SGFO Socioeconomic Baseline Report 2012€¦ · Socioeconomic Baseline Report for the Resource...

BLM Mission It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

NLCS Mission Created in 2000 by the Secretary of the Interior, the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) brought into a single system of specially designated areas managed on a landscape level under the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) multiple-use mandate. Passage of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11) provided a statutory basis for the NLCS. The NLCS contains national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, national scenic and historic trails, and the conservation lands of the California Desert. Many of the treasured landscapes within the NLCS are popular tourism destinations managed for their outstanding scientific, cultural, ecological, historical, and recreational resources. The long-term vision guiding the NLCS is to conserve, protect, and restore the Conservation System’s lands, natural, and cultural and historic resources, and water for future generations.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report

for the

Resource Management Plans for the

Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas

and Amendment to the

St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan

and Associated

Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared for United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management St. George Field Office

May 2012

This page intentionally left blank.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report Table of Contents

St. George Field Office i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... VII

1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA .......................................................................... 1-1

2.0 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 COMMUNITY SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 POPULATION GROWTH ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................................................................... 2-15 2.4 HOUSING .................................................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.5 QUALITY OF LIFE ....................................................................................................................................... 2-19 2.6 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................... 2-21

2.6.1 Government ..................................................................................................................................... 2-21 2.6.2 Occupational and Interest Groups .................................................................................................... 2-23

2.7 SOCIAL VALUES, ATTITUDES, AND BELIEFS ............................................................................................... 2-28 2.7.1 Habitat and Resource Conservation Stakeholders ........................................................................... 2-28 2.7.2 Motorized Recreation Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 2-29 2.7.3 Non-Motorized Recreation Stakeholders ......................................................................................... 2-30 2.7.4 Livestock Grazing Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 2-30 2.7.5 Economic Development Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 2-31

2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ......................................................................................................................... 2-31 2.8.1 Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 2-31 2.8.2 Screening Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 2-33

3.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 EMPLOYMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 LABOR EARNINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 3-6 3.3 PERSONAL INCOME ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.4 FIRMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.5 ECONOMIC BASE ........................................................................................................................................ 3-10 3.6 SPECIFIC ECONOMIC SECTORS ................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.1 Tourism ............................................................................................................................................ 3-12 3.7 PUBLIC FINANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 3-15

3.7.1 Government Revenues ..................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.8 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.8.1 State and Local Government Expenditures and Services ................................................................. 3-18 3.8.2 BLM Expenditures ........................................................................................................................... 3-18

4.0 BLM PUBLIC LAND USES AND VALUES ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS .............................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Red Cliffs NCA ................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.3 Balance of the Field Office ................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA .................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Red Cliffs NCA ................................................................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.3 Balance of the Field Office ................................................................................................................ 4-6

4.3 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................ 4-6 4.3.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA .................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.3.2 Red Cliffs NCA ............................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.3.3 Balance of the Field Office .............................................................................................................. 4-12

4.4 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 4-14 4.4.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA .................................................................................................................. 4-15 4.4.2 Red Cliffs NCA ............................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.4.3 Balance of the Field Office .............................................................................................................. 4-16

Table of Contents Socioeconomic Baseline Report

ii St. George Field Office

4.4.4 Northern Transportation Route ........................................................................................................ 4-17 4.5 LANDS AND REALTY .................................................................................................................................. 4-17

4.5.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA .................................................................................................................. 4-19 4.5.2 Red Cliffs NCA ............................................................................................................................... 4-19 4.5.3 Balance of the Field Office .............................................................................................................. 4-20

4.6 MINERALS AND ENERGY ............................................................................................................................ 4-20 4.7 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 4-20 4.8 TRIBAL USES .............................................................................................................................................. 4-21 4.9 NONMARKET VALUES ................................................................................................................................ 4-22

5.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 6-1

APPENDIX A—DEFINITIONS OF LABOR AND NON-LABOR INCOME ............................................................ 1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Scope of Topics ............................................................................................................................. ix Table 1-1. Land Tenure in the Study Area (Acres) .................................................................................... 1-6 Table 1-2. 2010 Population, Area, and Population Density of Study Area ............................................... 1-7 Table 2-1. Population Growth of Study Area ............................................................................................ 2-1 Table 2-2. Population of Study Area by Place, 2000–2010 ....................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3. Components of Population Change 2000–2009 ....................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-4. Historical Population Growth and Projected Growth From Three Sources ............................. 2-9 Table 2-5. Historical Population Growth Rates (AARC) and Projected Growth Rates From Three Sources

......................................................................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-6. Differences Between 2040 Population Projections (Most Populous Subareas) ..................... 2-14 Table 2-7. Demographics Overview of Study Area Compared to State and Nation ............................... 2-16 Table 2-8. Place of Birth of Residents ..................................................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-9. Population by Race, 2010 ....................................................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-10. Income Levels ...................................................................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-11. Housing Unit Types and Median Value ............................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-12. Housing Occupancy and Monthly Costs .............................................................................. 2-18 Table 2-13. Average Commute Time ...................................................................................................... 2-20 Table 2-14. Marital Status ........................................................................................................................ 2-20 Table 2-15. Environmental Justice Indicators, Minority Population, 2010 Census ................................. 2-35 Table 2-16. Environmental Justice Indicators, Poverty, 2005–2009 ....................................................... 2-36 Table 3-1. Labor Force .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-2. Washington County Employment by Industry, 2009 ............................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3. Washington County Labor Earnings by Industry, 2001–2009 ................................................. 3-6 Table 3-4. Prevalence of Income Sources for Households ........................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-5. Washington County Personal Income by Source, 2008 ........................................................... 3-7 Table 3-6. Personal Income Distribution ................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-7. Location Quotients for Earnings and Employment in Washington County, Relative to the

United States (2008) ........................................................................................................................ 3-11 Table 3-8. Washington County Tourism Spending, Employment, and Tax Revenue, 2006–2009 ........ 3-13 Table 3-9. Annual Visitation to Public Land Attractions, 2004–2009..................................................... 3-13 Table 3-10. Employment in Industries That Include Travel and Tourism Jobs, 2009 ............................. 3-14 Table 3-11. Washington County Tax Revenue by Source, 2010 ............................................................. 3-16 Table 3-12. Natural Resource Property Taxes in Washington County, 2010 .......................................... 3-16 Table 3-13. PILT Payments in Study Area, 2007–2010 .......................................................................... 3-17


St. George Field Office iii

Table 3-14. 2010 PILT Acreages and Payments per Acre ....................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-15. Additional (non-PILT) Federal Land Payments in Washington County, 2010 .................... 3-18 Table 4-1. Production Value of AUMs in Utah ......................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2. Recreational Visitation by Activity, Beaver Dam Wash NCA ................................................. 4-9 Table 4-3. Recreational Visitation by Activity, Red Cliffs NCA ............................................................ 4-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. BLM Planning Area ................................................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 1-2. Beaver Dam Wash NCA ......................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-3. Red Cliffs NCA ....................................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-4. Federal, State, and Private Land Tenure in the Study Area .................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1. Study Area Population Growth Indexed to State of Utah and Nation ..................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Locations of Cities, Towns, and Currently Platted Subdivisions in Washington County ....... 2-4 Figure 2-3. Year-Over Change in MSA Area Housing Price Index (HPI) .............................................. 2-18 Figure 2-4. Washington County Housing Units Built Per Year ............................................................... 2-19 Figure 3-1. Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates ............................................................................ 3-1 Figure 3-2. Employment Change During Recessions and Recovery Periods ............................................ 3-2 Figure 3-3. Washington County Employment by Industry, 1970–2000 .................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-4. Washington County Employment by Industry, 2001–2009 .................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-5. Non-Labor Income as a Percentage of Total Personal Income ............................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6. Total Number of Establishments in Washington County, 2008 ............................................ 3-10 Figure 3-7. Employment in Industries That Include Travel and Tourism ............................................... 3-15


iv St. George Field Office

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AARC Average Annual Rate of Change

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACS American Community Survey

AMP Allotment Management Plan

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

AUM Animal Unit Month

BEA Bureau of Economic Statistics

BLM

CCAdj

Bureau of Land Management

Capital Consumption Adjustment

CDP Census Designated Places

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CTTMP Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan

DNF Dixie National Forest

DOI Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order

EPS-HDT Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit

ERMA Extensive Recreation management Area

ERS Economic Research Service

ESA Endangered Species Act

FY Fiscal Year

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographic Information System

GOPB Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

HPI Housing Price Index

IMPLAN IMPact analysis for PLANning

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area


St. George Field Office v

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NCA National Conservation Area

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

P.L. 111-11 Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009

PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes

PUP Public Use Plan

REIS Regional Economic Information System

RMIS Recreation Management Information System

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROW Right-of-way

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SITLA Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRP Special Recreation Permit

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WWF World Wildlife Fund


vi St. George Field Office

This page intentionally left blank.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report Introduction

St. George Field Office vii

INTRODUCTION

This Socioeconomic Baseline Report has been prepared to assist in the current land use planning efforts of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) St. George Field Office. As part of this planning process, socioeconomic information will be used to help develop management alternatives and in the analysis of the potential impacts of the management alternatives.

This baseline report addresses social, cultural, and economic conditions and trends within the “socioeconomic study area” defined below. These conditions and trends affect current and future uses of BLM public land resources. Conversely, decisions made by BLM in the current planning process may have social, cultural, and economic impacts. These impacts may be positive or negative, depending on conditions and on the point of view of stakeholders in BLM public land resources. This report provides socioeconomic background information that will assist in the impact analysis later in the planning process. This information can also help inform public discussion during the planning process.

It is important for readers to understand that the current planning process is limited in scope, and this report is focused on information relevant to that scope. Specifically, the scope is limited to planning actions mandated by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11, hereinafter P.L. 111-11).

Sections 1974 and 1975 (within Title I, Subtitle O) of P.L. 111-11 designated the 44,839-acre Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) and the 63,478-acre Beaver Dam Wash NCA from public lands in Washington County, Utah, and directed BLM to prepare a Resource Management Plans (RMP) for each NCA. The congressionally defined purposes of the new NCAs are: “to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources” of each unit.

P.L. 111-11 (Section 1979) also directed the St. George Field Office to identify areas on public lands in Washington County where “biological conservation is a priority” and to “undertake activities to conserve and restore plant and animal species and natural communities within such areas.” To fulfill this mandate, a thorough evaluation is being conducted to determine whether additional plant/animal communities exist that require special management attention. Areas of Critical Environment Concern (ACEC) can be designated through the planning process for important public land resource values that require special management attention to protect them and prevent irreparable damage to these values. During the Public Scoping Period for this planning effort, the St. George Field Office solicited nominations for potential ACECs specifically for biological values. The nominations have been reviewed by a BLM Interdisciplinary Team and, if the nominated values satisfy the criteria for ACEC designation (relevance, importance, and requiring special management), the St. George Field Office Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, approved in 1999, will be amended through this planning process.

The planning process for an RMP Amendment will also evaluate the area designations for motorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel that were made for public lands in Washington County through the 1999 RMP. These designations include the following: “open” (OHV cross-country travel authorized); “limited” (OHV travel limited to designated routes, types of vehicles, seasons of use, etc.); or “closed” (OHV travel prohibited). If revisions to the existing designations are needed, they will be addressed in the RMP Amendment.

The RMPs for the two NCAs and the Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of implementing the RMPs and the Amendment. Information from this Socioeconomic Baseline Report will be incorporated into Chapter 3 (“Affected Environment”) of the EIS, and used as a basis for the socioeconomic impacts analysis in Chapter 4 (“Environmental Consequences”).

Introduction Socioeconomic Baseline Report

viii St. George Field Office

P.L. 111-11 (Section 1977) also directed the St. George Field Office to complete a Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan (CTTMP) for public lands in Washington County that will include specific route and trail designations, including the designation of a High Desert Trail System for motorized recreational use. Comprehensive travel management planning addresses access needs for an array of public land uses; these are evaluated within BLM’s legal mandates to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources and minimize impacts on public land values. This planning process will result in every BLM-managed route and trail in Washington County being designated as open for use, closed to use, or having use limited in some manner. The CTTMP planning process will be conducted on a parallel track with the development of the RMPs for the two NCAs and the Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP. It is also subject to NEPA, and an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be completed to analyze the impacts associated with implementation of the CTTMP.

Section 1977 (b) 2 (A) directed BLM that through the CTTMP development, “in consultation with appropriate federal agencies, state, tribal, and local government entities (including the County and St. George City, Utah), and the public, [the agency] identify 1 or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the County.” This legislative direction is problematic for BLM, as CTTMP planning typically involves implementation-level route designation for roads, trails, and routes that are already in existence, not the identification of possible alignments for a major new highway. The identification language from Section 1977 of one or more alternatives for a “northern transportation route” is more akin to a “land use allocation,” similar to the designation of a utility corridor, that must be made through the RMP process, rather than an implementation-level designation made through CTTMP. Therefore, this legislative mandate will be addressed in the RMP process. The “northern transportation route” is known by various other names, including most recently the “Washington Parkway.”

The content of a Socioeconomic Baseline Report reflects the scope of the topics and decisions to be addressed in the planning actions identified above: the NCA RMPs, the St. George Field Office RMP Amendment, and the CTTMP. P.L. 111-11 mandates that a number of uses or activities that typically occur on public lands may no longer be authorized by BLM in either of the NCAs. The scope of the decisions to be made outside the NCAs is limited, as the St. George Field Office RMP Amendment is a focused amendment, rather than a full revision of the St. George Field Office RMP. Development of the CTTMP is also a focused effort. Therefore, some topics that would be considered in a socioeconomic baseline report for a full revision of a Field Office’s RMP are not relevant in this instance. Some “usual” topics are not in the decision scope of this planning effort, and others are unlikely to be affected in ways that will produce significant socioeconomic impacts. Table 1 provides an overview of the scope of topics in this baseline report, based on the scope of the planning effort and the likelihood of significant socioeconomic impacts.

To summarize Table 1, within the NCAs the scope of topics that may have socioeconomic significance is largely determined by the provisions of P.L. 111-11 and by certain other policies. Outside of the NCAs, development of a CTTMP (to include OHV use) is part of this planning action and could have socioeconomic impacts. Special Designations (i.e., designating ACECs) is part of this planning action, and as explained in Section 4.7, designation itself could have socioeconomic significance. Designation of ACECs could also result in changes to other resource uses in Table 1. It is possible that those changes (e.g., limitations on vegetative product harvests) could have socioeconomic implications, but given the likely small scale of potential ACECs, it is unlikely that socioeconomic implications from changes to resource uses in new ACECs would be significant. Therefore, these resource uses are not considered in this report for areas outside the NCAs. If necessary, based on the size and location of actual ACEC designations, further consideration can be given to these resource uses during the socioeconomic impacts analysis phase of the planning process, including development of any necessary background information.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report Introduction

St. George Field Office ix

Table 1. Scope of Topics

Resource Use or Planning Category

Scope Within the NCAs Scope Outside the NCAs

Vegetative Products Not specifically addressed in P.L. 111-11. Limited consideration in this report.

Significant socioeconomic impacts are unlikely.* Not considered in this report.

Livestock Grazing P.L. 111-11 permits continuation of established grazing subject to conditions. Considered in this report.


Recreation

P.L. 111-11 identifies recreation as a resource to “conserve, protect, and enhance” in the NCAs. Considered in this report.

The RMP Amendment may impact recreation as a result of OHV area designations. Considered in this report.

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management (includes OHV use)

Transportation and trails within the NCAs are subject to congressional designations in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA, and to the St. George Field Office RMP and Public Use Plan designations for the Red Cliffs NCA. Considered in this report.

A CTTMP will be completed to make route designations and consider additional transportation routes (e.g., High Desert OHV Trail) affecting BLM land. These actions may have socioeconomic impacts. Considered in this report.

Lands and Realty

Certain lands and realty actions are specified in P.L. 111-11; others may be considered in this planning process. Considered in this report.


Minerals

Subject to valid existing rights, P.L. 111-11 withdraws the NCAs from location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and from operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. Thus, the NCA RMPs will not include decisions on minerals. Not considered in this report.


Renewable Energy

BLM Instruction Memo 2011-061 makes NCA lands unavailable for wind and solar energy development. Not considered in this report.


Special Designations

In P.L. 111-11, Congress designated the NCAs and designated portions of the Red Cliffs NCA as Wilderness Areas. Additional administrative designations in the NCAs such as ACECs are possible in this planning action. Considered in this report.

The Amendment may administratively designate additional ACECs. Considered in this report.

*Based on the likely small scale of potential ACECs outside the NCAs, significant socioeconomic implications from changes to this resource use in new ACECs are unlikely. If necessary, based on the size and location of actual ACEC designations, further consideration can be given to this resource use during the socioeconomic impacts analysis phase of the planning process.

REPORT ORGANIZATION AND DATA SOURCES After this introduction, this report is divided into four main sections:

Introduction Socioeconomic Baseline Report

x St. George Field Office

• Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area—Defines the geographic area studied in this report (Washington County) and provides a high-level characterization of its land ownership and current population.

• Social and Cultural Conditions—Identifies and profiles socioeconomic study area population trends, demographics, and other social and cultural characteristics and provides a screening of the study area for potential environmental justice populations.

• Economic Conditions—Characterizes the socioeconomic study area economy in terms of employment, earnings, sources of income, economic base, public finance, and economic indicators for specific economic sectors that are most relevant to the current planning action.

• BLM Public Land Uses and Values—Profiles uses of BLM public lands and describes some of the economic and social implications of those uses.

Within the sections for social and cultural conditions and economic conditions most data are presented for the socioeconomic study area—as a whole. Utah and U.S. data are often presented for comparison. In some cases data and qualitative information are presented for smaller geographies.

Multiple demographic and economic data sources are used in this report. The most prevalent sources are the following:

• Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT): This online tool is sponsored by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. It draws on a wide variety of data sources, including many of the sources below, to provide economic and demographic data for user-selected counties or groups of counties.

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census: The Census Bureau has released some, but not all information from the 2010 Census. Therefore, for some data an earlier source (described next) is used.

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS): The ACS provides demographic and other data between the decennial censuses, using samples of local populations. Smaller geographies such as Washington County require that data from samples taken in multiple years be combined to provide the most accurate estimates. Most of the ACS data in this document is based on samples taken during the years 2006 to 2008. While these data were collected prior to the recession, in some ways they provides a better, longer term indication of how Washington County compares to Utah and the United States as a whole, given the recent impacts of the recession on Washington County.

• Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA): The BEA provides a wide range of data on economic conditions, generally gathered on a quarterly or annual basis. This report draws data from BEA’s Regional Economic Information System (REIS) on a number of topics.

• Bureau of Labor Statistics: This source provides data on labor market conditions (e.g., employment and unemployment).

• State and local data sources: A variety of sources are used, including the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, the Utah Department of Workforce Services, Utah Office of Tourism, Utah State Tax Commission, and local sources. Where appropriate, the nature of these sources is described in the text.

Within the section on BLM public land uses and values, data and qualitative information are presented for each NCA to the extent available. Much of the use data comes from BLM sources. Data and discussions address the balance of the Field Office (not including the NCAs) or the Field Office as a whole when necessary or appropriate.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 1.0 Overview of the SE Study Area

St. George Field Office 1-1

1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA

The BLM’s St. George Field Office administers approximately 634,505 acres of public lands in the far southwest corner of Utah. The planning area for the combined planning actions addressed by this Socioeconomic Baseline Report—the NCA RMPs, the St. George Field Office RMP Amendment, and the CTTMP—encompasses all lands within the St. George Field Office administrative boundary. This includes most of Washington County and includes some lands in Iron and Kane counties that are within the Dixie National Forest and Zion National Park. Although the planning area encompasses all lands within the St. George Field Office administrative boundary, the management decisions that will be made by the current planning actions will only address BLM-administered lands within the planning area. BLM-administered lands include BLM surface lands and BLM-administered federal mineral estate. The latter includes situations where the subsurface mineral estate, or a portion thereof, is owned by the Federal Government and the surface is under non-federal ownership.

The planning area is situated at the transition between three major physiographic provinces: the Colorado Plateau, the Great Basin, and the Mojave Desert. This unique blend of geologic landforms creates a wealth of varying landscapes, open vistas, and spectacular scenery that is recognized in national and international sectors. Zion National Park and the Pine Valley Mountains of the Dixie National Forest define the eastern and northern portions of the planning area. To the west lie the valleys and mountains of Nevada, while the broad, undeveloped expanses and rugged topography of the Arizona Strip are visible immediately to the south. Elevations range from a low of 2,200 feet at the Arizona border to nearly 10,400 feet in the Pine Valley Mountains. Average yearly precipitation ranges from a low of 7.5 inches in the desert to 35 inches in the higher elevations. The geographic setting is depicted on the map of the planning area shown in Figure 1-1. The Virgin River and its many tributaries flow through portions of the area and provide the lifeblood to the desert and mountain ecosystems and human populations that reside there. Numerous wildlife and vegetation species, many at the extreme end of their natural ranges, contribute to a rich biological diversity that is uncommon in parts of the arid, intermountain west.

The planning area includes two NCAs: Beaver Dam Wash NCA and Red Cliffs NCA. Characteristics of the NCAs are described next, followed by a definition and description of the socioeconomic study area for the BLM planning actions.

1.0 Overview of the SE Study Area Socioeconomic Baseline Report

1-2 St. George Field Office

Figure 1-1. BLM Planning Area



The approximately 63,478 acres of public land in Beaver Dam Wash NCA are located in the southwestern corner of Washington County, Utah, along the state lines of Nevada and Arizona, as shown in Figure 1-2. Interstate 15 and the Virgin River parallel its southern boundary. U.S. Highway 91 is the only paved highway through the NCA. The legislation designated three large areas within the NCA as “designated road areas” and further identified specific routes within the three areas that are open for motorized use. Motorized vehicle travel outside of the three “designated road areas” was limited by Congress to designated roads and trails that would be designated through land use planning or the development of the CTTMP that P.L. 111-11 directed BLM to complete.

This NCA is within an ecological transition zone between the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin ecoregions. Creosote bush, white bursage, and other desert shrubs grow at lower elevations and provide habitat for desert bighorn sheep and the Mojave Desert tortoise, a threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Joshua trees and dense stands of blackbrush cover the slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains that rise along the eastern boundary of the NCA. Surface water flows in the upper reaches of Beaver Dam Wash, but rarely travels all the way through the NCA. Riparian vegetation along the stream channel is important habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. At this time, there are no developed recreation facilities in the NCA. The St. George Field Office intends to address recreation uses and the types of facilities needed to provide for quality visitor experiences, while protecting the special values of the NCA.

The approximately 44,839 acres of public land in the Red Cliffs NCA are located in south-central Washington County, as shown in Figure 1-3. The towering Pine Valley Mountains and Dixie National Forest lie to the north, while the communities of Ivins, Santa Clara, St. George, Washington, and Leeds ring the NCA. The NCA comprises 70 percent of the land base of the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve (the Reserve), a multi-jurisdictional land base that has been collaboratively managed by BLM, the State of Utah, Washington County, and local municipalities since 1996 to protect populations and habitat of the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise and other at-risk native plant and animal species.

The Colorado Plateau and Mojave Desert overlap in east- central Washington County. In this transition zone, unusual plant and animal species have evolved, some of which are found in the Red Cliffs NCA. The hot, arid Mojave Desert provides habitat for diverse wildlife, such as kit fox, Gambel’s quail, and the Mojave Desert tortoise. This native tortoise is listed under the Endangered Species Act and is at risk of extinction due to habitat loss and other factors. The newly designated Red Mountain and Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness areas are also within this NCA. Here, hikers, backpackers, and equestrians can enjoy scenic vistas, solitude, and natural quiet, just a few miles drive from local communities. More than 130 miles of non-motorized recreation trails (hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian trail riding) are available for public use in the NCA. The Red Cliffs Recreation Area offers camping and day use areas, in a developed site where fees are collected. All motorized vehicle travel, including by OHVs, is limited to designated roads in the NCA. No motorized or mechanized vehicle travel is allowed in the Red Mountain and Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness areas, without special authorization from BLM or in the event of an emergency.



Figure 1-2. Beaver Dam Wash NCA



Figure 1-3. Red Cliffs NCA



This baseline report is primarily focused on the socioeconomic study area, which is determined by the economic and social relationships between communities in the region and the surface land and subsurface federal mineral estate managed by the St. George Field Office. A socioeconomic study area commonly extends beyond the decision area because decisions made by BLM can impact socioeconomic conditions in proximate lands and communities, based on where monies flow and how and where services and goods are obtained. A socioeconomic study area may also be larger than the planning area because key socioeconomic data are only available for geographies (e.g., counties) that extend beyond the planning area.

