in San Francisco Bay Area Counties

Source: ABAG, 2000

3.10.2 Analysis of Potential Effects

For the impact analysis, the major differences between the alternatives are the amount of land, the intensity of disturbance, and the potential for use of chemicals associated with the various treatment methods.

Significance Criteria

There are no generally accepted significance criteria for socioeconomic impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA does not require socioeconomic analysis except in cases of secondary physical impacts to the environment. Therefore, economic or social changes resulting from a project are considered to produce significant impacts if they result in a substantial adverse physical change in the environment (i.e., urban blight).

ALTERNATIVE 1:    Proposed Action/Proposed Project - Regional Eradication Using All Available Control Methods

Impacts

Population. Changes in population in the project area during implementation of this alternative would likely be unrelated to the project. The project does not include a housing component. Long-term changes in employment associated with the project would be minor, such as the use of crews that would be used to treat non-native cordgrass and for monitoring new infestations. It is expected that workers already residing in the Bay Area could fill project-related jobs. The project's impact on existing populations would be minimal and less than significant.

Employment. The project is expected to create part-time jobs. Employment associated with the Control Program is expected to last for up to ten years. Employment would vary depending upon the treatment method being performed and the size of the site being treated. The estimated labor force associated with each method will vary from a few to tens of workers per day during the treatment period, which may last several days or weeks. Monitoring treated sites would require fewer workers, such as team of two to four workers trained to recognize non-native cordgrass. There would be a minor beneficial impact on employment, since trained workers would likely be retained on-call for work around the Bay. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Housing. No new housing demand or construction of new housing units would be created by the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts on housing would be negligible and less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts to socioeconomics have been identified and no mitigation measures are required.

ALTERNATIVE 2: Regional Eradication Using Only Non-Chemical Control Methods

Impacts

Under this alternative, the impacts on socioeconomics of the region would be similar to Alternative 1. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts to socioeconomics have been identified for any treatment method or project alternative. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.

ALTERNATIVE 3: No Action - Continued Limited, Regionally Uncoordinated Treatment

Impacts

Under this alternative, the impacts on socioeconomics of the region would be similar to Alternative 1. Impacts would be minimal and less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts to socioeconomics have been identified for any treatment method or project alternative. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.

 

back to top