The socioeconomic study area (hereafter, simply the “study area”) has been defined to include all of Washington County, Utah. Mojave County, Arizona, is included as a cooperating agency because of its adjacent jurisdiction to the Beaver Dam Wash NCA, but Mojave County is not part of the study area. While the Beaver Dam Wash NCA sees significant visitation from parts of Mojave County, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada, adding either or both of these large counties to the study area would unnecessarily enlarge and complicate the study area and dilute attention to the social and economic conditions of Washington County, which are much more relevant to this planning effort than the social and economic conditions of these other counties.

As of the 2010 Census, 138,115 people lived in Washington County. Many visitors are drawn to it annually for recreation, business, or cultural activities. A combination of favorable climate, open space, scenic quality, opportunities for expansive outdoor recreation, and other amenities and available services have led to a significant in-migration of retirees and other families moving primarily from metropolitan areas outside of the county. The resulting population growth (52.9 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to the decennial census for those years) has made the county one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. Washington County grew particularly rapidly from 2000 to 2007. Since 2008, the national recession and housing and financial crises have had a major impact on local growth rates.

The rapid growth of Washington County has posed challenges. Urbanization has put increased demands on public lands for recreation; right-of-ways (ROW) for utilities and transportation; water developments; and locations for community parks, fire stations, schools, and other facilities. In many cases these uses have come into conflict with each other, and there are conflicts within certain use types; for instance, motorized and non-motorized outdoor recreation. These pressures are likely to increase further should Washington County regain strong growth rates.

The study area is comprised of more than 1.5 million acres. Table 1-1 shows land tenure in Washington County.

Table 1-1. Land Tenure in the Study Area (Acres)

Washington County % Study Area

Bureau of Land Management 634,505 41

Forest Service 395,137 25

National Park Service 132,624 8

Utah State 88,863 6

Private Ownership 276,006 18

Shivwits Indian Reservation 28,829 2

Total 1,556,003 100

Source: BLM Geographic Information System (GIS) data. Note: These acreages are based on the information currently available from the State of Utah for state and private lands.



The large majority (75 percent) of the land in the study area is federally managed. Private lands account for a small percentage of the study area (18 percent). The percentage of state land is an even smaller portion (6 percent) of the study area. The remaining land is owned by the Shivwits Indian Reservation (2 percent). Figure 1-4 shows a graphical representation of the land ownership tenure in the study area.

Figure 1-4. Federal, State, and Private Land Tenure in the Study Area

Tribal lands are represented in Figure 1-4 in the federal category. However, the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah exercises inherent sovereign powers over the lands of the Shivwits Indian Reservation in Washington County.

Land use in the study area varies on private, state, and federal land. Private land uses include urban communities, rural communities, and housing scattered across the study area and some agricultural lands. State and local land uses include several state parks, local parks, airports, and other public amenities. The major components of federal land use include protected lands in national parks, monuments, conservation areas, and wilderness areas, and multi-use lands managed by BLM and the Forest Service.

The total population of the study area was estimated to be 138,115 in the 2010 Census, as shown in Table 1-2. This accounts for roughly 5 percent of the population of the State of Utah. The study area has a few urban areas, but the majority of the area is rural and sparsely populated. In 2010, the overall density of the study area was 56 people per square mile. Washington County is more densely populated than the rest of the state, but less so than the nation.

Table 1-2. 2010 Population, Area, and Population Density of Study Area

Total Population Land Area

(Million Acres) Land Area

(Square Miles) Persons Per Square Mile

Washington County (Study Area)

138,115 1.56 2,431.25 56.8

Utah 2,763,885 52.59 82,169.62 33.6

United States 308,745,538 2,260.42 3,531,905.43 87.4

Source: Population—U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Demographic Profile Data. Land Area—U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts 2010.

The most urbanized and populous city in the study area is St. George City, with a population of 72,000. Other communities with smaller but expanding populations are also located within the St. George Basin and include Ivins, Santa Clara, Washington, and Hurricane. The jurisdictional boundaries of these growing communities abut the public lands of the Red Cliffs NCA. Smaller, rural residential communities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Private

State

Federal

Federal

State

Private



occur outside of the St. George Basin. Much of the land base of Washington County remains undeveloped.

Washington County is accessible directly by road and air travel. Major highways include Interstate 15 and State Routes 9 and 18. The primary interstate to and from the area is I-15, which extends between Salt Lake City, Utah, Las Vegas, Nevada, and San Diego, California. St. George Municipal Airport offers domestic flights to and from the area. Daily van shuttle services from St. George to McCarran Airport in Las Vegas provide regular access to national and international flights, as do daily van shuttles and commuter flights to the Salt Lake City Airport.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 2.0 Social & Cultural Conditions


2.0 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS

This section identifies and profiles the population, demographics, and other social and cultural characteristics of the study area. Data are provided at the county and city or town levels, depending on relevancy and availability. In most cases, data are only available at the county level. In many cases, data are also provided for the State of Utah and the United States for comparative purposes.

2.1 COMMUNITY SUMMARY Washington County has witnessed tremendous growth over the last few decades. Today, approximately 138,000 people make the county their home, while millions of others are drawn to it annually for recreation, business, or cultural activities. A combination of favorable climate, open space, scenic quality, and opportunities for expansive outdoor recreation have led to a significant in-migration of retirees and other families moving primarily from metropolitan areas outside of the county. The resulting population growth (52.9 percent between 2000 and 2010) made the county one of the fastest growing areas in the United States through the mid-2000s. Growth rates declined substantially in approximately 2008 (see discussion of population growth in Section 2.2).

Washington County is home to internationally known public land attractions, such as Zion National Park, and many additional public land resources (BLM and National Forest lands, state parks, etc.) which each year attract thousands of tourists and recreation enthusiasts. The county also has the benefit of a large, ultra-modern convention center, the Rosenbruch World Wildlife Museum, and the Cox Performing Arts Theatre at Dixie State College (for details, visit http://www.washco.utah.gov/).

Within Washington County, the largest communities are the incorporated cities of St. George, Washington, Hurricane, Santa Clara, and Ivins. The city of St. George is the county seat of Washington County. The city has experienced almost constant population growth since the early 1900s and is the most populous city in Washington County, with a 2010 population of 72,897. The tourist industry is the primary source of business. The topography ranges from as low as 2,000 feet above sea level at the bottom of the Virgin Gorge, to more than 10,000 feet at the peak of Pine Valley Mountain. St. George and its surrounding cities and towns are known for a unique geography that offers ample opportunity for outdoor recreation.

2.2 POPULATION GROWTH Washington County’s population has grown substantially since 1970 as shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Population Growth of Study Area

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010


13,669 26,065 48,560 90,354 138,115

Source: U.S. Census Bureau decennial census data.

The strength of Washington County’s growth is shown by comparing this growth to that of the state and nation on an indexed basis, as in Figure 2-1. The data in this figure are indexed by dividing the value in a given year by the value in 1970 and multiplying by 100. Values above 100 indicate growth, with higher values indicating a greater proportional change in population relative to the 1970 base year. This figure clearly shows that population growth in Washington County has substantially outpaced growth in the state and nation over the last several decades.

2.0 Social & Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report


Figure 2-1. Study Area Population Growth Indexed to State of Utah and Nation

0200400600800

1,0001,200

1970

1971

1972

1974

1975

1976

1978

1979

1980

1982

1983

1984

1986

1987

1988

1990

1991

1992

1994

1995

1996

1998

1999

2000

2002

2003

2004

2006

2007

2008

Inde

x: 1

970

=100

Recession Washington County, UT United States

Source: EPS-HDT Socioeconomic Measures Report, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011, BEA, REIS, Washington, D.C. Table CA30

Population growth of the cities and towns within Washington County from 2000 to 2010 is shown in Table 2-2. City and town locations, and the location of currently platted subdivisions, are also shown in Figure 2-2.

The city with the largest population in Washington County in 2010 was St. George, with approximately 52.8 percent of the population of the county, followed by Washington City with 13.6 percent, Hurricane City with 10.0 percent, Ivins City with 4.9 percent, and Santa Clara City with 4.3 percent. The ranking of cities in terms of population has remained relatively consistent from 2000 to 2010. Since 2000, the populations of all Washington County cities and towns have grown, some more consistently and at a greater rate than others. Many grew by more than 50 percent over the decade.

Table 2-2. Population of Study Area by Place, 2000–2010

2000 2010 % Change

STATE

Utah 2,233,169 2,763,885 23.8

COUNTY/PLACE

Washington County 90,354 138,115 52.9

Apple Valley Town (X) 701 (X)

Enterprise City 1,285 1,711 33.2

Hildale City 1,895 2,726 43.9

Hurricane City 8,250 13,748 66.6

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

197

019

71

197

219

74

197

519

76

197

819

79

198

019

82

198

319

84

198

619

87

198

819

90

199

119

92

199

419

95

199

619

98

199

920

00

200

220

03

200

420

06

200

720

08

Inde

x: 1

970=

100

Recession Washington County, UT Utah



2000 2010 % Change

Ivins City 4,450 6,753 51.8

LaVerkin City 3,392 4,060 19.7

Leeds Town 547 820 49.9

New Harmony Town 190 207 8.9

Rockville Town 247 245 -0.8

Santa Clara City 4,630 6,003 29.7

Springdale Town 457 529 15.8

St. George City 49,663 72,897 46.8

Toquerville Town 910 1,370 50.5

Virgin Town 394 596 51.3

Washington City 8,186 18,761 129.2

Balance of County 5,858 6,988 19.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics.



Figure 2-2. Locations of Cities, Towns, and Currently Platted Subdivisions in Washington County



Washington County’s growth has been largely based on in-migration. Table 2-3 shows the components of population change in the study area and state between 2000 and 2009. Nearly 72 percent of population growth in the study areas from 2000 to 2009 was the result of net migration into the area, from both domestic and international sources. Natural change accounted for a smaller percentage of growth (30.1 percent overall) in the study area, with positive growth in Washington County, indicating more births than deaths. Thus, while there has been a significant amount of in-growth, there has been even more migration to the area. These figures are in stark contrast to the components of population change for the state; for Utah, 70 percent of population change came from natural change, and a much smaller percentage came from net migration than for the study area. The age profile of the Washington County population discussed in Section 2.3 is indicative of the influence of retirees as in-migrants.

Table 2-3. Components of Population Change 2000–2009

Washington County Utah State

2000 Population (1) 91,256 2,244,314

2009 Population (2) 137,473 2,784,572

Population Change (3) 46,217 540,258

Percent Change (4) 50.6% 24.1%

Cumulative Births 2000–2009

(5) 21,799 479,519

Cumulative Deaths 2000–2009

(6) 7,547 124,262

Natural Change (7) 14,252 378,557

Natural Change as Percentage of Population Change

(8) 30.1% 70.1%

Net Migration (9) 33,149 118,543

Net Migration as Percentage of Population Change

(10) 71.7% 21.9%

2000 population estimates are for April 1; 2009 population estimates are for July 1. (3) = (2) - (1); (4) = (3) / (1); (7) = (5) - (6); (8) = (7) / (3); (10) = (9) / (3) In determining components of population change, the Census Bureau makes a minor

statistical correction, called a “residual.” Because of this correction, natural change plus net migration may not add to total population change in the table, and the percentages of population change may not add to 100. The residual represents change in the population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component of population change.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

The recent recession substantially slowed population growth in the study area, starting in approximately 2008. In 2008 the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) projected the total Washington County population to reach 168,078 (Utah GOPB 2008), but the 2010 Census population was substantially lower, at 138,115. Washington County was among the Utah counties hardest hit by the recession, in terms of impact on population growth. According to the Utah Population Estimates Committee, which prepares the official state and county population estimates for the State of Utah, from 2008 to 2009—in the midst of the recession—Washington County had the second lowest growth rate in the state, at 0.5 percent (Utah GOPB 2010).

It is likely that population growth in Washington County will resume in coming years. The county’s fundamental attractiveness as a high-quality-of-life location, particularly for retirees, has not changed.



Further, the aging of the American population will provide a continuing supply of retirees who may be interested in relocating to the area. On the other hand, the potential pool of retiree migrants is dampened in the near to medium term by the impact of the financial crisis on retiree and near-retiree savings such as 401k plans, and by the slow housing market throughout the country, which affects the ability of people to sell their homes elsewhere as a prerequisite to moving. Over the longer term, it is reasonable to question whether the rates of growth seen in the early to mid-2000s will ever return or could be sustained for long. At least two factors contribute to this concern: rates of growth almost always slow in a given geography as the size of the population increases (discussed in more detail below), and changes to home lending rules resulting from reforms in the wake of the financial crisis will make it harder for retirees (or others) in marginal financial situations to finance a move, reducing the pool of potential in-migrants.

Population projections are very important to land use planning and infrastructure planning. Therefore it is important to carefully consider how Washington County’s growth will proceed in the future, given the substantial slowdown brought by the recession. A thorough search for this study identified three important sets of population projections for the socioeconomic study area. Each set used an internally consistent methodology across subareas of the county. These sets of projections are—

• GOPB 2008 Baseline Population Projections (Utah GOPB 2008). These projections were prepared by the Demographic and Economic Analysis section for all of Utah at the county and subcounty levels. The GOPB projections are the official population projections for the state and are used for many planning purposes. The 2008 projections have not yet been revised to account for the impacts of the recession; they will be revised sometime in mid-2012 (Donner 2011). While dated, they are important to consider in this study because of their official status. The GOPB uses a consistent methodology across the state, employing both historical growth data and a logistic model (Donner 2011). A logistic model accounts for the typical pattern of growth rates slowing over time as area populations become larger. The 2008 GOPB model projected state and county population growth from 2010 through 2060. The subcounty projections were produced by regional Associations of Government analysts controlling to the GOPB county totals—in other words, they were regionally informed allocations of county projections from the state’s population growth model. The GOPB also prepares employment projections, which are useful for transportation demand planning and other purposes.

• Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (Dixie MPO, or MPO) Southwest Utah’s Population Growth Projections (Dixie MPO 2011). The Dixie MPO is the designated agency, as established by the State of Utah, responsible for comprehensive transportation planning in the urbanized and urbanizing areas in Utah’s Washington County. The MPO recently published a set of population projections using the following methodology. For each county subarea, the MPO took the 2010 Census population as the base year population. It then applied the historic 1970–2010 average annual rate of change to the 2010 population, extrapolating this same rate of change for all time periods through 2060 (Hutchings 2011). The total county population was defined as the sum of the subcounty populations for each time period.

• Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study Population Projections (Horrocks Engineers 2011; Heaps 2011). The Washington Parkway is another name for the “northern transportation route” mentioned in P.L. 111-11, Section 1977 (b) 2 (A). This cost/benefit study of six options for the location of the parkway is based on a traffic demand model that projects future traffic conditions. The model in turn is based on subcounty population projections for 2040. The population projection methodology as described in the study was as follows. The GOPB 2008 baseline projections were used to set the 2040 county-level control totals for population and employment. City and county land-use plans were used to determine the population and employment densities for different localized areas across the county. The study team obtained information from local planners to determine the time when the various areas are expected to develop. In other words,



localized 2040 population projections were determined through analysis of city and county plans and the knowledge of local planners, adjusted so that the sum of the localized projections did not exceed the GOPB’s Washington County projection.

Table 2-4 presents each set of the population projections described above, along with actual historical population figures from the decennial census from 1970 to 2010. Table 2-5 presents the calculated average annual rate of change (AARC) for various periods, for both actual historical population growth and projected population growth. AARC is the average annual compound growth rate from the beginning year of a period to the period’s end year. It is the measure of annual growth used by the GOPB.

Some important observations about the growth projections in Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 include—

• The GOPB’s 2008 projection of the 2010 Washington County population exceeded the actual (Census) 2010 population by 29,963. This represents 39 percent of the GOPB-projected growth of 77,724 for 2000 to 2010 (actual growth was 47,761).

• Given the lower actual 2010 population, the GOPB expects to revise downward its projections for at least the next few decades when it prepares new projections in 2012. For instance, the current GOPB 2030 projection for the county is 415,510. The GOPB anticipates the revised 2030 Washington County projection will be between 350,000 and 400,000, and probably closer to 350,000 than the higher figure (Donner 2011).

• The Dixie MPO county projection for 2030 is 354,794, which is in line with GOPB’s expectations for its revised 2030 projection.

• Washington County grew at an annual rate of 4.3 percent from 2000 to 2010. Additional calculations (not included in Table 2-5) show that the county grew at an annual rate of 6.6 percent in the 1970s, 6.4 percent in the 1980s, and 6.3 percent in the 1990s. The overall annual rate for 1970 to 2010 was 5.9 percent. These figures may show the beginnings of a logistic curve pattern, whereby the annual growth rate slows as an area’s population increases. One way of looking at this effect is to note that maintaining a constant annual growth rate with a larger population requires absorbing considerably larger numbers of new residents. Growth at an annual rate of 5.0 percent over 10 years from a base of 100,000 means 62,889 new residents must be absorbed. Growth at the same rate for 10 years from a base of 400,000 means 251,558 new residents must be absorbed.

• The GOPB’s projected annual growth rates show a logistic pattern. For every geographic unit, the projected annual growth rate decreases with each later period. For Washington County, the GOPB’s projected growth rate for 2010–2020 (based on GOPB’s 2008 projection for 2010) is 5.2 percent. The rate decreases to 4.0 percent for the 2020s, 3.0 percent for the 2030s, 2.4 percent for the 2040s, and 1.9 percent for the 2050s.

• The Dixie MPO projections use a constant annual growth rate across all periods for each subcounty area. The rates range from 1.8 to 6.5 percent. For the county as a whole, the rate varies slightly from period to period, reflecting summation of the subcounty populations, but is also essentially constant, ranging from 4.8 to 5.1 percent.

• The Washington Parkway cost/benefit study projection is for a single year, 2040. The average annual growth rate from 2010 to 2040 varies by subcounty area from 1.5 percent to 8.0 percent.

• All three projection sources are close on their projected county population for 2040: 559,670 by the GOPB; 574,315 by the Dixie MPO; and 551,034 by the Washington Parkway cost/benefit



study. However, as noted above, GOPB’s projections overshot the actual 2010 population considerably, and the new out-year projections will likely be revised downward. Thus the three sets of county-level projections will not match once the GOPB prepares new projections.

• At the subcounty level, the three projection sources vary considerably as to the projected growth rate and population for a given year for many of the geographic subareas. Table 2-6 shows the variations between the current six most populous subcounty geographies. Observations on these variations follow the table.



Table 2-4. Historical Population Growth and Projected Growth From Three Sources

Geography Historical Actual Population (Census)* Projected Population

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source** 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Apple Valley Town

X X X X 701 GOPB 826 1,371 2,036 2,742 3,477 4,216

Dixie MPO 1,151 1,889 3,102 5,092 8,359

Washington Pkwy 2,056

Enterprise City 844 905 936 1,285 1,711 GOPB 1,854 3,079 4,583 6,173 7,828 9,490

Dixie MPO 2,042 2,436 2,907 3,469 4,139


Hildale City 480 1,009 1,325 1,895 2,726 GOPB 2,430 4,058 6,008 8,092 10,261 12,440

Dixie MPO 4,208 6,496 10,029 15,481 23,899


Hurricane City 1,408 2,660 3,915 8,250 13,748 GOPB 16,381 27,287 40,512 54,568 69,193 83,887

Dixie MPO 24,302 42,959 75,939 134,238 237,293


Ivins City 137 600 1,630 4,450 6,753 GOPB 10,477 17,436 25,886 34,867 44,213 53,602

Dixie MPO 12,659 23,732 44,488 83,400 156,344


La Verkin City 463 1,174 1,771 3,392 4,060 GOPB 5,162 8,592 12,756 17,182 21,787 26,413

Dixie MPO 6,987 12,023 20,689 35,602 61,264


Leeds Town 151 218 254 547 820 GOPB 980 1,623 2,410 3,246 4,116 4,990

Dixie MPO 1,252 1,911 2,917 4,453 6,798


New Harmony Town

78 117 101 190 207 GOPB 241 392 595 801 1,016 1,232

Dixie MPO 264 337 430 549 701




1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source** 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Washington Pkwy 425

Rockville Town 0 156 182 247 245 GOPB 319 532 789 1,063 1,348 1,634

Dixie MPO 285 331 385 447 520

Washington Pkwy 385

Santa Clara City 271 1,091 2,322 4,630 6,003 GOPB 9,325 15,532 23,061 31,062 39,387 47,751

Dixie MPO 7,924 10,461 13,809 18,229 24,064


Springdale Town 182 258 275 457 529 GOPB 687 924 1,163 1,399 1,632 1,721

Dixie MPO 691 902 1,178 1,538 2,008


St. George City 7,097 13,146 28,502 49,663 72,897 GOPB 84,245 140,268 208,254 280,507 355,703 431,239

Dixie MPO 112,071 172,298 264,889 407,239 626,086


Toquerville Town

185 277 488 910 1,370 GOPB 1,514 2,519 3,742 5,040 6,391 7,748

Dixie MPO 2,260 3,728 6,150 10,145 16,736


Virgin Town 119 169 229 394 596 GOPB 634 1,063 1,566 2,109 2,675 3,243

Dixie MPO 892 1,334 1,995 2,985 4,466


Washington City 750 3,092 4,198 8,186 18,761 GOPB 22,858 38,285 57,050 77,011 97,793 118,818

Dixie MPO 31,426 52,641 88,178 147,706 247,419


Balance of County

1,735 1,528 2,860 5,858 6,988 GOPB 10,145 16,904 25,099 33,807 42,854 51,954

Dixie MPO 12,205 21,316 37,230 65,023 113,565





1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source** 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

County Totals 13,900 26,400 48,988 90,354 138,115 GOPB 168,078 279,864 415,510 559,670 709,674 860,378

Dixie MPO 220,619 354,794 574,315 935,596 1,533,661


X: Geography not defined at this year. Note: Dixie MPO Washington County totals here include balance of the county; totals in Dixie MPO source document do not. *Census data source: Dixie MPO 2011. **Projection sources: GOPB: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget 2008 Baseline Population Projections (Utah GOPB 2008). Dixie MPO: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (Dixie MPO) Southwest Utah's Population Growth Projections (Dixie MPO 2011). Washington Pkwy: Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study Population Projections (Horrocks Engineers 2011).

Table 2-5. Historical Population Growth Rates (AARC) and Projected Growth Rates From Three Sources

Geography

Actual Rates Projected Rates

1970–2010

2000–2010

Source* 2010**–

2020 2020–2030

2030–2040

2040–2050

2050–2060

2010**–2040

Apple Valley Town X X GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%

Washington Pkwy 3.7%

Enterprise City 1.8% 2.9% GOPB 5.2% 4.1% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%


Hildale City 4.4% 3.7% GOPB 5.3% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%


Hurricane City 5.9% 5.2% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9%


Ivins City 10.2% 4.3% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%



Geography


1970–2010

2000–2010

Source* 2010**–

2020 2020–2030

2030–2040

2040–2050

2050–2060

2010**–2040


La Verkin City 5.6% 1.8% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%


Leeds Town 4.3% 4.1% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3%


New Harmony Town 2.5% 0.9% GOPB 5.0% 4.3% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%


Rockville Town 14.7% -0.1% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%


Santa Clara City 8.1% 2.6% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%


Springdale Town 2.7% 1.5% GOPB 3.0% 2.3% 1.9% 1.6% 0.5% 2.4%

Dixie MPO 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%


St. George City 6.0% 3.9% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%


Toquerville Town 5.1% 4.2% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%




Geography


1970–2010

2000–2010

Source* 2010**–

2020 2020–2030

2030–2040

2040–2050

2050–2060

2010**–2040

Virgin Town 4.1% 4.2% GOPB 5.3% 3.9% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%


Washington City 8.4% 8.6% GOPB 5.3% 4.1% 3.0% 2.4% 2.0% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%


Balance of Washington County 3.5% 1.8% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%


Washington County Totals 5.9% 4.3% GOPB 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.1%

Dixie MPO 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 4.9%


AARC: Average annual rate of change. X: Geography not defined for 2000 or prior years. *Projection sources: GOPB: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget 2008 Baseline Population Projections (Utah GOPB 2008). Dixie MPO: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (Dixie MPO) Southwest Utah's Population Growth Projections (Dixie MPO 2011). Washington Pkwy: Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study Population Projections (Horrocks Engineers 2011). Note: Projections sources provided raw data; all growth rates calculated based on compound annual growth per GOPB methodology. **For GOPB, 2010 population figures used in calculating the growth rates are from the GOPB 2008 baseline projections, to properly show the growth rates/logistic pattern in

GOPB’s projections. For the other, more recent projection sources, 2010 population figures are the actual 2010 Census populations.



Table 2-6. Differences Between 2040 Population Projections (Most Populous Subareas)

Geography Projection Source*

High–Low Difference

High–Low Percentage Difference GOPB**

Dixie MPO

Washington Parkway

Hurricane City: Projected Population 54,568 75,939 136,937 82,369 151%

Growth Rate (AARC) 2010–2040 4.1% 5.9% 8.0%

Ivins City: Projected Population 34,867 44,488 20,695 23,793 115%

Growth Rate (AARC) 2010–2040 4.1% 6.5% 3.8%

Santa Clara City: Projected Population 31,062 13,809 15,573 17,253 125%

Growth Rate (AARC) 2010–2040 4.1% 2.8% 3.2%

St. George City: Projected Population 280,507 264,889 216,108 64,399 30%

Growth Rate (AARC) 2010–2040 4.1% 4.4% 3.7%

Washington City: Projected Population 77,011 88,178 106,531 29,520 38%

Growth Rate (AARC) 2010–2040 4.1% 5.3% 6.0%

Balance of County: Projected Pop. 33,807 37,230 18,896 18,334 97%

Growth Rate (AARC) 2010–2040 4.1% 5.7% 3.4%

AARC: Average annual rate of change. * Projection sources: GOPB: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget 2008 Baseline Population Projections (Utah GOPB 2008). Dixie MPO: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (Dixie MPO) Southwest Utah's Population Growth Projections (Dixie

MPO 2011). Washington Parkway: Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study Population Projections (Horrocks Engineers 2011). Note: Projections sources provided raw data; all growth rates calculated based on compound annual growth per GOPB

methodology. ** For GOPB, 2010 population figures used in calculating the growth rates are from the GOPB 2008 baseline projections, to

properly show the growth rates/logistic pattern in GOPB’s projections. For the other, more recent projection sources, 2010 population figures are the actual 2010 Census populations.

Some of the key differences between the 2040 projections for the Washington County subareas in Table 2-6 include—

• The differences in projected population between the high and low projections for each subarea range from more than 17,000 to more than 82,000.

• In several cases (Hurricane, Ivins, and Santa Clara), the difference exceeds the low population projection (i.e., the “High–Low Percentage Difference” is greater than 100 percent).

• The high projection for Hurricane reflects a very high annual growth rate of 8.0 percent. • The annual growth rates for the high projection for Ivins and Washington City are also quite high,

at 6.5 and 6.0 percent, respectively.

In summary, the three sets of projections in the tables above show considerable variability. Many factors can and will affect growth in Washington County in coming decades. Clearly there are important uncertainties regarding—

• The overall pace of growth in coming decades and the resulting total population levels • How much growth will occur in a given timeframe in specific subareas of the county.

For the purposes of socioeconomic analysis for this BLM planning effort, the uncertainties about population growth have several important implications:



• Different amounts and patterns of growth will create different pressures within Washington County. There could be differences in demand for recreational and other amenities on BLM land, in impacts on efforts to protect sensitive species and landscapes, and in the need for infrastructure and other public services across the county.

• Transportation planning is especially connected to population growth and the related factor of employment growth. The amount and location of growth drives needs for new transportation infrastructure. The need for the Washington Parkway and other new or upgraded transportation infrastructure depends on the patterns and amounts of growth.

• The need for new or upgraded transportation infrastructure may be more rapid or more distant depending on variations in future growth.

Determining the need for major new infrastructure or other major public service improvements that are outside BLM’s mission and largely tied to factors beyond BLM’s control is not a purpose of this baseline socioeconomic assessment. However, such projects can impact BLM public lands and the many goals and objectives of BLM’s management of public lands. Therefore, given the many uncertainties regarding population growth in Washington County, the case for such projects should be carefully made. Any analysis of major public projects that could impact BLM public lands should include sensitivity analysis to determine the effect different growth scenarios would have on the viability of such projects. The high degrees of variation in future population levels shown in Table 2-6 might well affect the viability of major public projects.1

To the extent that population projections affect the impacts of BLM management decisions under the alternatives that will be developed in this BLM planning effort, new population growth projections or additional information can be incorporated during the impacts analysis phase.

2.3 DEMOGRAPHICS Key demographic indicators for the socioeconomic study area are presented below. The discussion focuses on county-level data. The environmental justice section below addresses some variations in race and poverty at the sub-county level.

A comparison of demographic characteristics of Washington County, Utah, and the United States is shown in Table 2-7, and depicts various elements of the socioeconomic makeup of the study area. The male to female ratio shown in this table is similar for all geographies. The median age for Washington County is similar to that of the State of Utah and younger than that of the nation, but the percentage of the population over 65 years of age in Washington County is substantially higher than that of the state and of the nation, reflecting the large retirement population in the study area. The average family size for Washington County is somewhat lower than that for Utah (probably due to the older population) and higher than for the United States. Washington County rates of high school graduates or higher are similar to those of the state and nation. However, Washington County has a slightly lower rate of college graduates than the state and nation. This probably also reflects the older population, as older generations tend to have less college education than younger generations. Washington County has a lower percentage of people for whom a language other than English is spoken in the home compared to Utah and a substantially lower percentage than the United States. This reflects the strongly white racial profile and low Hispanic population of the county (discussed below).

1 The Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study (Horrocks Engineers 2011) does not include sensitivity analysis for differing

amounts or locations of future growth.



Table 2-7. Demographics Overview of Study Area Compared to State and Nation

Washington

County Utah State United States

Total Population 100% 100% 100%

Male 49.4% 50.2% 49.2%

Female 50.6% 49.8% 50.8%

Median Age (years) 32.6 29.2 37.2

65 Years and Over 17.3% 9.0% 13%

Average Family Size 3.36 3.56 3.14

Education (degrees) (x) (x) (x)

Secondary 90.6% 90.3% 85%

Post-Secondary 30.3% 38.1% 34.8%

Language Other Than English 9.9% 14.0% 19.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 ACS.

According to data from 2006 to 2008 in Table 2-8, a somewhat smaller percentage of the residents of Washington County were born in their current state (Utah, 55 percent) compared to 63 percent of Utah residents and 59 percent of U.S. residents who were born in their current state of residence. This is mildly indicative of the in-migration that has occurred in Washington County in recent decades. Of the Washington County residents born elsewhere, fully 10 percent more were born in another state compared to Utah or U.S. residents, and only 6 percent were foreign born, compared to 8 percent of Utah residents and nearly 13 percent of U.S. residents.

Table 2-8. Place of Birth of Residents

Washington


State of Residence 55.1% 62.5% 58.9%

Different State 38.4% 28.3% 27.3%

Foreign Born 5.8% 8.2% 12.5%

Totals may not add to 100 percent due to a small percentage of people born in Puerto Rico, U.S. island areas, or abroad to American parent(s).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 ACS.

As shown in Table 2-9, the majority of the 2010 population in the study area (89.7 percent) was of White race, which was on par with Utah, but much higher than the U.S. population. Washington County’s other minority populations were similar to those in the state, but less than the nation. The Hispanic population was substantially smaller in Washington County than in the state or nation. Further analysis of minority populations is provided in the Environmental Justice section of this document (see Section 2.8).

Table 2-9. Population by Race, 2010

Washington County Utah United States

Pop % Pop % Pop %

White 123,914 89.7 2,379,560 86.1 223,553,265 72.4

Black or African American

790 0.6 29,287 1.1 38,929,319 12.6




Pop % Pop % Pop %

American Indian and Alaska Native

1,869 1.4 32,927 1.2 2,932,248 0.9

Asian 982 0.7 55,285 2.0 14,674,252 4.8

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

1,078 0.8 24,554 0.9 540,013 0.2

Some other race 6,313 4.6 166,754 6.0 19,107,368 6.2

Two or more races 3,169 2.3 75,518 2.7 9,009,073 2.9

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

13,486 9.8 358,340 13.0 50,477,594 16.3

Note: Hispanic population is an additional designation, not a race designation; the Hispanic population includes multiple races. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Demographic Profile Data DP-1.

The median family income in Washington County from 2006 to 2008 was considerably lower than that for Utah and the United States, as shown in Table 2-10. The per capita income of Washington County was closer to that of the state, but still lower than that of the nation. However, the percentage of families and individuals below the poverty line was lower for Washington County than for Utah or the nation. Additional detail regarding income is provided in the Economic Conditions section of this document (see Section 3.3). Additional detail regarding poverty is provided in the Environmental Justice section below.

Table 2-10. Income Levels

Washington

County Utah State

United States

Median family income (in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) $54,704 $64,372 $63,211

Per capita income (in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) $21,354 $23,020 $27,466

Families below poverty level 5.50% 6.90% 9.60%

Individuals below poverty level 7.80% 10% 13.20%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 ACS

2.4 HOUSING U.S. Census Bureau data from 2006 to 2008 provided in Table 2-11 show that housing types in Washington County were similar to those of the state and nation, with the majority of houses being single-unit detached, and small percentages of single-unit attached and mobile home units. The median value of homes in Washington County as of 2006–2008 was modestly higher than median home values of the state and substantially higher than the U.S. figure.

Table 2-11. Housing Unit Types and Median Value


Estimate % Estimate % Estimate %

Total Housing Units 54,576 100 923,373 100 127,762,925 100

1-unit detached 38,282 70.1 640,240 69.3 78,776,659 61.7

1-unit, attached 3,717 6.8 49,298 5.3 7,272,712 5.7

Mobile home 3,694 6.8 39,480 4.3 8,653,702 6.8





Median Value (dollars) 250,800 (X) 215,200 (X) 192,400 (X)


Housing values in the socioeconomic study area increased rapidly in the mid-2000s and then declined starting early in 2008, at least as shown by data for the St. George Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in Figure 2-3. Note that this figure shows “year over year” change. Thus, the peak in percentage price increases from 12 months prior occurred in 2006. Price increases compared to 12 months earlier declined to 2008 when decreases started. Since 2010 the rate of decrease has slowed, but as of the end of this data set, increases had not begun. Note that the extremes of price increases and decreases have been greater in St. George than in the Salt Lake City area, but less than in the Las Vegas area.

Figure 2-3. Year-Over Change in MSA Area Housing Price Index (HPI)

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Current Economic Snapshot–Washington County, December 6, 2011, based on

data from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

As shown in Table 2-12, Washington County, from 2006 to 2008, had a similar percentage of homes that were occupied by their owners, compared to Utah, and a substantially higher percentage compared to the United States. The county had a substantially lower percentage of units with a mortgage than the state or nation. These patterns are consistent with the older population profile of Washington County (compared to the state and nation); a population that in Washington County’s case is relatively well off. The median monthly cost of housing to the owner was similar in Washington County and Utah, but lower than the U.S. cost. The monthly cost to renters in Washington County was higher than in Utah and the United States.

Table 2-12. Housing Occupancy and Monthly Costs



Total housing units 57,734 100 979,709 100 131,704,730 100

Owner-occupied housing

Total units 32,643 70.5 618,137 70.4 75,986,074 65.1

Units with a Mortgage 22,198 47.9 471,931 53.8 51,487,282 68.3

Units without a Mortgage

10,445 22.5 146,206 16.7 23,875,803 31.7

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

St. George

Salt Lake

Las Vegas





Median Monthly Cost to Owner

1,423 NA 1,413 NA 1,508 NA

Renter-occupied housing

Total units 13,691 28.5 259,555 29.6 40,730,218 34.9

Median rent paid per month* 925 NA 764 NA 819 NA

Vacant Housing Units**

Total Units 11,400 19.7 102,017 10.4 15,376,627 12

NA: Not applicable. * Median rent paid is only for units for which rent is paid; the median rent value does not factor in the units for which no rent is

paid, which occurs in less than 3 percent of all rental units in the study area. ** Vacant housing units are units that are vacant at the time of enumeration unless its occupants are only temporarily absent;

units that are temporarily occupied by people at the time of enumeration who have normal residence elsewhere are also considered to be vacant. (U.S. Census Bureau Fact Finder 2010)


Housing construction in Washington County peaked in 2004–2005 as depicted in Figure 2-4. Starting in 2006 a dramatic drop occurred in housing units built, with the most drastic reductions occurring during 2008 and 2009 as a result of the recession.

Figure 2-4. Washington County Housing Units Built Per Year

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, based on data from the Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the

University of Utah.

2.5 QUALITY OF LIFE The average commute time for Washington County is slightly lower than commute time for Utah and the United States as show in Table 2-13.

980

1,266

2,114

2,697

2,0191,929

1,5141,687

1,519

1,267

1,740

1,995

2,678

3,7943,860

2,256

1,888

682 605

870



Table 2-13. Average Commute Time


Mean travel time to work (minutes)

18 21 25


Washington County has a relatively low crime rate. Based on crime index crimes reported to the Utah Department of Public Safety, in 2009 the county’s crime rate was 19.62 crimes per 100 people. This was the 8th lowest rate in the state (not including a few counties with low reporting rates). The overall state rate was 34.75 (Utah Department of Public Safety 2009).

Marital status in the study area relative to Utah and the United States is shown in Table 2-14. From 2006 to 2008, the study area had lower rates of separated and divorced persons relative to the state and nation, for both males and females. The rate of both widowed males and females, however, is higher than for the state, probably reflecting marital status of the older, retired cohort of the local population.

Table 2-14. Marital Status

Washington County Utah State United States

Estimate % Total Estimate % Total Estimate % Total

Males 15 years and over 48,838 N/A 983,006 N/A 117,272,059 N/A

Never married 12,742 26.1% 316,746 32.2% 39,980,481 34.1%

Now married (not separated)

30,919 63.3% 558,946 56.9% 61,245,287 52.2%

Separated 329 0.7% 10,781 1.1% 2,150,464 1.8%

Widowed 1,308 2.7% 15,783 1.6% 2,980,656 2.5%

Divorced 3,540 7.2% 80,750 8.2% 10,915,171 9.3%

Females 15 years and over 51,009 N/A 980,301 N/A 123,092,953 N/A

Never married 9,533 18.7% 253,725 25.9% 33,996,266 27.6%

Now married (not separated)

32,847 64.4% 552,954 56.4% 59,338,572 48.2%

Separated 355 0.7% 13,866 1.4% 3,130,609 2.5%

Widowed 3,914 7.7% 60,960 6.2% 12,179,997 9.9%

Divorced 4,360 8.5% 98,796 10.1% 14,447,509 11.7%


Natural amenities such as scenery, access to recreation, and the presence of protected areas (e.g., NCA, national monuments, national parks, designated wildernesses, or other forms of protection) are an important contributor to the quality of life in the region. Many people are drawn to Washington County because of its spectacular landscape and the availability of outdoor recreation opportunities. Section 4.7 discusses a growing body of evidence suggesting that natural amenities have positive economic benefits for communities possessing such amenities. These amenities are closely tied to nonmarket values of public lands, which are discussed in Section 4.9.

One indicator of the amenity values of Washington County is the proportion of second homes, which reflect the attraction of the county to affluent individuals and families. As of 2000, 13.2 percent of residential units in Washington County were second homes, compared to 5.1 percent for both the State of



Utah and the nation (EPS-HDT Amenities Report as of December 2011, based on Theobald 2005). While dated, given the larger difference between Washington County and the larger geographies, these data are indicative and significant.

2.6 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS Various government entities, institutions, social organizations, and interest groups are stakeholders in the management processes and decisions associated with the development and implementation of the NCA RMPs, the St. George Field Office RMP Amendment, and the CTTMP. The social organizations and institutions that have been identified in initial phases of the planning process are listed below according to the following categories: government, and occupational and interest groups. Other stakeholder organizations are not cited because they do not meet the criteria (noted below) necessary for inclusion in this report: this does not mean they are not important stakeholders and cannot participate in the planning process.

2.6.1 Government The government entities that were invited by BLM to participate in the scoping process, or that provided comments as part of the scoping process, are listed below. Three agencies have formalized official cooperating agency status with BLM as of March 2012 and are noted as such. Some of the listed agencies may be on a BLM mailing list because of past interest in BLM activities and may not necessarily have an interest in the current planning effort.

Federal Government Other Agencies:

• Army Corp of Engineers • Army Environmental Center, Western Regional Environmental Office • Bureau of Indian Affairs • Bureau of Land Management

– Arizona Strip District – Color Country District – Ely District Office – Las Vegas District Office

• Department of Defense, Utah Test and Training Range • Environmental Protection Agency • Federal Highways Administration • Forest Service

– Dixie National Forest – Pine Valley Ranger District

• National Park Service – Pipe Springs National Monument – Zion National Park

• National Weather Service • Natural Resources Conservation Service • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • United States Geological Survey

State Government Cooperating Agencies:

• State of Utah



Other Agencies:

• Nevada State Commission Board • Utah Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Council • Utah Advisory Council on Historic Preservation • Utah Center for Policy and Planning • Utah Department of Natural Resources • Utah Department of Transportation • Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands • Utah Division of Parks and Recreation

– Gunlock State Park – Iron Mission State Park – Quail Creek State Park – Sand Hollow State Park – Snow Canyon State Park

• Utah Division of Water Quality • Utah Division of Wildlife Resources • Utah Geological Society • Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office • Utah Resource Advisory Council • Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

Local Government Cooperating Agencies:

• Washington County, Utah • Mojave County, Arizona

Other Agencies:

• Beaver Dam Fire Department • City of Enterprise • City of Fredonia • City of Mesquite • City of Santa Clara • City of St. George • Colorado City • Hurricane City • Iron County Commission • Ivins City • Kane County Commission • LaVerkin City • Leeds Domestic Water • Los Angeles Department of Water and Power • Mohave County Sheriff • Town of Apple Valley • Town of Leeds • Town of New Harmony • Town of Rockville • Town of Springdale • Town of Toquerville • Town of Virgin



• Washington City • Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan Administrator’s Office

Tribal Governments Other Agencies:

• Cedar Band of Paiutes • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe • Colorado River Indian Tribe • Havasupai Indian Tribe • Hopi Indian Tribe • Hualapai Indian Tribe • Indian Peak Band of Paiutes • Kaibab Band of Paiutes • Kanosh Band of Paiutes • Koosharem Band of Paiutes • Las Vegas Paiute Tribe • Moapa Band of Paiutes • Navajo Nation • Pahrump Band of Paiutes • Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah • Pueblo of Zuni • San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe • Shivwits Band of Paiutes • Southern Paiute Consortium • Ute Indian Tribe • Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Special Districts and Commissions Other Agencies:

• Apple Valley Planning Commission • Ashcreek Special Services District • Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization • Eastern Washington County Rural Planning Organization • Five County Association of Governments • Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems • Virgin Valley Water District • Washington County Economic Development Council • Washington County Water Conservancy District

U.S. Congressional Representatives • Congressman Jim Matheson • Senator Robert Bennett • Senator Orrin Hatch • Senator Mike Lee

2.6.2 Occupational and Interest Groups The occupational and interest groups listed below were invited by BLM to participate in the scoping meetings and/or provided written comments as part of the scoping process for this BLM planning action. This extensive list gives some indication of the broad interest in the management of the NCAs and in



travel and transportation planning. However, some of the organizations included below may be on a BLM mailing list because of past interest in BLM activities and may not necessarily have an interest in the current planning effort. In addition to the organizations listed, other individuals and anonymous stakeholders also provided input as part of the scoping process.

Non-Profit and Public Interest Groups • Back Country Horsemen of Utah • Blue Ribbon Coalition • Canyon Country 4X4 • Citizens for Dixie’s Future • Color Country Cycling Club • Dixie Mountain Bike Trails Association • Forest Guardians • Friends of Gold Butte • Grafton Heritage Partnership • Grand Canyon Trust • Grand Canyon Wildlands Council • Great Old Broads for Wilderness • High Desert Trail Committee • Kokopelli ATV Club • LDS Church • Outback Hiking Club • Paintball in Southern Utah • Partners in Conservation • Partnership for the National Trails System • Red Cliffs Audubon • Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance • St. George Off-Road Association • St. George Mountain Bikers Dixie Trails • Sun River Ranger Bart Trail • The Wilderness Society • Tri-State ATV Club • U4WDA • United Effort Plan • USA-ALL • Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association • Utah 4X4 • Utah Bicycle Coalition • Utah Heritage Foundation • Utah Rock Art Research Association • Virgin River Land Preserve Association • Wasatch Trials Association • Watchman Subdivision Association • Western Land Exchange Project • Wizards Motorcycle Club

Universities • Northwestern University Environmental Policy and Culture Program • Southern Utah University • University of Utah • Utah State University



Businesses • Adams Livestock • Adventure Bus • Alltel Communications, LLC • Alpine Training Services • American Tower Corporation • Ames Promoting • Ami Industries, Inc. • Anonymous Content • Aspiro, Inc. • Atkin Family Ltd. • ATV and Jeep Wilderness Tours • Autotel • Backcountry Outfitters • Baker Reservoir Project • Ballard Brothers • Bench Lake Irrigation • Black’s Oak Grove • Bloomington Water Company • Burgess Ranch LLC • Cambridge Development LLC • Canyonlands Grazing Corporation • Cellular Inc. Network • Central Canal and Irrigation Company • Charter Communications • Circle M Trail Rides • CJ Burgess Family Living Trust • CJ Pro, Inc. (formerly Red Rock Bicycles) • Clark Ranch • Color Country Horse Endurance Ride • Color Country Rock, LLC • D K Bundy Excavating • Darwin Ballard’s Ranch, LLC • Darwin Stratton and Sons, Inc. • Delmont Wallace 1993 Trust • Desert Folks Consulting • Diamond Ranch Prop, LLC • Diamond G Ranch • Dixie Escalante Electric • Dixie Power • Dixie Wildlife • Double L Holdings, LLC • El Dorado Hills Mutual Water • El Rancho Motoqua, Inc. • Ence Associates, LC • Ence Brothers Land and Investments • Escalante Farms Company • Escape Adventures • Esplin Cattle Company • Extreme Desert ATV Tours • Feller Holding Corporation



• Fitness Ridge • FTV Communications, LLC • Garkane Power Association • Global Event Management • Gold Butte Ranch • Good Earth Minerals, LLC • Grand Canyon Wildcamps • Great Life, Inc. • Green Valley Spa • Gulbranson Enterprises • Hafen Family Trust • Hall and Grafton Irrigation • Hall Family Trust • Hamilton Communication SVC • Harrisburg Estates • Hermosa Tours • Hidden Valley Water • High Mountain Outfitters • Hoskins Engineering • Huntsman World Senior Games • Hurricane Hills Ranch, LLC • Interstate Rock Products • IPP Operating Agent • Irvin and Betty Ence Family Trust • J W Ranch, Inc. • JD Iverson Family Trust • Jesoco, Inc. • JKR Development • Jones Boys Ranch, LLC • K&K Family, LC • Kay and Doris Ence Family Trust • Kern River Gas Transmission Company • Larry Carter Trust • Lauritzen Irrigation • Lower Gunlock Reservoir Corporation • Magotsu Water Company • Midnight Properties, LC • Mild to Wild Rhino and ATV Tours • Mossback Productions • Mountain Bike Buddies • Nevada Power Company • Newport, LC • Northfork Land Development • On Track 4X4 • Outdoor Utah • Over the Edge Sports • Owen Cottom, LTD • PacifiCorp • Padre Mining Company • Paragon Adventures, LLC • Pearl II, LC



• Pine Valley Mountain Farms Water Company • Pro-Cycle Sports • Pub Rocky Road, LLC • Quail Creek Ranch and Land, Inc. • Questar Infocomm • Questar Pipeline Company • Qwest Communications • Qwest Corporate Real Estate • R&W Excavating, Inc. • Red Mountain Spa • Red Rock Rails • RedrockRC.com • Rim Tours • Rio Virgin Telephone Company • Rockville Pipeline Company • Rocky Mountain Extreme Crawlfest • Roger’s Construction • Sand and Sidewinders • Second Nature Entrada • Shadow Glen 420 • Snake Farm Bicycle Ranch • Snow Canyon Trail Rides • Snow Family, LC • Snowfield Rock Products, LC • South Central Communications • South Central Utah Telephone Association • Southwest Stone • Souvall/Sunbelt • Spendlove Family Trust • Spilsbury Land and Livestock • St. George Air Park, LC • St. George Energy Services • St. George Washington Canal Company • Staheli Farms • Stout Enterprises • Summit Adventure Company • Suncor Development Company • Sunrise Engineering • SunRoc • SWCA • Terracor • The Dammeron Corporation • The Spectrum • Thirstystone Resources, Inc. • Tonogold Gold Resources, Inc. • Torque Motorsports • Trees Ranch, LTD • TSM, Inc. • Twin City Water Work • Utah 80, LC • Utah Aspen Development, LC



• Utah Interlinx Communication, LLC • Verizon Wireless • Veyo Culinary Water • Virgin Canal Company • Washington County Cattlemen’s Association • WCWCP • Western Guides and Outfitters • Western Rock Products • Western Spirit Cycling • Western Wireless • Wild Horizons Expeditions • Wild Mountain Outfitters • Wiltel Communications, LLC • World Outdoors • Xtreme Outfitting, LLC • Zion Adventure Company • Zion Outback Safaris • Zion Rock and Mountain Guides • Zuni Cultural Resources

2.7 SOCIAL VALUES, ATTITUDES, AND BELIEFS Section 2.6 identified many organizations that are stakeholders in the use and management of BLM public lands. These stakeholder organizations and individuals have widely varying interests in the use and management of these resources.

Different types of stakeholders have distinct sets of attitudes, beliefs, values, opinions, and perceptions about public resources and the effects of various management policies and actions. These views reflect different cultural as well as economic linkages people have to public lands.

The social impact analysis that will be conducted later in the planning process will use categories of stakeholders as one means of identifying impacts of management actions under each alternative. By looking at the management actions from the different points of view of the various stakeholder groups, potential social and cultural impacts on each group can be identified.

Broad categories of stakeholders affected by the decisions to be made in this planning action are identified and characterized below. These categories and their descriptions are based primarily on comments made during the public scoping period and at the Economic Strategies Workshop.

The categorization of stakeholders is not meant to imply that all individuals and social groups fit neatly into a single category; many specific individuals or organizations may have multiple interests and would see themselves reflected in more than one stakeholder category. The point of categorization is to facilitate the impacts analysis phase of the planning process by allowing differentiation of social impacts based on broad differences in socio-cultural linkages to public lands and peoples’ associated points of view.

2.7.1 Habitat and Resource Conservation Stakeholders These stakeholders have a number of conservation objectives, but most believe broadly that protecting at-risk species and maintaining habitats and ecosystems for all species is a fundamental value and should be a high priority in public policy. Most believe in the intrinsic value of wildlife, well-functioning ecosystems, and pristine areas. Some advocate resource conservation for both human and wildlife needs; for example, this scoping comment: “We need quiet, natural areas for those who wish to enjoy them and to allow habitat for living and breeding for animals that live in these areas.”



Individuals and groups in this stakeholder category often point to the conservation objectives of P.L. 111-11: “My main comment is to carry forward the conservation mandate of these NCAs. The Congressionally-defined purposes of the new NCAs are: ‘to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of each unit.’” These stakeholders also see designation of new ACECs as a means for additional habitat and ecosystem protection.

Within the scoping process, these stakeholders gave particular attention to the protection of the Mojave Desert tortoise and its habitat, within the NCAs in particular. For example, this comment: “Congress designated the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas in part to protect and aid in the recovery of the tortoise and its habitat. BLM must ensure that its land use plans live up to the task of not only protecting these species, but enhancing their recovery.” Some scoping comments argued that within the NCAs, conservation and protection trump the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. Additional resource conservation topics that are of interest to members of this stakeholder category include paleontological, cultural, and historic sites; wild and scenic rivers; and visual resource management.

These stakeholders see a number of threats to species and habitat protection and resource conservation generally. One concern is with OHV use resulting in habitat degradation from off-road use and stress to animals from noise and dust. Another concern is livestock grazing. For instance, those opposed to grazing identified riparian damage, the spread of cheatgrass and other noxious weeds, and competition with the Mojave Desert tortoise or other animals for forage. Many in this stakeholder category also oppose new transportation routes in the Red Cliffs NCA. One scoping comment stated: “Construction of a northern corridor [“northern transportation route” per P.L. 111-11] or High Desert ATV Trail through the Red Cliffs NCA would violate the purposes for which the NCA was designated.” With respect to BLM management actions, these stakeholders advocate development of specific management actions (prescriptions, restrictions, and/or mitigations) to meet desired conditions for priority species/habitats, and support other species and protection of the ecosystem and other resources (e.g., cultural, scenic).

2.7.2 Motorized Recreation Stakeholders Motorized recreation stakeholders favor maintenance and improvement of OHV access to BLM public lands. They believe that this form of recreation on BLM lands is an important part of the area’s economy, pointing to both locals and visitors who take advantage of OHV opportunities, thereby benefiting local businesses from dollars spent in connection with the activity.

They also believe that OHV (or all-terrain vehicle [ATV]) use is vital to the area’s quality of life as an activity that has been enjoyed for years by many residents: “ATV use is a locally-valued use. I believe that ATV use should be preserved in places where ATVs have typically or historically been used. … For many people, ATVs are the best or only way to enjoy public lands and severely limiting their use can effectively bar many who would otherwise find enjoyment in the public lands.”

People in this group note the popularity of OHV use. They tend to perceive a public policy bias against it and are concerned with cumulative losses in available resources: “OHV use continues to increase in popularity in Utah all the while it seems OHV’ing areas are being closed (with no new areas being opened). This is crowding an ever increasing number of OHV users into an ever shrinking area of available/open land.” They believe motorized use should and can be consistent with other uses: “Please do not lock up our public lands, but let ALL the public enjoy them. We believe in sharing the trails with access for all; there is plenty of room for us, AND nature.”

Motorized recreation stakeholders are concerned with both the amount of available public lands, and the type of access. Some people in this category enjoy cross-country OHV use and dislike limitations to existing or designated routes only. These stakeholders are also concerned with temporal limitations and different route types for different types and widths of vehicles. Some are concerned with access for competitive events, rock crawling, and other special activities. Many in this group also point to their



efforts to encourage responsible OHV use; for instance, through organized events to show land stewardship and promote Tread Lightly attitudes in less experienced off-roaders.

2.7.3 Non-Motorized Recreation Stakeholders Non-motorized recreation stakeholders include hikers, backpackers, mountain bike riders, equestrians, and people who enjoy other types of recreation such as wildlife viewing or rock climbing and do not use OHVs for access to public lands. These stakeholders believe these forms of recreation on BLM lands are important to the area’s economy and to the area’s quality of life. They see BLM lands as a resource for both local and non-local users alike. For instance, they note that the mild climate in much of Washington County draws hikers, bikers, and others from colder areas: “When everything else is frozen to the North, we still have rideable trails and it becomes a big draw and helps our economy locally.” Many foresee growth in non-motorized recreation users and the impact that growth would have on the local economy.

Although there are some use conflicts within this group, most people in this group are more concerned over conflicts with motorized recreational uses. To these stakeholders, a fundamental aspect of their recreational experience is the peace, quiet, and sometimes solitude they experience away from motorized noises. They want “adequately sized areas … in which to get out of earshot of motorized routes,” and they wish to avoid experiences where motorized users, as one scoping comment put it, “destroy peaceful wilderness values for other users with their excessive noise and dust creation.” Many of these stakeholders believe there are inadequate opportunities for quality non-motorized recreational experiences; they point to comparative figures of public land acreages where OHVs are and are not allowed, and figures on the many miles of OHV trails available across the area or the state. They also point out incursions they have witnessed of OHVs into areas that are closed to OHV use.

Given their concerns with avoiding motorized uses, these stakeholders often mention Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) as a means for managing and balancing recreational uses; for example: “Properly designed and implemented SRMAs could do much to reduce existing recreational user conflicts…SRMAs should strive to balance different recreational and social needs and uses, so that people know ahead of time where they can go to reasonably expect a desired experience.” As well, there were suggestions during scoping for recreation management zones within SRMAs, suggesting a system similar to the recreation zones used in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument. Other concerns of this group of stakeholders include a perceived need for more and improved trail and trail-system opportunities, including more use-specific trails such as horse trails or hiking only trails. In addition, while not unique to this stakeholder group, many in this group advocate improved education, better signage and trail maintenance, more adequate staging and trailhead facilities, and more innovative on-the-ground management.

2.7.4 Livestock Grazing Stakeholders Livestock grazing stakeholders believe that ranching and livestock grazing are essential components of the landscape, economy, and social fabric of rural areas. They believe the local historical culture of grazing deserves protection; for instance: “I believe that traditional uses should be given some level of deference in the planning process, in order to protect their historical and cultural value whenever possible.” These stakeholder sometimes point to the educational value of this history.

Supporters of livestock grazing note that it has a direct economic impact on area families, sometimes extending back generations. They believe it is important to the local economy and also supports a sustainable landscape (e.g., grazing as a wildfire deterrent). Supporters sometimes note that grazing on public lands helps ranchers maintain their operations on private lands and continue providing key wildlife habitat and other public values on those private lands. They believe that livestock operators have irreplaceable long-term, on-the-ground stewardship knowledge that should be utilized to its full advantage to manage grazing and habitat values together.



These stakeholders are concerned with how BLM decisions could affect grazing use levels or the areas in which they occur. They want a continued ability to conduct ranching practices, including gathering cattle, checking and maintaining water lines, fencing, and all other aspects of a ranching operation. Four-wheeler access for maintenance and such things as salt rock transport for livestock is important to them.

2.7.5 Economic Development Stakeholders Economic development stakeholders support uses of BLM public lands that will foster local economic development. They are particularly supportive of infrastructure development and maintenance on BLM land, including transportation and utilities. They believe improved transportation is essential to local development and quality of life (e.g., traffic congestion relief), and that adequate utility ROWs and corridors are needed to ensure future energy and water requirements for Washington County and the West. They believe that various degrees of resource use would not conflict with NCA objectives.

Some in this category oppose new wilderness or other new special designations such as ACECs because they feel such designations are too restrictive on other uses that are important to economic development and that there are enough protections on much of the public land base already. Some in this category also favor disposal of public lands to community or private ownership to allow for development.

Particular concerns of these stakeholders include designation of a northern transportation route, expansion and upgrades of existing utility corridors, designation of additional utility corridors, establishment of additional ROWs such as those for communication sites or new water projects, and development of policies that allow for development of renewable energy. In addition to direct designation of corridors and ROWs, other plan provisions such as visual resource management that could impact infrastructure development are a concern. This group also notes the importance of administrative access to these corridors and sites for operational and maintenance purposes.

2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The concept of environmental justice (EJ) first became a required consideration for federal agencies with the publication of Executive Order (EO) 12898 on February 11, 1994. The EO requires each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” (EO 12898, §59 Federal Register 7629, 1994).

In order to address EJ considerations in the BLM planning context, a screening analysis of the appropriate socioeconomic study area for the planning action is required to identify whether any “EJ populations” are present.

The next section discusses the technical definitions used in identifying EJ populations, and the definition of “disproportionately high and adverse” effects. The concluding section presents the results of the screening analysis.

2.8.1 Definitions Subsequent to publication of the EO, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), part of the Executive Office of the President, issued guidance for considering EJ within the NEPA process (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). This guidance defines minorities as individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. The guidance further defines a “minority population” as follows:

Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected



area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

The guidance also makes clear that Indian tribes in the affected area should be considered in the EJ analysis.

The CEQ guidance states that “low-income” should be determined using the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census. That is, persons living under the poverty income threshold are potentially of concern. The guidance does not specify how to identify a “low-income population,” but in practice, the same approach used for minority populations can be followed—where persons in poverty status are greater than 50 percent of the area’s total population, or where the percentage in poverty is meaningfully greater that the percentage in the general population or an appropriate comparison area.

The CEQ guidance does not define what constitutes “meaningfully greater.” In practice, meaningfully greater is often defined to identify an EJ population if the percentage of population in minority and/or poverty status in an area is at least 10 percentage points higher than in the comparison area. This threshold is based on experience evaluating EJ indicators and the sense that this threshold represents a significant difference between the affected and comparison populations.

As to “disproportionately high and adverse” effects, the CEQ guidance states:

Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects: When determining whether human health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable:

(a) Whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant (as employed by NEPA), or above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; and

(b) Whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe to an environmental hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other appropriate comparison group; and

(c) Whether health effects occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards.

Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects: When determining whether environmental effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable:

(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment; and

(b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be having an adverse impact on minority populations, low income populations, or Indian tribes that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably



exceed those on the general population or other appropriate comparison group; and

(c) Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997)

The guidance and the presidential memo that accompanied the EO emphasize that agencies should provide opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA process, including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities.

2.8.2 Screening Analysis Identification of potential EJ populations requires data on population make-up (numbers of persons by race), data on poverty (numbers of persons living under the poverty level), and data on the economic status of Indian tribes in the area. The data must be sufficiently disaggregated to show any significant variations across the study area in concentrations of minority populations or populations living in poverty. The most recent data that is broken down to the sub-county level for minority populations in Washington County is from the 2010 Census, and for poverty is from the 2005–2009 and 2006–2010 editions of the ACS.

Table 2-15 shows census data for race and Hispanic identification for Washington County cities, towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Table 2-16 shows data on populations below the poverty level at the same geographic level, although data for the CDPs is not available. These tables also show the corresponding data for two reference populations: the State of Utah and the United States.

In both tables, the data for each minority or poverty group is expressed as a percentage of the total population. For this screening analysis, the convention noted above was adopted: if the minority population or population in poverty was 10 or more percentage points greater than for one of the reference populations, the area is “flagged” as being a potential EJ population and therefore an area of potential concern from an EJ perspective.

The adjective potential is emphasized here. No determination as to the likelihood of disproportionately high and adverse effects on these populations is made. That can only be determined once the management alternatives are defined, and the socioeconomic impact analysis is performed. It should also be noted that the results (the places flagged) might be different based on more recent data.

Based on the available data and the definitions and threshold values noted above, on the basis of minority population, no places in Washington County are flagged as areas of potential concern for impacts to EJ populations. On the basis of poverty status, one place in Washington County is flagged as an area of potential concern for impacts to EJ populations. This is Hildale City, based on the high percentages of its population of all ages, its population of related children under 18 years, and its families that are living under the poverty level.

With respect to the American Indian population in Washington County, this population does not show up as a high percentage of the population in any of the identified places in the county. Further, it is known that relatively few members of the Shivwits Band of Paiutes live on the Shivwits Reservation, which consists of largely undeveloped, remote lands. Many members of the Shivwits Band live in local communities and do not make up a large part of any one community’s population. However, further consideration is warranted given the CEQ EJ guidance regarding Indian tribes. According to the 2006–2010 ACS (Table S1701), 1,521 individuals in Washington County identify as either American Indian or Alaskan Native. Of these, 670 individuals (44 percent) are in poverty. Although the margin of error given the sample size is high (the percentage could be between 24 and 64 percent), it is clear that the poverty



rate among this population is much higher than that of the Washington County population as a whole (9.8 percent). Therefore, the American Indian population (it is unlikely that many of the individuals identified here are Alaskan Native) in Washington County is identified as a potential EJ population of concern.

Hildale City and the American Indian population in Washington County will be given further consideration for EJ in the impacts analysis phase of the planning process. However, it is worth noting at the time that Hildale City is located at a considerable distance from either NCA, and thus is unlikely to be impacted by management decisions in the NCA RMPs. Also, it is not clear how the American Indian population in Washington County would be adversely affected by management decisions in the current planning effort. For instance, no American Indians are known to currently hold any grazing permits or Special Recreation Permits in the St. George Field Office.



Table 2-15. Environmental Justice Indicators, Minority Population, 2010 Census

Geography Total

Population

Race Hispanic

(%) White (%)

Black/African American (%)

American Indian/ Alaska

Native (%)

Asian (%)

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

(%)

Some Other

Race (%)

Two or More

Races (%)

United States 308,745,538 72.4 12.6 0.9 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9 16.3

Utah 2,763,885 86.1 1.1 1.2 2.0 0.9 6.0 2.7 13.0

Washington County* 138,115 89.7 0.6 1.4 0.7 0.8 4.6 2.3 9.8

Apple Valley Town 701 94.3 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.3

Central CDP 613 96.1 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.8 0.8 3.6

Dammeron Valley CDP 803 96.6 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.5 1.5

Enterprise City 1,711 92.5 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.0 4.7 1.2 7.7

Hildale City 2,726 99.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4

Hurricane City 13,748 91.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.8 3.2 2.3 7.2

Ivins City 6,753 93.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.6 2.5 5.7

LaVerkin City 4,060 97.4 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.3 3.2 2.6 8.5

Leeds Town 820 97.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.6 1.2 3.0

New Harmony Town 207 97.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 3.9

Pine Valley CDP 186 97.8 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8

Rockville Town 245 96.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 1.6 2.4

Santa Clara City 6,003 94.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.8 1.7 4.9

Springdale Town 529 90.2 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.0 5.7 1.9 11.2

St. George City 72,897 87.2 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.0 6.1 2.6 12.8

Toquerville Town 1,370 96.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.8 2.7

Veyo CDP 483 94.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.3 1.7 0.6 5.2

Virgin Town 596 91.8 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.2 2.9 2.0 6.4

Washington City 18,761 90.7 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 4.4 2.0 8.4

*Population of places totals 133,212 or 96.5% of total Washington County Population. CDP: Census Designated Place Yellow Shading: Relevant reference population statistics. Orange Shading: Statistics/places “flagged” for EJ impacts analysis (none). Note: Hispanic population is an additional designation, not a race designation; the Hispanic population includes multiple races. Source: Population–U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, Table QT-P3.



Table 2-16. Environmental Justice Indicators, Poverty, 2005–2009

Geographic Area Total

Population

Percent Of Population Under the Poverty Level Percent of Families Under the Poverty

Level All Ages Related Children Under 18 Years

65 Years and Over

United States 293,507,923 13.50% 18.20% 9.80% 9.86%

Utah 2,610,053 10.40% 11.00% 6.80% 7.22%

Washington County 129,367 9.80% 12.20% 5.30% 7.08%

Apple Valley Town 593 4.20% 0.00% 0.00% 6.55%

Central CDP* NA NA NA NA NA

Dammeron Valley CDP NA NA NA NA NA

Enterprise City 1,105 11.40% 13.70% 16.00% 11.65%

Hildale City 1,474 51.20% 63.30% 15.20% 31.53%

Hurricane City 12,486 6.50% 8.10% 8.00% 6.52%

Ivins City 7,414 12.70% 20.20% 5.80% 7.80%

LaVerkin City 4,301 14.80% 15.10% 4.00% 11.90%

Leeds Town 782 9.50% 13.40% 0.00% 5.63%

New Harmony Town 184 4.90% 0.00% 9.70% 5.26%

Pine Valley CDP NA NA NA NA NA

Rockville Town 195 4.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Santa Clara City 6,473 2.30% 2.00% 0.00% 1.52%

Springdale Town 574 8.50% 14.10% 0.00% 7.70%

St. George City 68,900 10.20% 12.00% 4.40% 7.04%

Toquerville Town 1,334 8.50% 14.00% 2.40% 6.36%

Veyo CDP NA NA NA NA NA

Virgin Town 450 4.20% 0.00% 4.40% 4.67%

Washington City 15,740 9.20% 11.20% 9.00% 8.56%

CDP: Census Designated Place NA: Not available Yellow Shading: Relevant reference population statistics. Orange Shading: Statistics/places “flagged” for EJ impacts analysis. Source: Population–U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Tables GCT1701, GCT1702, GCT1704, and B17010.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 3.0 Economic Conditions


3.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

This section identifies and profiles the economy of the socioeconomic study area in terms of employment, earnings, sources of income, numbers and types of businesses, and economic base. Specific economic sectors that are most relevant to the decisions that will be addressed in the current planning effort are described. This section also includes data on sources of funds for state and local government, and briefly discusses BLM and local government expenditures. Data are provided at the county level. In some cases, data are also provided for the State of Utah and the United States for comparative purposes.

3.1 EMPLOYMENT The percentage of the population that was in the labor force in Washington County from 2006 to 2008 was substantially lower than the percentage for the state and the nation, as shown in Table 3-1. This is due to the proportionally large retired population in Washington County.

Table 3-1. Labor Force



In labor force (population 16 years and over)

58,908 60.1 1,336,789 69.6 153,989,802 65.2


In the mid-2000s, until 2008, the unemployment rate in the study area tracked evenly with the unemployment rate of the state, and lower than the rate for the United States, as shown in Figure 3-1. The similar or better unemployment rate for Washington County was likely the result of the strong local growth experienced in this period. Recently, however, Washington County has been hit hard by the recession. The unemployment rate in Washington County began to climb rapidly in mid-2008 and by early 2009 exceeded the national rate. Through the end of the time period for which data was available (April 2010), Washington County’s unemployment rate remained slightly higher than the national rate, and considerably higher than the Utah rate.

Figure 3-1. Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Current Economic Snapshot–Washington County, December 6, 2011, based on

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Jan2007

May Sep Jan2008

May Sep Jan2009

May Sep Jan2010

May Sep Jan2011

May Sep

Washington Utah U.S.

3.0 Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report


Employment in the study area has consistently recovered from recessions better than Utah or the United States. Figure 3-2 shows the percentage increase in jobs from the bottom of a recession to the next peak in employment (note, this is not the same as changes in the unemployment rate, although the two parameters are associated). Historically, during the 1980 to 2007 time horizon, Washington County has shown a stronger percentage increase in jobs following a recession compared to the state and the nation. This long-term trend in strong job growth following recessions indicates that the study area has historically had a resilient economy.

Figure 3-2. Employment Change During Recessions and Recovery Periods

Washington County

Utah

United States

Blue bars: recession periods Green bars: recovery periods (periods between national recessions) Source: EPS-HDT, Socioeconomic Measures Report, based on U.S. Department of Labor, 2011, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local

Area Unemployment Statistics, and National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.

10.5% 3.7% 0.9%

108.9%

1.7%

94.8%

4.3%

54.6%

-9.3%-20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%Ja

n '8

0-

July

'80

Aug

'80

- Ju

ne '8

1

July

'81

- N

ov '8

2

Dec

'82

- Ju

ne '9

0

July

'90

- M

ar '9

1

Apr

'91

- Fe

b '0

1

Mar

'01

- N

ov '0

1

Dec

'01

- N

ov '0

7

Dec

'07

- Ju

ne '0

9

Mon

thly

% C

hang

e

3.3% 1.6% 1.4%

26.8%

-0.9%

37.4%

1.6%

19.5%

-2.9%-5.0%0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%

Jan

'80

- Ju

ly '8

0

Aug

'80

- Ju

ne '8

1

July

'81

- N

ov '8

2

Dec

'82

- Ju

ne '9

0

July

'90

- M

ar '9

1

Apr

'91

- Fe

b '0

1

Mar

'01

- N

ov '0

1

Dec

'01

- N

ov '0

7

Dec

'07

- Ju

ne '0

9

Mon

thly

% C

hang

e

2.6% 1.2%

-3.2%

21.9%

-3.7%

16.3%

-0.6%

8.0%

-3.8%-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan

'80

- Ju

ly '8

0

Aug

'80

- Ju

ne '8

1

July

'81

- N

ov '8

2

Dec

'82

- Ju

ne '9

0

July

'90

- M

ar '9

1

Apr

'91

- Fe

b '0

1

Mar

'01

- N

ov '0

1

Dec

'01

- N

ov '0

7

Dec

'07

- Ju

ne '0

9

Mon

thly

% C

hang

e



Historical data on jobs by sector demonstrate the relative importance of different industries to the study area over time. Trends in employment before and after 2000 are discussed separately below. In 2001, the BEA switched from tracking economic sectors by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to tracking by use of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to better capture new industries that did not exist when the SIC codes were created.

Figure 3-3 shows employment trends by industry from 1970 to 2000 based on SIC codes. Over this period the Services industry saw a dramatic rise in employment beginning in the early 1980s. Retail Trade also took off at about the same time and at nearly the same pace. Employment in Government and Government Enterprises showed a smaller but steady increase throughout this time period. Beginning in the early 1990s, jobs in the Construction sector and the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector rose sharply and equaled government jobs by 2000. Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Transportation and Public Utilities showed modest gains in the 1980s and 1990s but continued to make up a smaller portion of the employment landscape. Mining, Agricultural Services, and Farm jobs remained relatively stable and represented a very small portion of employment within Washington County throughout the 1970–2000 period.

Figure 3-3. Washington County Employment by Industry, 1970–2000

Source: EPS-HDT, Socioeconomic Measures Report, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011, BEA, REIS, Table CA25 (SIC

code data only available to 2000; see below for 2001 forward).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Employment by Industry, Washington County, UTServices Retail trade

Government Manufacturing

Construction Finance, ins. & real estate

Agricultural services Trans. & public utilities

Wholesale trade Farm

Mining



As shown in Figure 3-4, based on NAICS codes from 2001 to 2009, Retail Trade was the largest sector, in terms of the number of jobs, until approximately 2004. Construction increased rapidly from 2001, becoming the largest sector by 2005. However, construction jobs fell off rapidly after 2007, reflecting the impact of the recession on population growth and development in Washington County. The next three largest sectors throughout the 2001 to 2009 period based on number of jobs were Health Care and Social Assistance, Government, and Accommodation and Food Services, each of which grew consistently through the period.

Figure 3-4. Washington County Employment by Industry, 2001–2009

Source: EPS-HDT, Socioeconomic Measures Report, based on U.S. Department of Labor, 2011, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local

Area Unemployment Statistics; and BEA, 2009, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Employment by Industry, Washington County, UTFarm Agricultural services, forestry, & fishing

Mining (incl. fossil fuels) Utilities

Construction Manufacturing (incl. forest products)

Wholesale Trade Retail Trade

Transportation & warehousing Information

Finance & Insurance Real estate & rental & leasing

Professional, scientific, & tech. services Management of companies

Admin. & waste services Educational services

Health care & social assistance Arts, entertainment, & recreation

Accommodation & food services Other services, except public admin.

Government



Table 3-2 shows employment by industry in 2009 for Washington County relative to the state and nation. Of particular note, in spite of the impact of the recession on the Construction industry in Washington County by 2009, it remained a proportionally larger industry in the county than in the state or nation. Retail Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Accommodation and Food Services were also proportionally larger industries in the county than in the state or nation in 2009. Government was several percentage points smaller in Washington County than in the state or nation, as was Manufacturing. At the aggregate level, Service-related employment in Washington County was about 5 percentage points higher than for the state or nation. This is commensurate with a geography in which the retired population and persons seeking amenity values are among the strongest economic drivers.

Table 3-2. Washington County Employment by Industry, 2009

Sector Washington County Utah

United States

Number % % % Total Employment (number of jobs) 68,930 100 100 100

Non-service related 9,569 13.9 15.8 15.4

Farm 543 0.8 1.2 1.5

Forestry, fishing, and related activities NA NA 0.2 0.5

Mining (including fossil fuels) 407 0.6 0.9 0.8

Construction 6,122 8.9 6.1 5.5

Manufacturing 2,497 3.6 7.4 7.1

Service related 51,702 75.0 69.9 70.4

Utilities 130 0.2 0.3 0.3

Wholesale trade 1441 2.1 3.2 3.5

Retail trade 8,859 12.9 10.9 10.2

Transportation and warehousing 3,289 4.8 3.2 3.2

Information 1,032 1.5 2.2 1.9

Finance and insurance 4,341 6.3 6.9 5.4

Real estate and rental and leasing 4,741 6.9 5.7 4.3

Professional and technical services 3,606 5.2 6.6 6.8

Management of companies and enterprises 335 0.5 1.3 1.1

Administrative and waste services 3,113 4.5 5.2 5.7

Educational services 818 1.2 2.8 2.3

Health care and social assistance 8,350 12.1 8.3 10.8

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1,608 2.3 2.1 2.2

Accommodation and food services 6,228 9.0 6.2 6.9

Other services, except public administration 3,811 5.5 5.1 5.7

Government 7,580 11.0 14.3 14.2

Source: EPS-HDT, Socioeconomic Measures Report, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011, BEA, REIS, Washington, D.C. Table CA25N.



3.2 LABOR EARNINGS Labor earnings are defined as the sum of wage and salary disbursements2, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income (BEA 2010b). Table 3-3 shows labor earnings in Washington County for 2001 to 2009. The specific industries with the highest earnings in 2009 were, beginning with the highest, Health care and social assistance, Government, Retail trade, and Construction. Note that after Health care and social assistance, and Government, Professional and technical services had the highest absolute increase in earnings (and also a large percentage increase).

Table 3-3. Washington County Labor Earnings by Industry, 2001–2009

Sector 2001 2009 Change

2001–2009 % Change 2001–2009

Labor Earnings 1,582,683 2,143,105 560,422 35.4%

Non-service related 315,134 322,816 7,682 2.4%

Farm 1,011 -3,548 -4,559 -451.0%

Forestry, fishing, and related activities NA NA NA NA

Mining (including fossil fuels) 6,465 11,474 5,010 77.5%

Construction 210,787 204,667 -6,119 -2.9%

Manufacturing 96,872 110,222 13,351 13.8%

Service related 1,031,138 1,446,388 415,250 40.3%

Utilities 4,759 10,444 5,685 119.5%

Wholesale trade 28,398 54,204 25,806 90.9%

Retail trade 199,761 244,206 44,446 22.2%

Transportation and warehousing 123,425 144,823 21,398 17.3%

Information 24,704 34,790 10,086 40.8%

Finance and insurance 76,289 68,670 -7,619 -10.0%

Real estate and rental and leasing 77,907 44,075 -33,832 -43.4%

Professional and technical services 58,191 114,853 56,663 97.4%

Management of companies and enterprises 10,723 2,378 -8,345 -77.8%

Administrative and waste services 39,523 61,656 22,132 56.0%

Educational services 5,275 11,444 6,169 117.0%

Health care and social assistance 185,007 383,799 198,792 107.5%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 11,547 18,396 6,849 59.3%

Accommodation and food services 82,790 118,944 36,154 43.7%

Other services, except public administration 102,840 133,706 30,867 30.0%

Government 224,980 375,638 150,659 67.0%

Source: EPS-HDT, Socioeconomic Measures Report, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011, BEA, REIS, Washington, D.C. Table CA05N.

2 Note that employee contributions to retirement programs, as a portion of wages, are captured in the figures cited.



3.3 PERSONAL INCOME Personal income is income received from all sources, including income received from participation in production as well as from government and business transfer payments. Table 3-4 shows the numbers and proportions of households3 in the study area, state, and nation that receive various common sources (but not all sources) of personal income. Note that from 2006 to 2008, the proportion of households in Washington County with earnings (i.e., from participation in production as wage earners or proprietors) was substantially lower than the proportions for the state and nation. Conversely, the proportions of Washington County households with Social Security income or Retirement Income were higher than the rates for the state and nation. These patterns for Washington County are consistent with a higher proportion of retirees relative to Utah and the United States.

Table 3-4. Prevalence of Income Sources for Households


Number % Number % Number %

Total Households 44,964 834,483 112,386,298

With Earnings 33,368 74.2 715,704 85.8 90,198,381 80.3

With Social Security 15,408 34.3 177,976 21.3 30,254,793 26.9

With Retirement Income 10,736 23.9 132,755 15.9 19,557,182 17.4

With Supplemental Security Income

688 1.5 19,775 2.4 4,305,421 3.8

With Cash Public Assistance Income

453 1.0 13,171 1.6 2,552,704 2.3


Table 3-5 shows a high-level breakdown of all sources of income. The definitions of each of the labor and non-labor income categories from Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6 are provided in Appendix A. Table 3-5 shows that labor income was a substantially smaller percentage of total personal income in 2008 in Washington County than labor income for the state and nation. As well, retirement and other government benefits (e.g., disability payments, medical benefit payments) were proportionally higher in Washington County than in the state or nation. These indicators are consistent with the higher population of retired persons in Washington County. Further, Figure 3-5 shows that non-labor income as a proportion of total income has grown over time in Washington County, as well as in the state and nation.

Table 3-5. Washington County Personal Income by Source, 2008


Total ($000)

% of income

Total ($000)

% of income

Total ($000) % of

income Personal income 3,512,116 100% 88,901,329 100% 12,379,745,000 100%

Labor Income

Net Earnings 2,016,434 57.4% 61,967,405 69.7% 8,170,006,000 66%

3 A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Note that a household is different from a family, which is defined as a group of two or more people who reside together and who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

3.0 Econom

3-8

Non-Lab

Dividends

Personal receipts

Incom

Unem

Com

Retir

Non-LaborPercentagSource: BE

Non-Labor iPercentagesSource: BEA

mic Conditions

or Income

s, interest, rent

current transfe

me Maintenanc

mployment Ins

p.

rement and oth

r income includeses are approximEA REIS 2008 T

Figure 3-5

ncome includes s are approximatA REIS 2008 Tab

Washin

Tota($000

t 819,99

er 675,68

ce 36,519

. 10,776

her 628,39

s dividends, inteate and do not aable SA04 and C

5. Non-Labo

dividends, interete and do not accble SA04 and CA

ngton County

l 0)

% ofincom

94 23.3%

88 19.3%

9 1.1%

6 0.3%

93 17.9%

rest, rent, and peaccount for adjustCA04

or Income a

est, rent, and percount for adjustmA04

y

f me

Total ($000)

% 16,612,3

% 10,321,5

% 932,724

% 223,577

% 9,165,23

ersonal current trtments for state

as a Percenta

sonal current traments for state of

Utah

)

% of income

385 18.7%

539 10.4%

4 1.1%

7 0.3%

38 9%

ransfer receipts.of residence, soc

age of Total

ansfer receipts. f residence, socia

Socioecon

S

Uni

e Total ($0

2,330,262,

1,879,477,

185,846,0

52,022,0

1,641,609,

cial security, and

l Personal I

al security, and o

nomic Baseline

St. George Field

ited States

000) % o

inco

,000 18.8

,000 15.2

000 1.5%

00 0.4%

,000 13.3

d others.

Income

others.

Report

d Office

of me

8%

2%

%

%

3%



The distribution of income in a community may reveal important aspects of the local economy. Table 3-6 shows the personal income distribution from 2006 to 2008 for Washington County, the state, and the United States. The percentage of lower income households (under $25,000; 17.3 percent) is similar to that of the state (17.0 percent) and lower than the United States (23.3 percent). The percentage of middle income households ($25,000–$74,999; 69.4 percent) is modestly higher than for Utah (62.9 percent) and considerably higher than for the nation (56.1 percent). The percentage of high income households (more than $75,000; 13.2 percent) is lower than for Utah (19.9 percent) and for the nation (20.7 percent). The overall pattern is that of a generally middle-class population with lower proportions of low-income and high-income households than the populations of the state and nation. This may reflect an influx of relatively well-off but not “super-rich” retirees in recent decades.

Table 3-6. Personal Income Distribution

Washington


Number % Number % Number %

Total households 44,964 100 834,483 100 112,386,298 100

Less than $10,000 1,139 2.5 38,270 4.6 8,045,626 7.2

$10,000 to $14,999 2,303 5.1 32,920 3.9 6,139,558 5.5

$15,000 to $24,999 4,357 9.7 71,167 8.5 11,921,076 10.6

$25,000 to $34,999 5,590 12.4 84,991 10.2 11,899,350 10.6

$35,000 to $49,999 9,268 20.6 132,135 15.8 15,951,147 14.2

$50,000 to $74,999 10,552 23.5 188,105 22.5 21,109,871 18.8

$75,000 to $99,999 5,821 12.9 120,564 14.4 13,992,314 12.5

$100,000 to $149,999 3,955 8.8 111,272 13.3 13,758,104 12.2

$150,000 to $199,999 1,121 2.5 30,350 3.6 4,858,631 4.3

$200,000 or more 858 1.9 24,709 3 4,710,621 4.2

Median household income (dollars)

$49,747 (X) $56,484 (X) $52,175 (X)


3.4 FIRMS The largest number of firms in the study area by NAICS code in 2008 and 2009 was in Construction, followed by Retail Trade and two industries of nearly identical size: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services and Health Care and Social Assistance, as represented in Figure 3-6. The number of Construction firms dropped substantially from 2008 to 2009 due to impacts of the recession. Retail Trade also experienced a decrease in the number of firms, as did Real Estate and Rental and Leasing and some other industries. The number of firms in Health Care and Social Assistance increased from 2008 to 2009.



Figure 3-6. Total Number of Establishments in Washington County, 2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2008 and 2009, Tables CB0800A1 and CB0900A1.

3.5 ECONOMIC BASE An area’s economic base comprises “basic industries” that bring outside income into the local economy. These industries export most or all of their goods and services outside the region, serving economic demand generated by non-local businesses and consumers. Manufacturing and mining are often thought of as basic industries, as they usually export most of their goods outside of a local area and are dependent on non-local economic factors. By bringing in outside income, basic industries help support “non-basic” industries such as retail trade, housing, construction, and personal services that primarily serve locally generated economic demand. Some industries may be partly basic and partly non-basic, depending on local conditions. For instance, restaurants are largely non-basic when they primarily serve local businesses and residents; in other areas, they may be strongly basic if they serve large amounts of tourist-generated demand, thereby bringing outside income into the local economy.

Another way to think of an economic base is in terms of specializations in the local economy compared to a larger economy such as the national economy. The specialization of certain geographic areas in certain industries has traditionally been tied to such factors as the natural resource base, cost factors such as labor, and transportation and other infrastructure. In areas with a high proportion of public lands, industries such as mining, grazing, and recreation may be important local economic specializations that bring outside income into the local economy.

Calculation of “location quotients” is one way of assessing an area’s economic base or specializations (Florida State University 2010). A location quotient compares an industry’s share of total local economic activity to the industry’s share in a larger economy, such as the state or nation. The quotient is a ratio,

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Management of companies and enterprises

Educational services

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

Information

Transportation and warehousing

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

Other services (except public administration)

Finance and insurance

Administrative & Support and Waste Mngt & Remediation Srvs

Accommodation and food services

Real estate and rental and leasing

Health care and social assistance

Professional, scientific, and technical services

Retail trade

Construction

2008

2009



where 1.0 indicates an equal share percentage between the local and larger economies. Location quotients under 1.0 signify a lesser share locally than for the larger economy; figures over 1.0 signify a greater share locally, and thus some degree of specialization of the local economy in that sector compared to the larger economy.4 The greater the ratio, the greater the degree of specialization. However, location quotients must be interpreted along with data on the size of an industry. An industry could have a very high location quotient but not be especially important locally if it provides only a small amount of an area’s jobs or earnings.

Location quotients for employment and earnings for Washington County are shown in Table 3-7. These quotients are based on a comparison of the county to the national economy.

In Washington County, the following industries have particularly high location quotients and have large shares of employment (from 8.9 to 12.9 percent in 2009; see Table 3-2): construction; retail trade; health care and social assistance; and accommodation and food services. These industries are therefore very important to the local economy; they support significant amounts of local earnings and jobs by bringing in outside income at higher rates than average U.S. counties do. The following industries have high quotients, but have a smaller share of employment (4.8 and 5.5 percent in 2009, respectively; see Table 3-2): transportation and warehousing, and (for earnings but not for employment) other services, except public administration. These industries bring meaningful outside income into the local economy, but their relative impact to the local economy is smaller than the industries noted above due to the lower levels of employment for each industry.

Table 3-7. Location Quotients for Earnings and Employment in Washington County, Relative to the United States (2008)

Washington County

Earnings Employment Private Farm Earnings -0.17 0.50

Private Non-Farm Earnings 0.90 1.05

Forestry, fishing, and related activities (D) (D)

Mining 0.34 0.92

Utilities 0.43 0.48

Construction 1.87 1.96

Manufacturing 0.49 0.56

Wholesale trade 0.44 0.58

Retail trade 1.65 1.24

Transportation and warehousing 1.78 1.40

Information (D) (D)

Finance and insurance 0.39 1.13

Real estate and rental and leasing 0.96 1.50

Professional, scientific, and technical services 0.50 0.79

Management of companies and enterprises 0.03 0.36

Administrative and waste services 0.65 0.77

4 Put another way, if a ratio of 1.0 indicates the “expected” amount of economic activity based on the profile of the larger

economy, the amount of activity that brings the ratio up to 1.0 probably serves local needs, while the amount that increases the ratio beyond 1.0 probably serves non-local needs.



Washington County

Earnings Employment Educational services 0.21 0.38

Health care and social assistance 1.36 1.10

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 0.66 1.02

Accommodation and food services 1.57 1.26

Other services, except public administration 1.36 0.96

Government and government enterprises 0.75 0.73

Federal, civilian 0.48 0.44

Military 0.55 0.70

State and local 0.84 0.78

State government 0.58 0.55

Local government 0.94 0.87

The location quotient is calculated as (ei/e)/(Ei/E), where ei is equal to the local measure (i.e., employment or earnings) in industry i, e is equal to the total local measure, Ei is equal to the reference area measure in industry i, and E is equal to the total reference area measure.

(D) Indicates that the value was not disclosed due to confidentiality. Source: BEA, REIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Table CA05N.

3.6 SPECIFIC ECONOMIC SECTORS This section discusses the economic sectors that are the most relevant to decisions to be considered in the NCA RMPs and the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan Amendments. Based on the review of the scope of the decisions presented in the Introduction, most socioeconomic implications of the decisions will pertain to recreational use, including OHV use. These activities primarily fall with the tourism economic sector, which is a very broadly defined category that encompasses visitation to natural resource attractions (as well as many other non-natural resource attractions), and the corresponding impacts to many industries, such as retail trade; real estate and rental and leasing; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other sub-sectors of the economy. Therefore, the following subsection presents information on the tourism economic sector.

3.6.1 Tourism Washington County has many tourism attractions. Natural and cultural resource attractions include the BLM NCAs, Zion National Park, Dixie National Forest, and four state parks. These and other natural resource, cultural resource, and non-natural resource attractions generate tourism in Washington County that supports the local economy through expenditures made by visitors from outside the county, as well as spending by county residents when recreating locally.

Natural and cultural resource-based tourism and recreational opportunities are highly diversified. Visitors may enjoy camping, hunting, viewing scenery, seeing prehistoric and historic cultural sites, hiking, horseback riding, and fishing in very primitive settings away from the sight and sounds of motorized vehicles. Others, who prefer more developed areas and less primitive conditions, may enjoy vehicle-based activities such as camping, picnicking, resort lodging, recreation residence, sledding, skiing, hunting, gathering forest products, viewing interpretive exhibits and cultural sites, hiking, viewing scenery, driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, biking, horseback riding, canoeing, sailing, swimming, water skiing, and fishing.



The economics of tourism in Washington County have changed in recent years. According to the Utah Office of Tourism, as shown in Table 3-8, Washington County tourism-related spending, employment, and tax revenues were highest in 2007, stayed nearly the same in 2008, and then declined in 2009.

Table 3-8. Washington County Tourism Spending, Employment, and Tax Revenue, 2006–2009

2006 2007 2008 2009 Spending by Travelers (millions)

$354.5 $404.8 $404.0 $370.6

Tourism Related Employment

6,049 6,955 6,834 6,695

Tourism Tax Revenue (000s)

$11,590.4 $38,619.3 $38,542.3 $27,207.7

Source: Utah Office of Tourism, State and County Economic and Travel Indicator Profiles, Washington County reports for 2004–2009.

Table 3-9 shows annual visitation for key public land sites in Washington County and additional nearby sites from 2004 to 2009. It is important to note that while spending by travelers has declined in recent years according to the state’s data in Table 3-8, visitation at many of the sites in Table 3-9 has been relatively stable and in some cases has increased. This may reflect the continuing importance of natural and cultural resource sites to visitation of Washington County by non-residents, and probably reflects increases in use of these sites by local residents in lieu of traveling to recreate elsewhere.

Table 3-9. Annual Visitation to Public Land Attractions, 2004–2009

Site Number of Visits

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Within Washington County

Zion National Park 2,674,162 2,586,659 2,514,490 2,657,281 2,657,213 2,735,396

St. George Welcome Center 226,288 231,648 239,156 193,346 53,714 53,115

Quail Creek State Park 164,945 165,702 108,482 112,534 95,239 97,110

Snow Canyon State Park 287,132 200,562 255,643 385,963 299,233 308,126

Gunlock State Park NA NA 60,891 45,222 51,915 41,225

Red Cliffs NCA NA NA NA NA NA 100,00

Beaver Dam Wash NCA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000

Other Nearby Sites

Cedar Breaks National Monument

516,329 505,046 453,382 514,871 642,177 492,350

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

649,232 613,228 695,866 708,362 711,310 722,431

Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park

122,832 65,270 66,468 69,509 62,741 58,943

Bryce Canyon National Park 987,250 1,017,680 890,673 1,012,562 1,043,321 1,216,376

Source: Red Cliffs NCA—Utah BLM, Red Cliffs NCA 2009 Annual Manager's Report; Beaver Dam Wash NCA—Utah BLM, Beaver Dam Wash NCA 2009 Annual Manager's Report; All others—2006, 2008, and 2009 Utah Community Tourism Report



Compared to the state and nation, Washington County has a higher percentage of employment in industries that include travel and tourism jobs, as shown in Table 3-10. In 2009, an estimated 21.7 percent of Washington County’s jobs were in such industries, compared to 13.7 percent for Utah and 14.9 percent for the nation. Also, Washington County has had a faster rate of increase in employment in industries that include travel and tourism jobs compared to the state and nation, as shown in Figure 3-7.

Table 3-10. Employment in Industries That Include Travel and Tourism Jobs, 2009

Washington

County Utah United States

Travel and Tourism Related 21.7% 13.7% 14.9%

Retail Trade 3.8% 2.5% 2.7%

Gasoline Stations 1.3% 0.9% 0.7%

Clothing and Accessory Stores 1.7% 1.1% 1.3%

Misc. Store Retailers 0.7% 0.5% 0.6%

Passenger Transportation 1.8% 0.8% 0.4%

Air Transportation 1.8% 0.8% 0.4%

Scenic and Sightseeing Transport 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.4% 1.6% 1.8%

Performing Arts and Spectator Sports 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Museums, Parks, and Historic Sites 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Amusement, Gambling, and Rec. 1.2% 1.2% 1.3%

Accommodation and Food 14.7% 8.8% 10.0%

Accommodation 3.9% 1.6% 1.6%

Food Services and Drinking Places 10.9% 7.2% 8.4%

Non-Travel and Tourism 78.3% 86.3% 85.1%

The major industry categories (retail trade; passenger transportation; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food) in the table above are the sum of the sub-categories underneath them and as shown here do not represent NAICS codes. The data does not include employment in government, agriculture, railroads, or the self-employed because these are not reported by County Business Patterns.

Estimates for data that were not disclosed are shown in italics in the table above. Sources: EPS-HDT, Travel and Tourism Report, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011.



Figure 3-7. Employment in Industries That Include Travel and Tourism

Data indexed with 1998 employment = 100. Source: EPS-HDT, Tourism Report, based on U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011.

3.7 PUBLIC FINANCE Lands and federal mineral estate managed within the study area affect local, county, state, and federal government budgets based on accruals from mineral royalties, property taxes, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), fees, and other revenues. Likewise, lands and federal estates in the study area result in government expenditures for management, law enforcement, and other activities.

3.7.1 Government Revenues County tax revenues from fiscal year (FY) 2010 are shown in Table 3-11. During that time, property tax generated the largest amount of revenue for Washington County, followed by the county option sales tax and the local sales and use tax. A variety of other taxes related to tourism generated the remaining county revenue.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Inde

x 19

98 =

100

Washington County, UT U.S. Utah



Table 3-11. Washington County Tax Revenue by Source, 2010

Local Sales and Use Tax Distribution

County Option Sales Tax

Property Taxes

Other

Washington County

$721,243 $4,936,889 $137,937,173 $5,717,993

Other: Includes Restaurant, Leasing, County Transient Room, and Municipal Highways Taxes Source: Utah State Tax Commission (2011).

Of particular interest in the BLM land use planning context are taxes on natural resource properties. Local governments assess real and personal property taxes, but the State of Utah assesses the value of natural resource property, specifically oil and gas wells, metal mines, coal mines, sand and gravel mines, and non-metal mines, including properties on both private and public lands. County treasurers then set and collect taxes from these properties. On public lands, the values and taxes are based on the higher of (a) the value of equipment on the site or (b) discounted cash flow from production if the well or mine is producing. In 2010 the total taxable value for natural resource property in Washington County was $40,894,409, and the property tax charged against this total was $509,652, as shown in Table 3-12. Sand and Gravel property accounted for the highest amount of property taxes in the natural resource property class. Metal and Non Metal Mines contributed the remaining natural resource property taxes. There was no Oil and Gas Extraction or Coal Mine assessed property in Washington County, as shown in Table 3-12. The $509,652 total for natural resource property taxes was a very small amount of total property taxes (Table 3-11)—less than 0.4 percent.

Table 3-12. Natural Resource Property Taxes in Washington County, 2010

Oil and

Gas Extraction

Metal Mines

Coal Mines

Sand and Gravel

Non Metal Mines

Total Natural

Resources Taxable Values $0 $528,425 $0 $36,816,334 $3,549,650 $40,894,409

Taxes Charged $0 $5,694 $0 $458,195 $45,763 $509,652

Source: Utah State Tax Commission, Property Tax Division (2011), Table 1F and Table 2E.

PILT are payments from the Federal Government to local governments to help compensate for lost property taxes resulting from tax-exempt federal lands located within the local jurisdiction (DOI 2010). Congress authorized PILT in 1976 in recognition of the volatility and inadequacy of federal natural resource revenue sharing payment programs to compensate counties for non-taxable federal lands within their borders (Public Law 94-565). PILT increases and stabilizes county government revenue sharing payments by paying counties based on an eligible federal lands per-acre average “base payment” that is reduced by the amount of revenue sharing payments and is subject to a population cap. PILT payments are not restricted to particular local government services, but can be used at the discretion of county commissioners to fund any local government needs.

In 2010, the PILT amount was approximately $2.7 million in Washington County. Table 3-13 shows PILT for the county and the state from 2007 to 2010. PILT is based on eligible federal lands and cannot be easily segregated out exactly to BLM versus other federal lands. However, the relative acreages of different types of federal lands are a good indicator of the portions of PILT that are attributable to each type of federal land. Table 3-14 shows PILT acreages and payments by acre. In Washington County, more than 55 percent of the eligible federal land is BLM land. Note also that the local payment per acre, $2.35, is considerably higher than the state and national average payments per acre.



It is important to note that PILT is permanently authorized, but Congress must appropriate funding on an annual basis. PILT was typically not fully funded until federal FY 2008 when counties received a guarantee of 5 years at full payment amounts (FY 2008 to FY 2012 payments).

Table 3-13. PILT Payments in Study Area, 2007–2010

2007

Payments 2008

Payments 2009

Payments 2010

Payments


$1,611,038 $2,557,232 $2,620,215 $2,694,364

Utah State $20,057,363 $32,207,048 $33,063,034 $34,265,151

Table 3-14. 2010 PILT Acreages and Payments per Acre

Washington County, UT

Utah United States

Total Eligible Acres 1,146,829 32,841,511 608,370,005

BLM 632,600 22,243,267 244,021,931

Forest Service 393,356 8,073,551 190,041,605

Bureau of Reclamation 0 461,824 3,693,294

National Park Service 120,873 1,985,778 77,037,316

Military 0 0 327,426

Army Corps of Engineers 0 0 8,006,390

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 0 61,237 85,226,189

Other Eligible Acres 0 15,854 15,854

PILT Payment (2010 $s) $2,694,364 $34,265,151 $358,078,641

Avg. Per-Acre Payment (2010 $s) $2.35 $1.04 $0.59

Percent of Total

BLM 55.2% 67.7% 40.1%

Forest Service 34.3% 24.6% 31.2%

Bureau of Reclamation 0.0% 1.4% 0.6%

National Park Service 10.5% 6.0% 12.7%

Military 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Army Corps of Engineers 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 0.0% 0.2% 14.0%

Other Eligible Acres 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Source: EPS-HDT, Payments from Federal Lands Report, based on U.S. DOI data.

Additional federal payments accrue to Washington County based on the presence and use of federal lands. These are shown for 2010 in Table 3-15. Note that unlike many counties in the West, Washington County receives very little revenue from federal mineral royalties, due to the lack of leasable federal mineral resources in the county.



Table 3-15. Additional (non-PILT) Federal Land Payments in Washington County, 2010

Type of Payment Amount

Forest Service Payments* $716,044

BLM Proceeds of Sales** $15,053

BLM Taylor Grazing Act Payments*** $19,010

Federal Mineral Royalties $3,352

Total $753,459

*Secure Rural Schools, Titles I, II, and II. **Receipts from the sale of land and materials. ***Proceeds of grazing fees, shared with the county where allotments and leases are located. Funds are restricted to use for range improvements (e.g., predator control, noxious weed programs) in cooperation with BLM or livestock organizations. Source: EPS-HDT Federal Land Payments Report as of December 2011, based on various federal data.

3.8 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

3.8.1 State and Local Government Expenditures and Services Management of BLM-administered land may affect state and local expenditures. For instance, recreation on public lands requires some support from local government for road maintenance, law enforcement, and search and rescue. It is difficult to separate expenditures related to BLM-administered land from expenditures related to other land. The types of state and local expenditures that may be affected include:

• Maintenance of state and local roads • Law enforcement personnel and equipment • Emergency medical services • Search and rescue teams • Conservation and wildlife management • Fire management • Solid waste collection and disposal • Public utilities.

3.8.2 BLM Expenditures BLM expenditures related to federal lands benefit the local economy because federal salaries to land management staff that reside in the study area and federal contracts to businesses located in or with employees residing in the study area represent inflows of money. Likely differences between potential levels of BLM payroll and contract expenditures under the identified management alternatives may be examined during the impacts analysis step of this planning action.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 4.0 BLM Public Land Uses and Values


4.0 BLM PUBLIC LAND USES AND VALUES

This section profiles the many uses that are made of BLM public lands in the decision area. It describes some of the economic and social implications of those uses, including quantitative values where available. In order to describe uses of BLM public lands, the material below provides overviews of various BLM policies and programs, and their implementation in the St. George Field Office or the NCAs specifically. This section also includes a discussion of non-market values, which are often overlooked when the economics of BLM public lands are discussed.

4.1 VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS Vegetative products include Christmas trees, fuelwood, pole and post products, seeds, and live plants. BLM issues permits to individuals or commercial entities who wish to harvest vegetative products. Such harvests provide economic benefits to permittees individually; for instance, by avoiding the cost of paying commercial sources for the products. In some cases (e.g., sale of seeds collected from BLM lands) a permittee may generate income from vegetative product harvests. Harvests of vegetative products may also be important culturally; for instance, Christmas tree cutting as a family activity, or use of native plants for medicinal or spiritual purposes by Native Americans. The permits and harvests may also generate revenue for the Federal Government, although the amounts of revenue are small in most Field Offices.

In the St. George Field Office, permits are issued for dead and down pinyon or juniper in areas designated as open in the RMP. RMP decision #FR-08 states: “Seed harvests will be authorized under permit for selected grasses, forbs, and shrubs, but not for cacti, yucca, or special status plant species listed under state or federal rules. Harvest will be allowed only by hand in areas outside of critical habitats, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), designated wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and study areas, recreation sites and campgrounds, areas undergoing vegetation rehabilitation, and highway rights-of ways. No more than 25 percent of the seed available in any one area may be harvested.” Seed permits are generally not issued in years of inadequate precipitation and/or low seed production.

P.L. 111-11 does not specifically address management of vegetative products in the NCAs. However, in recent years there has been little use of the NCAs for harvest of vegetative products due to the factors noted in the subsections below.

Given the low level of use of this resource in the St. George Field Office, little of the data needed to estimate economic impacts of this resource use is available. The procedure to calculate economic impacts would be as follows:

1. Estimate the value of the vegetative products harvested. This requires data on the amounts of each type of product that are harvested. The amounts are then multiplied by the market values of the products.

2. The total value of production is allocated to the various economic sectors (agriculture, forestry, etc.) to which the various portions of the value accrue. These value allocations are run through the IMPLAN (IMPact analysis for PLANning) economic impact model. The IMPLAN model was originally developed by the Forest Service and is commonly used by BLM and many other government and private sector organizations to estimate the total economic impacts of various activities and policies. The model tracks inter-industry and consumer spending in a local or regional economy, allowing estimation of indirect and induced economic impacts in the economy (from inter-industry transactions and re-spending of household income, respectively, that result from the original economic activity or change in economic activity). Outputs of the IMPLAN model include employment, income, and gross regional economic output.

4.0 BLM Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report


Should sufficient additional data on vegetative products be available in the impacts analysis phase of this BLM planning effort, the economic impacts of this resource use under baseline and management alternative scenarios could be estimated.

4.1.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA The northwestern portion of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA includes limited potential for vegetative products. The northwestern portion of the NCA includes limited potential for woodlands and future woodland products. The 2006 Jarvis Fire burned this area, killing most of the pinyon-juniper that grew here. Before the fire, a limited amount of fuelwood and Christmas trees were harvested because of accessibility, steep terrain, and limited availability.

The 1999 RMP closed the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC to fuelwood harvest. Outside the ACEC and the designated habitat, the congressionally designated road area limits motorized vehicle access for harvest of vegetative products.

4.1.2 Red Cliffs NCA The 1999 RMP closed public lands in the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Reserve to harvest of vegetative products to prevent surface disturbances and human activities that could negatively impact desert tortoise habitat and populations. The HCP Reserve, other than a few minor areas, is coextensive with the Red Cliffs NCA.

4.1.3 Balance of the Field Office Not addressed in this report. See Section 1 (Introduction).

4.2 LIVESTOCK GRAZING Grazing is an important use of BLM public lands in many BLM field offices. Grazing is an allowed use within the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliff NCAs. Each of the NCAs includes portions of several grazing allotments that extend beyond the NCA boundaries. Actual use of the NCA acreage of these allotments is low and varies for a variety of factors noted in the subsections below.

The value of cattle grazing in a specific area can be estimated based on the actual grazing use of the area in Animal Unit Months (AUM) (one AUM is equal to the amount forage consumed by a cow and calf during a one month grazing period) and the value of an AUM. According to Workman (1986), it takes 16 AUMs to produce a marketable cow. Thus, the average value of an AUM in Utah can be estimated using data on the value of cattle production and the number of cattle produced on a yearly basis, to determine value per head, and then dividing by 16. This approach is summarized in Table 4-1. Data on value and number of cattle are from statistics maintained by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. The most recent data available is for 2009.

Table 4-1. Production Value of AUMs in Utah

Year Value of

Production (1,000$s)a

Beef Cows That Have

Calved (1,000 Head)b

Value Per Cow

Conversion to AUMs

(AUMs/Cow)c

Value of Production Per AUM

(Nominal $)

Value of Production

Per AUM (2011 $)d

2005 $351,595 347 $1,013.24 16 $63.33 $71.40

2006 $250,377 325 $770.39 16 $48.15 $52.49

2007 $222,428 344 $646.59 16 $40.41 $42.77

2008 $194,134 365 $531.87 16 $33.24 $34.39

2009 $184,624 350 $527.50 16 $32.97 $33.66



Year Value of

Production (1,000$s)a

Beef Cows That Have

Calved (1,000 Head)b

Value Per Cow

Conversion to AUMs

(AUMs/Cow)c

Value of Production Per AUM

(Nominal $)

Value of Production

Per AUM (2011 $)d

5-year Average (2005-2009) $43.62 $46.94 a Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2010, p. 53. b Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2010, p. 52.

c Workman 1986. d Nominal dollars adjusted to 2011 dollars by applying gross domestic product (GDP) deflator factors from the 2012 Federal

Budget Historical Tables, accessed 17 September 2011 at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html.

Using this approach, the average value per AUM in Utah for the 5 years between 2005 and 2009, in 2011 dollars was $46.94.

Based on this value per AUM and the estimates of the numbers of AUMs actually used on the NCA portions of the allotments (see below), the economic value of production from grazing on the NCAs is very small relative to the total value of livestock production in Washington County. The estimated value of grazing on the NCAs, based on the information and calculations presented below, is $69,400 for Beaver Dam Wash in an average year (based on 2007 to 2011), and no more than $1,900 for Red Cliffs NCA in any year (2011 dollars). (The actual value in the Red Cliffs NCA is probably less or none due to the inaccessibility of forage in the NCA portions of the applicable grazing allotments). Thus the estimated total annual value of livestock production attributable to grazing on the two NCAs is approximately $71,300. The estimated total value of livestock production in Washington County in 2007 was $3.678 million (2011 dollars).5 Thus grazing on the NCAs generates 1.9 percent of the county’s total livestock production value.

During the impact analysis phase of this BLM planning process, the economic impact (jobs, income, etc.) resulting from grazing on the NCAs under a baseline scenario and management alternatives will be estimated. The methodology will be as follows:

1. Allocate the total value of production to the various economic sectors (agricultural industry segment(s)) to which the various portions of the value accrue.

2. Run these value allocations through an economic impact model such as IMPLAN to determine direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts (See the Vegetative Products section for a brief description of the IMPLAN model.)

Although the total economic value of production from grazing on the NCAs is small, it is possible that use of the NCAs is relatively more important to the individual permittees. The percentage of the total nutritional needs of the permittees’ livestock that comes from forage on the NCAs is not known. It is also important to note that livestock grazing on the NCAs may be historically and culturally significant to the permittees and local ranching custom and culture.

Grazing fees from use of the NCAs generate some revenue to the Federal Government. Of the fees collected, 50 percent goes to the BLM Range Improvement Fund and is distributed to BLM District Offices according to their grazing receipts, 37.5 percent goes to the U.S. Treasury General Fund, and 12.5 goes to the State of Utah and is distributed to local grazing boards and the Utah Grazing Improvement Program.

5 According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total sales value of cattle and calves in Washington County was $5.426

million. This Census of Agriculture parameter is not the same as the value of production parameter from the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food used in Table 4-1. The respective values at the state level in 2007 were $347.299 million and $222.428 million. The ratio of the latter to the former is 0.64. By applying this ratio to the $5.426 million Washington County figure above, the estimated value of production is $3.475 million in 2007 dollars. Adjusted to 2011 dollars, the figure is $3.678 million.



The livestock grazing section of Chapter 3 of the RMP/EIS provides additional detail on the grazing allotments mentioned below and other aspects of this resource use.

4.2.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA Historically, year-long grazing of the public lands of the Beaver Dam Slope by domestic sheep, cattle, and horses began in the mid-19th century. Early grazing was uncontrolled because there were no restrictions on the number of livestock or areas where grazing could take place. By the mid-20th century, the public rangelands and riparian areas of Beaver Dam Slope were in generally poor rangeland health condition. During the 1980s, BLM developed Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) to lessen the impacts of grazing on the public rangelands and also on critical habitat on the Beaver Dam Slope for the Mojave Desert tortoise population, which had been listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1980. The AMPs reduced AUMs and recommended new grazing systems that included rest periods, pasture rotation, and delayed grazing in the four allotments that overlap today’s Beaver Dam Wash NCA.

In 1999, the St. George Field Office Management Plan designated the 48,590 acre Beaver Dam Slope ACEC to implement recommendations from the USFWS 1994 Recovery Plan for the Mojave Desert Tortoise and the 1998 Biological Opinion relating to desert tortoises that was issued on August 12, 1998 (ES/6-UT-98-F-005) by the USFWS, as a result of consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the RMP. The St. George Field Office RMP did not close the ACEC to livestock grazing, as was recommended in the Recovery Plan. On a majority of the public lands that comprise the Castle Cliffs, Beaver Dam Slope, and Scarecrow Peak Allotments within the ACEC, grazing was to be conducted in accordance with the respective AMPs and licensed for a season of use from November 1 to March 15. This season of use would minimize competition between cattle and tortoises for forage during the tortoise active season and the threats of trampling for juvenile tortoises and occupied shallow dens and pallets by livestock during the active season. However, three special management areas, totaling 11,470 acres of the allotments within the ACEC (and tortoise designated critical habitat) were to remain available for livestock grazing until May 31 each year. These three areas were authorized for late spring grazing because there appeared to be low tortoise density in the areas and, at that time, efforts to protect tortoise habitat elsewhere in the Northeast Recovery Unit in Nevada, Arizona, and California appeared to be adequate to assist the recovery and de-listing of this threatened species.

Portions of four grazing allotments, as described below, are within the boundaries of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. Fourteen permittees are licensed to graze the four allotments. The figures for permitted AUMs below are for “active use,” BLM’s term for the maximum amount of AUMs that will be permitted for livestock grazing in any year. This figure is determined on an allotment-wide basis. For NCA planning purposes, BLM has estimated the permitted AUMs on the NCA portion of each allotment. This takes into account variations in the availability of forage across the allotment, and so the NCA figure for permitted AUMs is not proportional to the NCA portion of the total allotment acreage. As mentioned below, the actual use of each allotment has been less than permitted use in recent years. This reflects the difficult livestock grazing situation in an arid region that is experiencing long-term impacts to forage availability from wildfires, droughts, and invasive species.

• Beaver Dam Slope Allotment—Out of this 61,271 acre allotment (54,945 acres BLM), 30,468 acres of BLM land are within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. In recent years, actual use in the Beaver Dam Slope allotment has been less than the permitted use because of drought, wildfire, and vegetation treatment efforts. There are 1,334 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment, out of a total of 2,704 permitted AUMs.

• Scarecrow Peak Allotment—Out of this 75,770 acre allotment (68,773 acres BLM), 21,134 acres of BLM land are within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. In recent years, actual use of the Scarecrow



Peak Allotment has been reduced because of dry years and wildfire. There are 296 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment, out of a total of 514 permitted AUMs.

• Castle Cliffs Allotment—Out of this 14,633 acre allotment (11,865 acres BLM), 8,310 acres of BLM land are within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. Over the last decade actual use in the Castle Cliffs allotment has been less than permitted use because of drought, wildfire, and vegetation treatment efforts. There are 950 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment, out of a total of 4,396 permitted AUMs (average for 2007 to 2011).

• Cedar Pockets Allotment—Out of this 9,811 acre allotment (9,663 acres BLM), 2,079 acres of BLM are within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. Actual use of the Cedar Pockets Allotment has been substantially less than permitted use since at least 1997. There are 10 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment, out of a total of 375 permitted AUMs.

Based on the information above, a total of 2,590 permitted AUMs are within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. Not all of these AUMs have been used historically. At the full allotment level, actual use (billed AUMs) for the 5 years from 2007 through 2011 for the first three allotments above (data for the Cedar Pockets Allotment was not readily available) averaged 4,345 AUMs out of 7,614 permitted AUMs, or 57.1 percent. Assuming this same percentage applies at the level of the AUMs available within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA, of the 2,590 permitted AUMs, an estimated 1,479 AUMs are used on average within the NCA. Multiplied by the value of production per AUM from Table 4-1 ($46.94), the total annual value of production from grazing within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA is estimated to be $69,400.

4.2.2 Red Cliffs NCA Since 1999, a majority of the public lands within the Red Cliffs NCA have been unavailable to livestock grazing, through decisions from the St. George Field Office RMP that implemented recommendations from the 1994 Recovery Plan for the Mojave Desert tortoise. Federal permits for livestock grazing on seven allotments in the Red Cliffs NCA were voluntarily relinquished by the permit holders, who were compensated for the value of the permits by Washington County, to implement provisions of its approved HCP related to management of land uses within the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve that were detrimental to the recovery and delisting of the Mojave Desert tortoise.

Within the boundaries of the Red Cliffs NCA, small portions of three allotments continue to be available for cattle grazing, but receive little to no use. For NCA planning purposes, BLM has estimated the permitted AUMs on the NCA portion of each allotment. These allotments are—

• Veyo Allotment—The 1,266 acres of this 20,728 acre allotment (18,944 acres are public lands managed by BLM) that are within the Red Cliffs NCA are located in the Winter Quarters pasture in the Red Mountain Wilderness Area. Much of the NCA acreage within the allotment is inaccessible to cattle because of steep-sided cliffs, slick rock, and lack of forage and water. There are 36 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment.

• Sand Wash Allotment—The 227 acres of this 4,861 acre allotment (3,933 acres BLM) that lie within the Red Cliffs NCA are mostly inaccessible to cattle because of steep-sided cliffs, bare ground, and slick rock that characterize this portion of the allotment. There are 5 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment.

• Diamond Valley Allotment—1,115 acres of this 2,034 acre allotment (1,748 acres BLM) are within the Red Cliffs NCA. There are 70 permitted livestock AUMs in the NCA within this allotment. However, there has been no grazing since 1984 because the allotment has been in non-use at the operator’s request.



Based on the information above, there has been no economic production from grazing on the Diamond Valley Allotment since 1984; therefore, this allotment is not considered further. The other two allotments could allow economic production from up to 41 AUMs, although the actual use is probably less or none based on the factors noted above. If all 41 AUMs were used, the total value of production would be 41 multiplied by the value of production per AUM from Table 4-1 ($46.94), or $1,900. The total value of production from grazing within the NCA would be $1,900 if all AUMs were used. This is probably not realistic given the inaccessibility of the portions of the allotments within the NCA, and thus the value of actual production from grazing within the Red Cliffs NCA is probably less or even zero.


4.3 RECREATION BLM public lands in the planning area are used for a wide variety of recreational pursuits. These activities are categorized in three ways: dispersed recreation, developed recreation, and activities managed under special recreation permits.

• Dispersed Recreation—This refers to all recreation occurring outside of developed recreation sites. Popular dispersed uses include: hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, OHV riding, hunting, rock climbing, photography, automobile touring/sightseeing, bird watching, camping, rock hounding, and visiting archeological sites.

• Developed Recreation—Developed recreation sites incorporate visitor use infrastructure such as roads, parking areas, and facilities to protect the resource and support recreational users in their pursuit of activities, experiences, and benefits. Visitor use infrastructure is a management tool that can minimize resource impacts, concentrate use, and reduce visitor conflicts.

• Special Recreation Permits (SRP)—Five types of uses requiring SRPs are authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004: commercial, competitive, vending, individual or group use in special areas, and organized group activity and event use. SRPs are issued to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, and accommodate commercial recreational uses. They may be issued for 10 years or less with annual renewal. Commercial SRPs are issued to outfitters, guides, vendors, recreation clubs, and commercial competitive event organizers providing recreational opportunities or services without employing permanent facilities. SRPs for competitive and organized group events are also included in this category.

The subsections below describe the availability and usage for these types of recreation on the two NCAs. A third subsection characterizes recreation in the balance of the field office. This subsection is included because of the connections between OHV area designations in the Plan Amendment, development of the CTTMP, and recreation on BLM public lands throughout the planning area.

All recreation activities provide socioeconomic value. The value may be as simple as increased quality of life for the participants, which can be measured as described in the section on non-market values. In addition, recreationists often spend money in order to recreate. Local recreationists pay for gas to reach a site and may buy equipment, purchase food and drink, and make other purchases locally. Non-local recreationists may do all this, and pay for lodging, restaurants, guides and outfitters, and so forth. All these actions generate local economic activity. Expenditures by non-local recreationists are particularly important as they represent new income in the region.



During the impact analysis phase of this BLM planning process, the economic impact (jobs, income, etc.) resulting from recreation on the NCAs and possibly the balance of the field office will be estimated, under a baseline scenario and management alternatives. The methodology will be as follows:

1. Quantify recreational visitation to each area. 2. Estimate the local (Washington County) expenditures of the recreational users associated with

their recreational visits. 3. Multiply visitation by expenditures per visit to determine total expenditures. 4. Allocate the total expenditures to the various economic sectors (lodging, retail, services, etc.) to

which the various portions of the expenditures accrue. 5. Run these value allocations through an economic impact model such as IMPLAN to determine

direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts (See the Vegetative Products section for a brief description of the IMPLAN model.)

With respect to Step 1, recreational use is tracked in BLM’s Recreation Management Information System (RMIS), based on data from traffic counters, visitor registers, and other sources. The St. George Field Office is currently conducting a detailed breakdown of the available visitation data to better understand recreational use of the NCAs and other BLM public lands. For instance, visitor registers are being analyzed to determine the percentages of visitors who are local and non-local. Some of the currently available data are provided in the subsections below. These data may be revised as the current planning process proceeds, and additional data should be available that will facilitate the estimation of economic impacts.

Ideally, steps 2 and 4 would use expenditure data obtained from surveys of recreational users of BLM public lands in the St. George Field Office. No such expenditure surveys are available. They would be costly to conduct. The usual procedure in most economic impact analyses is to use data from other studies in the literature as proxies for the location or region being analyzed. Selection and application of applicable studies is subject to a number of key considerations. These include, but are not limited to—

• Comparability of the site/region in the literature study to the site/region being analyzed.

• Date of the literature study. Dollar figures can be easily updated for inflation, but developments within recreation segments or the economy at large that would affect recreationist expenditures should also be considered.

• Sample size of the survey(s) used in the literature study.

• Methods used in the literature study to collect the expenditure data.

• What data are collected, and what is provided in the published report or otherwise available. For instance, different surveys ask respondents to estimate their expenditures by day, visit, trip, year, etc. Some ask for expenditures by person, others by party. If a survey asks for expenditures by party and does not ask for the party size, or the report does not provide the average party size, then the study cannot be used if the analysis being conducted requires expenditures by individual.

• How the expenditure data are broken down. For example, a single total expenditure figure is much less useful than figures that are broken down by type; for instance, by expenditures in lodging establishments, restaurants, grocery stores, gasoline and convenience stores, for guide services, etc. Detailed breakdowns allow fewer assumptions when allocating expenditures to economic sectors in Step 4.

• Whether the study differentiates between local and non-local visitors. Expenditures of non-local visitors represent an influx of new income to the study area.



At the current time, the following studies that provide potentially applicable expenditure data have been identified. A few representative data points are included here. During the impacts analysis phase of this BLM planning action, these studies (and potentially others) will be examined further for applicability to Steps 2 and 4 of the analysis, based on the considerations noted above and including compatibility with the recreational visitation data now being developed for Step 1. In some cases the authors/agencies must be contacted for additional detailed information on the referenced surveys.

• The 2009 Draft RMP for Sand Hollow State Park (Utah State Parks 2009) references a 1999 economic impact study of the site which used an expenditure figure of $21 per visitor day. The management plan also used expenditure data from a 2007–2008 visitor survey at the park to calculate economic impacts using IMPLAN; the data are not provided in the plan.

• A visitor survey including expenditure data was conducted at the Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park near Kanab in 1999 (Utah Department of Natural Resources 1999). The average total amount spent per group in local towns was $201.

• A study of the economic impacts of land use restrictions on OHV recreation in Utah conducted for the Utah Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (Jakus, Keith, and Liu 2008) collected per trip group expenditure data for OHV recreationists, both within and outside of the respondents’ home county. The report presents estimated economic impacts but does not present the underlying expenditure data. This study was conducted by Utah State University as part of the Utah Public Land Socioeconomic Baseline Study (Keith et al. 2008).

• The U.S. Forest Service for many years conducted surveys of National Forest visitors in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program (various reports were published). The surveys included gathering expenditure data. Data are available for local and non-local day trips and overnight trips, for different types of recreational activities, on a per-party per-trip basis, broken down by different types of expenditures. Party size data are available. The NVUM data set is extremely robust at the national and regional levels. Data are also available down to the individual Forest level, including for the Dixie National Forest. Nationally, for the data collected from 2000 to 2003, day trip total expenditures averaged $52 per party per trip for non-local parties and $33 for local parties. For overnight trips, total expenditures averaged $208 per party per trip for non-local parties and $121 for local parties (Stynes and White 2006).

It should be noted that the recently created NCAs will have greater visibility and name recognition because of their congressional designation. The public might be more likely to deliberately visit them to experience their various resources and values, including recreational use in particular.

The NCAs provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, and their designation may attract recreationists with a particular interest in this activity, which like many recreational activities, is economically important. A study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008) estimates that nearly one-third of the U.S. population, 71 million people, enjoyed closely observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife in 2006. The report further concludes that these activities have a substantial impact on both the national and local economies, with approximately $45.7 billion directly spent on wildlife trips and equipment in 2006. This spending in turn generated more than $122 billion in total output and more than 1 million jobs. This translates to an economic multiplier effect of an additional $1.68 of economic activity generated by each dollar of direct expenditures on wildlife viewing activities. This is in addition to the nonmarket values associated with wildlife viewing discussed in the section on nonmarket values below. Because science and public education outreach are major components of BLM’s newly released 15 Year Management Strategy for the National Landscape Conservation System, it is likely that the public visiting the two NCAs would receive more information about key species such as the Mojave Desert tortoise



through interpretative materials and would therefore have a greater understanding and appreciation for these species, and a higher quality visitor experience.

Most recreation on BLM land is free, but in some situations recreationists pay fees to use BLM public land resources. No fees are associated with dispersed recreation in the NCAs. The only developed recreation fee site in the NCAs is the Red Cliffs Recreation Area, where fee envelopes are collected on a regular rotation. Separate fees are collected for overnight and day use. Current fees are $8 for overnight camping and $2 per vehicle for day use. For SRPs, the current fee for commercial use is 3 percent of gross receipts, and the fee for competitive or group events is $5 per person. In compliance with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, recreation permit fees collected by BLM are spent on the construction and maintenance of recreational infrastructure in the St. George Field Office.

4.3.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA Recreation is one of the primary uses of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. Recreation is primarily dispersed and includes a variety of activities. No developed recreation facilities are currently in the NCA.

Congress restricted motorized vehicle travel, including OHVs, inside the NCA. In three areas of the NCA, labeled “Designated Road Areas,” Congress restricted motorized vehicle travel to specific roads. All other roads in these areas are to be closed to motorized use. Cross-country and off-road travel by motorized vehicles is not permitted in the NCA.

Traffic counters and monitoring recorded 12,135 visits to the Beaver Dam Wash NCA in FY 2011, with the majority of visitors using full-size vehicles and ATVs or OHVs to access the NCA. Existing motorized recreational use in the NCA includes casual, dispersed vehicle camping, OHV riding, and full-size vehicle touring. One organized event (motorized ATV jamboree) is permitted to use designated roads in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. The event is non-competitive and consists of early spring ATV tours.

Non-motorized use of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA includes rock climbing, equestrian trail riding, and hunting for game birds, mule deer, and desert bighorn sheep. The most popular activity during 2011 was upland game bird hunting. Visitation data from RMIS for 2011 by primary activity is presented in Table 4-2. One hunting outfitter is permitted to operate in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA.

Table 4-2. Recreational Visitation by Activity, Beaver Dam Wash NCA

Activity Visits Hunting–Big Game 1,699

Hunting–Game Birds 5,703

OHV 2,306

Camping 364

Hiking/Biking 728

Sight Seeing 1,092

Photography 243

Total Visitors 12,135

Source: BLM Recreation Management System and analysis by St. George Field Office.



4.3.2 Red Cliffs NCA Recreational use in the Red Cliffs NCA has a long and rich local history, mainly due to its proximity to population centers and the fact that the Reserve has been in place for 10 years and residents have grown accustomed to the easily accessible trails and trailheads. The NCA’s major attraction is a dense network of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails, all set in a stunning backdrop of red and white sandstone cliffs and jet-black basalt flows. Much of the trail system lies within the municipal boundaries of St. George, Hurricane, Santa Clara, Ivins, and Leeds, many of which have housing developments pressed tightly against the NCA boundary. Residents of the St. George metropolitan area value the NCA for this high-quality open space. Although the NCA does attract outside visitors, the majority of the recreational use comes from local residents, many of whom moved to the greater St. George area specifically for the recreational opportunities available in the NCA.

Washington County’s year-round climate, combined with rapid population growth, and the NCA’s backyard accessibility, has resulted in recreational pressures that more closely resemble a large municipal park system than a typical BLM field office. This popularity, when combined with urban proximity, is the NCA’s greatest asset and its biggest threat. Recreation in the NCA is currently managed under the parameters of the HCP, its Implementation Agreement, and especially the Public Use Plan (PUP) prepared for the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve by Washington County and BLM in 2000.

Two zones, upland and lowland, were designated in the PUP in an effort to protect the most biologically sensitive, and the least ecologically durable and resilient areas within the Reserve. The upland zone is generally less sensitive and more durable; whereas the lowland zone is more sensitive and less durable. Despite the critical nature of the zone designations (the preservation of habitat), the zone boundaries were ultimately derived by balancing habitat preservation and recreation management practicality. The lowland zone restricts all use to designated trails, and limits camping and campfires to designated campgrounds. In the upland zone, hikers and equestrians are permitted to travel off-trail, and camping and campfires are allowed with some limitations.

Based on the provisions of the PUP and other applicable rules, recreational activities are allowed in the NCA as follows (additional detail is provided in the recreation section of Chapter 3 of the NCA RMP/EIS). While this material refers to the NCA, it is based on current management direction from the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve PUP, which continues to apply until the RMP for the Red Cliffs NCA is completed.

• Motorized Use—Motorized vehicles are permitted in the NCA on designated roads only. This includes two-wheel-drive and four-wheel-drive vehicles, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, and ATVs. Eleven roads were designated in the PUP as open to motorized use by the public. Only six directly affect lands managed by BLM.

• Hiking—One of the most popular ways visitors experience the NCA is on one of the 68 trails and routes managed by BLM. In the lowland zone, hikers are restricted to designated trails. In the upland zone, off-trail travel is permitted.

• Mountain Biking—Mountain biking in the NCA is available for a wide range of abilities. Mountain bikes are restricted to designated trails in both upland and lowland zones and are prohibited in both wilderness areas.

• Equestrian Use—Riding opportunities in the NCA are abundant, ranging from short, easy jaunts to long, demanding, backcountry trail rides. Horses are restricted to designated trails in the lowland zone, but off-trail travel is permitted in the upland zone. Since the construction of equestrian parking trailheads at both Red Mountain and White Reef, equestrian use has increased substantially in these areas.



• Rock Climbing and Rappelling—Climbing/rappelling is allowed on BLM managed lands in two locations in the NCA: Three Ponds and Turtle Wall. Both areas are sport climbing only and consist of sandstone. Climbing in the NCA is considered a privilege and ethical standards are high in the local climbing community.

• Camping—Dispersed camping is allowed within the upland zone, except in the Babylon/Sandstone Mountain area where camping is restricted to the Sand Cove primitive camping area. In the lowland zone, camping is limited to the developed campgrounds. BLM manages one campground in the Red Cliffs Recreation Area. Camping is also currently permitted at Sandstone Mountain. This is a small group site that receives regular requests for group gatherings. After the Red Cliffs Campground, this is the only location in the NCA where vehicle camping is currently allowed.

• Hunting—Hunting, consistent with the State of Utah regulations and requirements, continues to be accommodated in the upland areas of the NCA, and within the lowland zone on the east side of Cottonwood Road. Hunting is the only use allowed off-trail in the lowland zone. Hunters accessing the NCA during prescribed hunting seasons must comply with various city ordinances.

• Geocaching—Geocaching is prohibited in the NCA’s lowland zone, but may be allowed in the upland zone depending on the placement of the cache.

Other activities that typically occur on public lands are prohibited in the NCA. These currently include, but are not limited to: target shooting, paintball, in-line skating and skate boarding (except on paved municipal trails), horseshoes, darts, badminton, golf, remote-controlled aircraft, powered parachutes, and residential camping.

The recreational heart of the NCA is the trail system. There are 68 trails and routes of varying length and difficulty, as well as 35 trailheads and access points where visitors can access the NCA. These range from developed trailheads that typically contain designated parking, a vault toilet, and an information kiosk that may contain regulatory, directional, and interpretive information, to undeveloped access points that have only parking.

The Red Cliffs Recreation Area is open year-round and is popular with overnight and day users. The small size and limited number of campsites means it is often filled to capacity. Over the 2004 to 2010 period, day use visits ranged from 15,216 to 20,112 and averaged 17,892. Campground visits ranged from 2,497 to 3,988 and averaged 3,116.

Trail visitation is tracked by BLM Recreation staff using digital traffic counters. This information is supplemented with trail registers and staff observations. In FY 2011, a total of 129,262 recreational visits were made to the Red Cliffs NCA, with 34,411 of these visits to the Red Cliffs Recreation Area and the remaining spread across the remainder of the trails and trailheads. Table 4-3 presents the breakdown of the recreational use by primary activity. An examination of visitor registers and other data that is currently underway shows that 71 percent of the recreational visitors are from Utah, and 29 percent are from out of state.

Table 4-3. Recreational Visitation by Activity, Red Cliffs NCA

Activity Visits

Mountain Biking 15,511

Hiking 41,364

OHV Riding 2,585

Camping 5,170



Activity Visits

Wildlife Viewing 15,511

Sight Seeing 25,852

Photography 23,267

Total Visitors 129,262

Source: BLM Recreation Management System and analysis by St. George Field Office.

SRPs are issued for a variety of activities in the NCA. Several local companies offer guided hikes and mountain bike rides in the NCA, many of them on a daily basis. All commercial use is managed by the agency responsible for managing the land where the activity is proposed, typically BLM or Snow Canyon State Park, and all commercial activities require a permit issued by one of those agencies after a review process. Commercial non-motorized use may be permitted on designated roads and trails. Commercial motorized use may only be permitted on designated roads. Thirteen companies hold commercial use permits for the Red Cliffs NCA, but only three use the area with any regularity. Permits are held for guided hiking, equestrian, rock climbing, and mountain biking. In 2010, hiking was the only reported use, with 3,800 visitor days in 2010. This is roughly 3 percent of the total visitor use in the NCA (see below). Permits held for mountain biking and rock climbing are rarely used as the opportunities for these activities in the NCA are considered substandard compared to other biking trails and climbing locations elsewhere in the St. George Field Office. Organized competitive and recreational sporting events found to be low impact to habitat are subject to the same review process as commercial use.

In April 2011, the Red Cliffs NCA conducted a visitor satisfaction survey. The NCA was one of 24 sites in 13 states selected to conduct this annual survey. The survey was developed to measure the NCA’s performance in meeting the standards established in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Goal 3.1, Provide for a quality recreation experience, including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI-managed and partnered lands and waters; and Goal 3.2, Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The survey was conducted at five heavily used NCA trailheads on multiple weekends during April 2011, and 400 surveys were completed. The overall GPRA Satisfaction Measure was 90 percent. This is a measure of the number of respondents who were satisfied with the facilities, services, and recreational opportunities.

Of all survey respondents, 35 percent reported paying fees (not all the survey takers were at fee-based trailheads). A slightly larger percentage (46 percent) responded to questions about the fees. Asked “How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area,” 86 percent responded “About right.” Asked if “The value of the recreation opportunity was at least equal to the fee asked to pay,” 85 percent responded they agreed or strongly agreed.

4.3.3 Balance of the Field Office Recreational use of public lands in Washington County is increasing. Many of the developed recreation sites on nearby state or federal lands are frequently at or above capacity during peak seasons and as such a spillover effect has occurred on other public lands in Washington County. Furthermore, changing recreation preferences, opportunities, and technologies also contribute to the number and types of recreational users that are now enjoying diverse recreation opportunities across the planning area.

All areas in the balance of the Field Office are identified as either SRMAs or Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). SRMAs are BLM’s primary means for managing recreation use in areas of high recreation use. SRMAs are areas that require a recreation investment, where intensive recreation management is needed, and where recreation is a principal management objective. These areas often have high levels of recreation activity or are valuable natural resources. ERMAs constitute all public lands



outside of SRMAs and other special designation areas. ERMAs are areas where recreation is non-specialized, dispersed, and does not require intensive management. Recreation may not be the primary management objective and recreational activities are subject to few restrictions.

Recreational visitation across the entire St. George Field Office in FY 2011 totaled 509,448 visits. Subtracting out visitation to the Red Cliffs NCA (129,262) and Beaver Dam Wash NCA (12,135), there were 368,051 visits across the balance of the Field Office. Of these, 232,730 visits were in the ERMA.

Five SRMAs are located in the Decision Area. Basic descriptions and visitation rates for these areas are as follows.

Sand Mountain SRMA The Sand Mountain SRMA comprises 40,725 acres of public lands and is located in the south-central portion of the planning area, east of the city of St. George. The main recreation activities within the SRMA include OHV riding and competitive events, horseback riding, scenic driving and viewing, visiting historic and paleontological sites, natural history education, semi-primitive recreation, undeveloped camping, picnicking, guided tours, and recreation instructions. Main attractions include the sand dune OHV riding area, Dinosaur Trackway paleontological site, Fort Pearce historic site, historic trails, and Warner Valley Road. BLM’s RMIS data indicates the total visitation at the Sand Mountain SRMA in FY 2011 was 96,092 visits. Of these, 10,789 visits were to the Dinosaur Trackway paleontological site. The Sand Mountain Dunes intensive use area had 45,768 visits, likely almost all for OHV riding. Dispersed use totaled 39,535 visits; most of these were probably for OHV use or involved an OHV component.

Red Mountain SRMA The Red Mountain SRMA comprises 23,725 acres of public lands and is located in the central portion of the planning area just north of Ivins. The main recreation activities found within the SRMA include primitive and semi-primitive motorized recreation, hiking, rock climbing, sightseeing, touring, stream-based recreation, outdoor photography, picnicking, undeveloped camping, horseback riding, small game hunting, and viewing petroglyphs. The main attractions within the SRMA include the Red Mountain, outstanding geological features and scenery, Santa Clara River, and petroglyphs. Visitation in 2011 totaled 23,052 visits.

Deep Creek SRMA The Deep Creek SRMA comprises 11,350 acres of public lands and is located in the northeast corner of the planning area. The main recreation activities found within the SRMA include stream-based recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, undeveloped camping, touring, sightseeing, primitive recreation, and cross-country skiing. Main attractions within the SRMA include scenic vistas and landforms, Deep Creek, Crystal Creek, North fork of Virgin River, Box Canyon, Volcano Knoll, Indian Trail, Kolob Creek, and Giant Oak Tree. Visitation in 2011 totaled 982 visits.

LaVerkin Creek SRMA Located east of I-15 and north of the town of Toquerville, the LaVerkin Creek SRMA comprises 20,180 acres of public lands. The primary recreation activities found in the SRMA include stream-based recreation, hiking, sightseeing, picnicking, horseback riding, touring, geologic interpretation, and primitive recreation. Main attractions found within the SRMA include scenic vistas and landforms, Red Butte, LaVerkin Creek Falls, LaVerkin Creek Trail, LaVerkin Creek Canyon, and the Black Ridge Overlook. Visitation in 2011 totaled 1,812 visits.

Canaan Mountain SRMA The Canaan Mountain SRMA is located in the southeast corner of the planning area and comprises 31,395 acres of public lands. Main recreation activities found in the SRMA include hiking, backpacking, primitive recreation, horseback riding, sightseeing, outdoor photography, guided tours, and pack animal use. The main attractions found within the SRMA include Canaan Mountain, Eagle Crags, hiking trails,



outstanding scenery and landforms, unconfined primitive recreation, Water Canyon Arch, historic windlass and sawmill. Visitation in 2011 totaled 13,383 visits.

St. George Field Office ERMA The St. George Field Office ERMA comprises the remainder of BLM-managed lands in Washington County and much of the recreational use occurs here. With 232,730 visits in 2011, 45 percent of all recreational visits take place in the ERMA. Major recreation types and attractions in the ERMA include the following:

• Over the past 15 years, Washington County has become known as a world-class destination for mountain bikers. One popular site is the Gooseberry Mesa National Recreation Trail, which draws visitors from all over the world. In 2011, 16,244 off-road cyclists from 37 countries traveled to Washington County to ride its technical “slickrock” trails.

• Immediately adjacent to Gooseberry, the challenging bike routes on the Hurricane Cliffs trail system attracted 6,590 off-road cyclists in 2011.

• The Santa Clara River Reserve is just minutes from the greater St. George metropolitan area and its growing trail system has become a close-to-home destination for local mountain bikers, trail runners, and hikers. The Reserve’s extensive rock art makes it an attractive destination for visitors with an interest in archaeology. The area received 55,955 visits in 2011.

• The Bear Claw Poppy mountain bike trail system winds through habitat that is home to the endangered Dwarf bearclaw poppy. Like the Santa Clara River Reserve, these trails are within the urban interface and received 13,931 visits in 2011.

• Washington County has also become an annual spring destination for rock climbers. More than 1,500 climbing routes on limestone, sandstone, and basalt provide a variety of easily accessible challenges. The exact number of climbers in unknown, but conservative estimates put the number of visits at approximately 25,000.

• Bloomington Cave is the most extensive and well-known cave in Washington County. It is a large tectonic cave, with six distinct levels and a maze of passages. The surveyed length of the cave is currently 1.39 miles, making it the fifth longest cave in Utah. It is gated, and the St. George Field Office issues a limited number of daily permits. Visitation in 2011 totaled 885 amateur spelunkers.

• Back country ATV riding is very popular and the annual Tri-state ATV Jamboree has identified the most popular rides in the area. The event takes visitors on ATV tours across the entire county. Many of these riders return to explore the area on their own. ATV riding totaled approximately 35,000 annual visits in 2011.

• Hiking, equestrian use, and backcounty 4x4 touring are also popular and make up the remainder of ERMA visitation.

4.4 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION

MANAGEMENT P.L. 111-11 mandates that BLM develop a CTTMP for public lands in Washington County. Doing so requires a comprehensive examination of the travel and transportation related infrastructure within the St. George Field Office, including an assessment of the expected impacts on natural resources contained within the planning area. Traditionally, BLM’s Travel and Transportation Program focuses primarily on motor vehicle use. However, given the special character and attributes found within the St. George Field Office’s administrative boundary, the analysis has been significantly expanded to encompass all forms of transportation: travel by foot, horseback, bicycle, motorcycle, aircraft, and four-wheeled vehicles, including ATVs, cars, and trucks. This direction is important for the St. George Field Office because even though the vast majority of routes in Washington County are available for motorized use, the number of non-motorized trails is much larger than in a typical BLM field office.



The planning process for an RMP Amendment will evaluate the area designations for OHV travel that were made for public lands in Washington County through the 1999 RMP. For the NCAs, OHV area designations for Beaver Dam Wash NCA were made by Congress through P.L. 111-11, with all of the NCA designated as limited to designated roads and trails. OHV area designations in the Red Cliffs NCA are subject to designations in the St. George Field Office RMP and the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve PUP; currently, all motorized vehicle travel in the NCA, including by OHVs, is limited to designated roads.

In accordance with P.L. 111-11, a CTTMP will be developed to address individual route designations. These new route designations will be consistent with the OHV area designations in the NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment. The two planning efforts are on parallel but separate tracks, with the EA following the NCA and RMP Amendment plans.

OHV use is a key component of a CTTMP. OHVs are used within the planning area for recreational and non-recreational use. OHV use has become a popular form of recreation within the planning area as well a means of transportation while hunting, fishing, or camping. Much of the non-recreational OHV use is for administrative use. Administrative OHV use occurs in association with permitted uses and is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Over the past 20 years, OHV use has become one of the fastest growing recreation activities in southwest Utah, drawing thousands of visitors each year. Visitors are drawn to the area and BLM public land to experience the numerous roads and trails available for OHV use, the diverse backcountry opportunities, and spectacular scenery that the area provides, and the challenging OHV opportunities that the landscape and terrain provide. The number of OHV registrations in Utah has increased significantly over the past several years. The number of registered OHVs in Utah increased from 51,686 in 1998, to 172,231 in 2006, a 233-percent increase (Burr 2008). OHV use is one of the fastest growing activities in the area.

P.L. 111-11 requires the St. George Field Office to identify and designate the High Desert OHV Trail in Washington County. This is a long-distance, multiple-use trail that would go through the St. George Field Office, stretching from the Utah-Nevada border to Beaver, Utah, and connect with the Paiute Trail. The High Desert OHV Trail is currently going through a feasibility study process with potential routes being identified by the various federal, state, and local governments in whose jurisdictions the trail would likely be located. One of these is the Dixie National Forest (DNF), which is located to the north of the planning area. The DNF has identified several potential routes for the trail. While there is no defined route on BLM land to connect to the potential routes identified by the DNF, one that would be contiguous with the route exiting the DNF and proceeding to the Arizona or Nevada border will need to be identified.

During the impact analysis phase of this BLM planning process, the economic impact (jobs, income, etc.) resulting from trails and travel management on the NCAs and the balance of the field office will be estimated under a baseline scenario and management alternatives. Because trails and travel management has a strong recreational component (OHV use, other trail use), the impact analysis will be coordinated with the economic impact analysis for recreation. It will follow the methodology described in the recreation section above, using RMIS data and probably some of the same expenditure data sources.

4.4.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA The NCA is divided into two parts, with a mile-wide utility corridor designated in the 1999 St. George Field Office RMP separating the two areas. U.S. Highway 91 is the only paved highway through the NCA, bisecting the southern half and providing a link between Interstate 15 to the south and the greater St. George metropolitan area to the north. The outer boundary of the NCA is 73 miles in circumference.

P.L. 111-11 designated three large areas within the NCA as “designated road areas” and further identified specific routes within the three areas that are open for motorized use. Motorized vehicle travel outside of the three “designated road areas” was limited by Congress to designated roads and trails that would be designated through land use planning or the development of the CTTMP.



Within the NCA’s three designated road areas, Congress designated nine routes totaling 16.5 miles that will be remain open to the public. Approximately 140 miles of routes inside these areas are no longer available for public motorized use without specific authorization by BLM or for emergency response. Some of these roads may remain open for administrative use by authorized permittees, contractors, and BLM staff.

Existing motorized recreational use in the NCA includes casual, dispersed vehicle camping, OHV riding, and full-size vehicle touring. The RMIS data presented in Section 4.3.1 shows that in FY 2011, 12,135 recreational visits were made to the NCA. Virtually all of these visits required some form of motorized vehicle access to the NCA. Of these visits, 2,306 were specifically for OHV use. This number represents those riders who were only riding OHVs. In other words, their sole purpose for visiting the NCA was to ride their OHV. However, almost all of the game bird or big game hunters (7,402) and perhaps some of the other visitors utilize OHVs as a tool to support their activity.

One organized event (motorized ATV event) is permitted to use designated roads in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. The event is non-competitive and consists of early spring ATV guided tours.

4.4.2 Red Cliffs NCA The transportation system in the Red Cliffs NCA is both simple and complex. Simple, because all of the roads and trails within the NCA were designated in June 2000 as part of the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve PUP, or were approved later as part of a utility development authorized under the HCP. Complex, because the existing transportation system is a bewildering mix of paved roads, graded dirt roads, primitive two-tracks, and non-motorized recreational trails.

The transportation system includes state, county and BLM system roads, many of which receive regular maintenance. State and county system roads (depending on class of the road) are usually constructed and maintained to higher standards than BLM roads and provide the primary arterial and collector system for access to and through the NCA.

All of these major access corridors and all of the recreational trails are available for public use, but the majority of dirt roads and two-tracks are used primarily for administrative and maintenance purposes to access transmission lines and water utilities throughout the NCA. Adding to the confusing mix is the fact that many of the administrative roads serve double duty as recreational trails.

With the exception of the major roads, access to the NCA is managed by the BLM St. George Field Office and Washington County HCP staff. This access is managed by miles of fence, multiple gates, and abundant signs creating what are some the most tightly controlled public lands in Southern Utah. This is due mainly to the fact that the Reserve has been in place for over 10 years and the Reserve’s PUP provided the framework for managing the transportation system.

The RMIS data presented in Section 4.1.2 shows that in FY 2011, 129,262 recreational visits were made to the NCA. Many of these visits used some form of motorized vehicle access to the NCA. However, there is also a significant amount of non-motorized access to the NCA from the St. George metropolitan area via the NCA’s extensive trail system. OHV-specific recreational use in the NCA totaled 2,585 visits (users whose sole purpose for visiting the NCA was to ride their OHV). Some of the additional visitors may have used OHVs as a tool to support their activity.

4.4.3 Balance of the Field Office Outside of the NCAs, the trail and road system is extensive and includes paved roads, unpaved roads, and a variety of trails on and across BLM public lands. With respect to OHV use, significant acreages of BLM public land fall into each of the OHV area designations: Open to OHV Use (open to cross-country travel), Open for Use on Existing Roads and Trails, Open for Use on Designated Roads and Trails, and Closed to



OHV use. Data on these designations and route mileages are available in Chapter 3 of the RMP Amendment EIS.

The St. George Field Office is currently analyzing recreation data (traffic counters, visitor registers, etc.) to provide greater specificity on OHV and other road and trail usage outside as well as within the NCAs. OHV use is known to occur in both the ERMA and the SRMAs. Portions of the Sand Mountain SRMA are managed specifically for OHV use. The Sand Mountain Dunes within the SRMA is an Intensive Use Area that is popular for unrestricted OHV use. Visitation to this area in FY 2011 totaled 45,768 visits. Much of the dispersed use (39,535 visits) throughout the Sand Mountain SRMA is for OHV use. Large portions of the Red Mountain SRMA, LaVerkin Creek SRMA, Deep Creek SRMA, and Canaan Mountain SRMA are closed to OHV use.

4.4.4 Northern Transportation Route P.L. 111-11 at Section 1977 (b) 2 (A) directed the St. George Field Office to “in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local government entities (including the County and St. George City, Utah), and the public, identify 1 or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the County.” This legislative direction was made within a section concerning development of the CTTMP. This is problematic for BLM, as CTTMP planning typically involves implementation level route designation for roads, trails, and routes that are already in existence, not the identification of possible alignments for a major new highway. This direction to identify one or more alternatives for a “northern transportation route” is more akin to a “land use allocation,” similar to the designation of a utility corridor, that must be made through the RMP process. Therefore, this legislative mandate will be addressed in the RMP process.

Over the past two decades, regional transportation planners have applied several different names to the “northern transportation route,” such as the Northern Corridor, Great Northern Corridor, Northern Beltway, and most recently the Washington Parkway, to describe this possible future major highway. Although the names have changed, the primary purpose of this highway has been to reduce pressure on several key existing routes that already experience high levels of congestion and are expected to experience increased congestion in the future as east-west travel demand increases. The Dixie MPO, in conjunction with the Utah Department of Transportation and Washington County, has proposed several alternative corridor alignments that all cross public lands within the Red Cliffs NCA. Washington County, as a Cooperating Agency to the RMP process, has submitted these potential alignments to BLM for consideration in the development of the RMP for the Red Cliffs NCA. An initial cost/benefit study has been conducted for the Dixie MPO (Horrocks Engineers 2011). This study examined six different options for the location of the Washington Parkway, in reality the “northern transportation route” proposed by Washington County through the Red Cliffs NCA. Section 2.2 presents the population projections used in the cost/benefit study and compares those projections to other recent population projections for Washington County.

4.5 LANDS AND REALTY The mission of the lands and realty program is to manage BLM public lands in support of the goals and objectives of other resource programs, provide for uses of public lands in accordance with applicable laws and regulations while protecting sensitive resources, and improve management of public lands through land tenure adjustments.

BLM lands and realty actions and policies can have important socioeconomic effects. Land disposals, ROW grants, leases, and permits allow for economic activity and may further the economic development of communities within the socioeconomic study area or serve other important social purposes. Withdrawals and acquisitions may be pursued to protect important resources of economic or social significance to the public.



Congress, in designating the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs, withdrew the public lands of both NCAs from all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws, as well as location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws and operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. Further, Congress directed BLM to manage the public lands of the NCA to “conserve, protect, and enhance” the resource values of these lands for present and future generations. This mandate constrains the types of realty actions that may be authorized within the NCAs, including ROWs and subsequent developments in those ROWs.

ROWs are important to private and public entities because they allow economic activity. For example, a utility ROW enables efficient delivery of utility services from one location to another. Infrastructure costs to public or private entities would in many cases be higher without certain ROWs across BLM land. ROWs also allow businesses and other entities or individuals to access economically valuable locations such as communication sites. BLM also administers utility corridors which are meant to allow for efficient location of multiple utility ROWs.

P.L. 111-11 provided for the acquisition of non-federal lands within the NCAs using funds from the sales of public lands elsewhere in Washington County. In general, acquisition of non-federal land by BLM may have the following potential economic and social ramifications:

• If the land is acquired from private ownership, non-federal government jurisdictions may lose property tax revenues.

• Acquisition adds to the federal land base that is used in calculating PILT; therefore, PILT payments to non-federal government jurisdictions may increase.

• In some cases, development that might have occurred on private land will not occur once the land is federally owned. This could result in economic losses to local communities. However, in the particular case of the two NCAs, virtually all of the private lands that could be acquired are within designated critical habitat for a federally listed species (the Mojave Desert tortoise) and development of those lands would be subject to the requirements of Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. This would include the creation and approval of an HCP for each parcel that includes mitigation approved by the USFWS to address the take of tortoise and adverse impacts to critical habitat. In the case of the Red Cliffs NCA, the USFWS has consistently held that no mitigation options are available to offset the take, therefore development cannot occur legally. In the Beaver Dam Wash NCA, private land owners might be able to get HCPs approved, because they are in a different and larger recovery unit with more options for mitigation, but the costs of HCP development and implementation would likely discourage development. Given these other constraints, it is unlikely that acquisition of private land within the NCAs would represent a real loss in local economic development.

• Private lands often have social and cultural significance to the landowners and sometimes the surrounding communities as well. Acquisition of private land can impact these values. However, it should be noted that in almost all cases of BLM acquisitions, acquisition occurs from willing parties—willing sellers or voluntary participants in a land exchange. The willingness to accept an offer can usually be interpreted as demonstration of adequate compensation for any cultural losses incurred by the landowner, although not necessarily for impacts on third parties.

Estimation of the economic impact of lands and realty management requires a flexible approach, tailored to the particular programs and actions of interest. During the impacts analysis phase of this BLM planning action, appropriate methodologies will be used to address economic impacts of lands and realty management under that baseline scenario and management alternatives. In some cases, it may only be feasible to compare the alternatives on relative, qualitative terms.



4.5.1 Beaver Dam Wash NCA The Beaver Dam Wash NCA is relatively remote and does not interface with a large urban area as does the Red Cliffs NCA. The NCA has a minimal number of authorized ROWs, leases, and permits within the boundary of the NCA, but two designated utility corridors are adjacent to the NCA that do have a high demand as locations for large multi-state utilities.

Currently, three authorized ROWs are administered by the St. George Field Office within the boundary of the NCA. They are an underground fiber optic cable authorized to Rio Virgin Telephone Company that runs from Bloomington, Utah, to Mesquite, Nevada; a ROW reservation to United States Geological Survey Water Resource Division for multiple authorized geophysical testing locations and 40-50 miles of associated road access; and a 1,300-foot-long road ROW issued to Washington County known as Lytle Ranch Road.

The majority of the nonfederal acreage (8,619 acres) within the boundaries of the NCA is administered by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) (6,492 acres). As a result of the large amount of nonfederal land within the NCA, there is a considerable opportunity for land acquisition from willing sellers within the NCA. While acquisition activity in the NCA has been limited, when opportunities have presented themselves, the St. George Field Office has acquired state and private in-holdings to preserve habitat for the desert tortoise and to accomplish other resource goals and objectives. To date, acquisition of in-holdings totaling 690 acres has been accomplished primarily through third-party donations stemming from the compensation requirements placed on large utility companies that have constructed facilities within one of the designated utility corridors.

4.5.2 Red Cliffs NCA The Red Cliffs NCA abuts the largest metropolitan area of Washington County and is within the annexation boundaries of the cities of St. George, Ivins, Santa Clara, Hurricane, Washington, and Leeds/Silver Reef. Many highways, transmission lines, and other facilities and infrastructure were authorized and constructed prior to the designation of the public lands as an NCA, over a period of many decades. The BLM lands and realty program provides ongoing management of many authorizations in what is now the NCA.

The NCA is intersected by two major highways including Highway 18, which isolates a portion of the NCA on the westerly boundary and the I-15 highway corridor, which isolates an easterly portion of the NCA known as the Babylon area. The Middleton Substation, located within the NCA, is a major source of electrical power for the communities of the St. George Basin. This substation is fed by multiple high-voltage transmission lines which originate at the Red Butte substation north of the NCA near the Town of Central. Power is delivered to customers via several smaller distribution lines that supply power to the local communities. Springs in the Pine Valley Mountains were developed in the late 19th century and the water conveyed to the City of St. George via aqueducts and pipelines that cross the NCA. This water continues to be an important component of the municipal water supply

Approximately 26 authorized ROWs are within the Red Cliffs NCA. They include fiber optic lines, gas pipelines, power lines, water pipelines, roads, stream gages, weather gages, and underground phone lines. These ROWs are summarized in the lands and realty section of Chapter 3 of the RMP/EIS.

The NCA was designated in 2009, hence there has not yet been an active acquisition program by BLM related to the NCA. However, the St. George Field Office has employed an active land acquisition program within the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, established by the Washington County HCP. The current St. George Field Office RMP identifies the Red Cliffs area as a priority for land acquisition. As of 2011, 1,853 acres had been acquired from willing sellers into federal ownership in the NCA by purchase, at a cost of $13,231,983. Land exchanges completed by BLM to date acquired 4,643 acres within the NCA into federal ownership, with an appraised value of $28,407,573.




4.6 MINERALS AND ENERGY Not addressed in this report. See Section 1 (Introduction).

4.7 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS Designation of the NCAs and Wilderness Areas within Washington County was a congressional decision. These legislative designations will not be revisited in this BLM planning action. However, this planning action may generate additional special designations. BLM has the authority to make certain administrative designations. Specifically, BLM may designate ACECs within and/or outside of the NCAs. Therefore, it is important to discuss the economic and social implications of special designations.

Special designations, whether legislative designations such as national parks, wilderness areas, and national conservation areas, or administrative designations such as ACECs, usually result in additional protections to the ecological and open space values of the areas so designated. A common concern with special designations is that protections that may be put in place may impact traditional, commodity-based uses of public lands; for example, mining, fluid mineral development, timbering, grazing, etc. Restrictions on these activities may reduce economic activity for individual resource users and for local or regional communities. They may also have social impacts; for instance on local customs and culture surrounding mining and ranching.

It is important to recognize the potential for negative economic and social impacts from special designations. It is also important to recognize that special designations may have positive economic and social effects. These effects are typically less obvious, and therefore merit additional discussion. They are particularly important in a region such as Washington County, which is an amenity-based economy much more than a natural resource commodity-based economy.

A growing body of evidence suggests that “natural amenities” such as scenery, access to recreation, and the presence of protected areas have positive economic benefits for communities possessing such amenities. Most of these studies have focused on legislative designations such as national parks and wilderness areas, but their findings may well apply to natural amenities protected under administrative designations such as ACECs. A study by Headwaters Economics (2007) summarizes much of the available research and reaches several conclusions:

• Retirees are attracted to areas which possess high levels of natural amenities.

• Entrepreneurs and employees who are not dependent on a particular workplace location (“cyber-commuters”) are attracted to areas that possess high levels of natural amenities.

• A positive relationship exists between environmental protection and in-migration, retaining businesses, and attracting new businesses.

• There is no evidence to suggest that protection of public lands is detrimental to local economies.

The above conclusions are reinforced by several other comprehensive studies, including those by the Sonoran Institute (2004) and the Wilderness Society (2007). A study of second-home ownership in central Colorado (Venturoni, Long and Perdue 2005), while not addressing protected public lands, concludes that access to scenery and recreation are prime motivators behind second-home ownership in the areas studied. This paper further concludes that the second-home ownership phenomenon, although not without its negative impacts, is an important economic engine in job creation and income generation.



Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reinforces the importance of second-home owners to local economies, particularly in terms of spending (Francese 2003).

These conclusions are relevant to the planning area, as it has been characterized by high levels of in-migration and well-above-average numbers of retirees and second-home owners. For example, the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) uses a “natural amenities index” to classify rural areas as to their relative degree of natural amenities possession. Using this index, ERS has found that communities with a high level of natural amenities are the most successful in attracting retirees and second-home owners from the “Baby Boom” generation (USDA ERS 2009). On a scale of 1 to 7, ERS computed Washington County’s index as 5, indicating a high level of natural amenities (USDA ERS 2004a). The attraction of Washington County as a second home/retiree destination is reflected in population change data, which shows a high level of second-home ownership at approximately 26 percent of total residential real estate valuation in 2008, nearly double that of 8 years earlier (Utah State Tax Commission 2000, 2008), and a high level of in-migration by retiree-age populations. From 1990-2000, for example, the ERS (USDA ERS 2004b) classified Washington County as a retirement destination community, defined as an area whose population age 60 and above had increased more than 15 percent during the period as a result of in-migration. The U.S. Census Bureau’s ACS, which samples areas in non-census years, found this trend to continue from 2005 to 2008 with Washington County experiencing a 4-year growth rate of this population group of over 12 percent (ACS 2009). While the recession has undoubtedly had an impact on these trends, it is likely that Washington County will continue to be attractive to retirees and others looking for homes in an area with natural amenity values.

Recent research on communities surrounding national monuments (Headwaters Economics 2011) provides additional evidence that special designations are not incompatible with economic growth, and in some cases help such growth. This research examined the 17 national monuments in the 11 western continental states that are larger than 10,000 acres and were established in 1982 or later. The research found:

• Economic growth, as measured by employment and personal income, followed the creation of every national monument studied.

• Compared to benchmark counties in the state where each monument is located, in nine cases these two indicators grew faster than the benchmark, in three cases the indicators were tied or split, and in five cases the indicators grew slower.

• In one case—El Malpais National Monument in New Mexico—leading indicators (population, employment, personal income, and per capita income) after designation reversed declines experienced in the years before designation.

Another economic benefit of natural amenities is the enhancement effect of open space, including protected lands, on property values. The studies noted above, among others, have demonstrated that homes and properties located close to open space are more valuable relative to properties located further away, holding all else constant. This relationship varies based on the various characteristics (type, size, location, etc.) of open space resources, including the quality of views provided by the open space near a property. Open space can indirectly affect property tax revenues realized by local jurisdictions through the effect open spaces have on property value assessments.

4.8 TRIBAL USES The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, EOs, and court decisions. The United States recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-



determination. As domestic nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. Federally recognized tribes may have interests in public lands as traditional tribal territories and many retain pre-existing rights reserved in treaties, EOs, agreements, and federal statutes.

The Shivwits Band of Paiutes, other bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, and other tribes may be interested in access to and management of BLM public lands in Washington County, having hunted, foraged, lived, and practiced their religious and cultural traditions across these lands for centuries. Section 2.6 provides a list of tribes and bands that BLM initially identified as stakeholders and invited to participate in the scoping process or that provided comments as part of the scoping process. Whether Indian tribes in the region have any interests with respect to the management decisions in this planning effort is not clear. For instance, no American Indian individuals are known to currently hold any grazing permits or Special Recreation Permits in the St. George Field Office.

4.9 NONMARKET VALUES Market values of BLM public lands and federal mineral estate are relatively easy to understand and assess. Commodities produced through use of BLM public lands (such as oil and gas, hard rock minerals, mineral materials, livestock, timber, electricity from renewable energy projects, etc.) have a price in the marketplace that can be easily determined. Economic methods are readily available for measuring the flow of income and employment resulting from the production of commodities; for example, production of electricity from renewable energy projects. A renewable energy development EIS presumes a certain number of wind turbines or solar panels developed over a specified period of time and constructed and operated by a workforce that can be estimated reasonably well. Using economic impact models, economists can work “upstream” to estimate the purchases that renewable energy developers and operators will make from other firms, and work “downstream” to estimate how much their employees’ wages will contribute to other businesses throughout the local economy.

The term nonmarket values refers to the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the environment or uses of natural and cultural resources that do not involve market transactions and therefore lack prices. Examples include the benefits received from wildlife viewing, hiking in a wilderness, or hunting for subsistence rather than commercial purposes. Nevertheless, such values are important to consider because they help tell the entire economic story. Estimates of nonmarket values supplement estimates of income generated from commodity uses to provide a more complete picture of the economic implications of proposed resource management decisions.

Many of the BLM Public Land Uses and Values subsections above address market values associated with these uses. Examples include the value of livestock attributable to grazing on BLM lands, and the expenditures of recreationists. To provide the more complete picture just noted, it is important to also discuss nonmarket values.

To follow the example above, if renewable energy development represents one use, other uses may involve managing for some combination of habitat conservation and recreation. While this may be relatively straightforward from a management standpoint, for determining economic impacts this is problematic. Herds of desert bighorn sheep do not pay user fees to graze on the public lands. Visiting fishers, hunters, and climbers may spend money on motels and restaurants, but for the most part recreation on BLM-managed lands comes free or at a nominal charge. Thus, much of the value that humans might place on maintaining lands for conservation and recreation is never measured in the market economy. BLM is increasingly asked to consider these values; in effect, to replace that “zero” with a more useful number for planning and analysis purposes.6

6 BLM has recently issued guidance on considering nonmarket values: Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-061, Guidance on

Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values, February 16, 2010 (BLM 2010). This discussion draws on that guidance.



Despite the difficulties associated with measurement of nonmarket values, it is well-accepted that the natural and cultural resources of an area and the open space the area may provide can have dollar values. For example, it is common for real estate investors to pay more for view lots or property adjacent to open space, or for people to make financial donations to help protect old-growth forests, endangered species, or other sensitive resources.

In examining nonmarket values, economists often distinguish between “use values” and “non-use values.” Use value refers to the benefits an individual derives from some direct experience or activity, such as climbing a spectacular peak, hiking, or wildlife viewing. In contrast, non-use value refers to the utility or psychological benefit some people derive from the existence of some environmental condition that may never be directly experienced: an unspoiled Grand Canyon or the reintroduction of wolves to the Rockies.

Economists measure nonmarket use values by estimating the “consumer surplus” associated with these activities, which is defined as the maximum dollar amount, above any actual payments made, that a consumer would be willing to pay to enjoy a good or service. For instance, hikers pay a market price for gasoline used to reach a trail, but pay nothing to use the trail. Any amount that a recreationist would be willing to pay to use this otherwise free resource represents the nonmarket consumer surplus value of that resource to that consumer. Many techniques are available for measuring this nonmarket use value. One common way is to collect data on variations in what recreationists do pay (gasoline, hotels, restaurants, entry fees, guides or outfitters, etc.); economists then use quantitative techniques to impute the additional willingness to pay that constitutes consumer surplus.

As noted earlier, evaluating the market expenditures associated with activities on BLM public lands (e.g., spending by recreationists, mineral development expenditures) or the market value of products taken from BLM lands such as timber and minerals is often useful for BLM planning purposes. Economic models can then be used to estimate the total economic activity generated by these expenditures or production values.

Addressing the additional nonmarket economic values derived from BLM public lands may also be useful. In some cases these values can be calculated if appropriate information is available. In other cases this is not possible, but discussing these values qualitatively or to provide examples of them in analogous situations may be helpful.

Nonmarket use values have been studied extensively for a wide variety of recreation “goods.” A U.S. Forest Service report titled, Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands (Loomis 2005), summarizes the findings from 1,239 studies covering much of the nation from 1967 to 2003, and separates out the studies by region. It provides summary statistics for consumer surplus per person per day for many recreational activities in each region.

By applying values per person per day to recreational usage figures (visitor days) for specific or multiple types of activities, an estimate of the recreation-related nonmarket use value, the consumer surplus, can be derived for a specific study area. The resulting figure represents the total nonmarket use value recreationists derive from these activities, or alternatively, can be seen as the total additional amount recreationists would likely be willing to pay for the related recreation activities if a fee for participation were required. Those who are accustomed to free access and use of public lands tend to forget that it represents a recreation opportunity and experience for which many would be willing to pay.7 This type of calculation must be done very carefully, with great attention to the reliability of the recreational usage numbers and the validity of the consumer surplus values derived from the literature. The results must also be carefully interpreted, as consumer surplus estimates are not directly comparable to estimates of income derived from commodity uses (BLM 2010). Nonmarket use value calculations will be considered for

7 This observation is not meant to suggest that such fees should be charged. There are many philosophical and practical issues

associated with charging fees for recreational use of public land.



relevancy in the economic impact analysis phase of the current planning process for the St. George Field Office and the NCAs, and undertaken if useful to decisionmaking and if possible with available data.

With respect to non-use values, economists differentiate various types, including option values and existence values. Option value represents the benefits from having natural or cultural resources available for future use, while existence value reflects the benefits derived from knowing these resources simply exist. Evidence for the existence of these non-use values is ample. Local, state, and national taxpayers support a large variety of conservation and protection programs (e.g., National Park Service, state parks, local parks and parkways, open space initiatives, etc.) through their tax dollars—programs that are very popular but support many resources that many taxpayers will never visit. A large number of non-profits are devoted to a wide variety of conservation and wildlife-related causes; many if not most donors to these groups derive no direct benefit from their contributions. Based on Internal Revenue Service filings, Giving USA reported that charitable contributions by individuals, foundations, and corporations reached more than $307 billion in 2008, of which $6.58 billion accrued to animal and conservation-classified charities (Giving USA 2009). Examples of individual organizations with substantial contributions include the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with more than $221 million in contributions from all sources in 2009 (WWF 2009 annual report). The Nature Conservancy (TNC), with 1,000,000+ members, primarily in the United States, received more than $665 million in contributions (TNC 2009 Annual Report). While this generalized evidence of non-use values is clear, estimating non-use values for specific resources is difficult and often controversial. BLM guidance recommends that use values be emphasized rather than non-use values (BLM 2010).

Nonmarket values of open space and well-managed natural resources also include a broad range of human benefits resulting from healthy ecosystem conditions and functions. These benefits include potable water from groundwater recharge, flood control from intact wetlands, and carbon sequestration from healthy forests and certain agricultural lands. These human benefits from ecosystems are known as “ecosystem services” (Ruhl et al. 2007). Ecosystem services are receiving increasing attention from economists. As with the nonmarket values discussed above, many techniques are available for estimating the dollar value of these ecosystem services.8 It may be useful in the planning process to further consider the economic value of maintaining or improving the functional benefits of ecosystems.

8 The ecosystem services framework actually encompasses the amenity, recreational, and other values discussed above. For

purposes of this brief discussion, the emphasis is on the additional functional benefits ecosystems provide.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 5.0 Conclusions


5.0 CONCLUSIONS

This Socioeconomic Baseline Report gathers information on social and economic conditions and the values associated with uses of BLM public lands for a defined socioeconomic study area (Washington County, Utah). The report focuses on information that is most relevant to the scope of the current BLM planning effort. This information will be useful for social and economic impact analysis of the management alternatives that will be considered in the impacts analysis phase of the planning process, and will be supplemented with additional data and information as appropriate at that time.

Key social conditions and trends in the socioeconomic study area include the following:

• Washington County has experienced rapid growth in recent decades, including very rapid rates of growth in the early to mid-2000s. The local population growth rate since at least 1970 has been much higher than the growth rate of the state and nation.

• This growth has been fueled largely by in-migration. Washington County has an attractive combination of favorable climate; natural amenities such as open space, scenic quality, and opportunities for expansive outdoor recreation; and other amenities and available services. Migration of retirees into the county has been a major factor in population and economic growth.

• The recent recession substantially slowed population growth in the study area, starting in approximately 2008.

• Growth is likely to again pick up substantially in coming years, but it is reasonable to question whether the rates of growth seen in the early to mid-2000s will ever return or could be sustained for long.

• There is significant uncertainty about both long-term rates of growth overall and where growth will occur. Three sets of population projections identified and examined in this baseline socioeconomic assessment differ considerably as to the overall county population at various points in the future, and the populations and growth rates of many communities.

• These uncertainties about population growth may have important implications for BLM public lands management and for public infrastructure planning in Washington County.

• Demographic indicators for Washington County show a population that is older and more likely to have been born in a different state than the population of Utah or the United States. Washington County has a higher percentage of Whites, lower percentage of Hispanics, and lower percentage of people speaking a language other than English at home than the state or nation. The median family income of Washington County is substantially lower than that of Utah or the nation, but the percentage of individuals or families in poverty is also lower.

• The median housing unit value in Washington County as of 2006–2008 was substantially higher than for the state or nation. Average housing prices in the county increased rapidly from 2004 through 2007, but have declined since 2008.

• The number of new housing units in Washington County peaked in 2005 at 3,860, and then declined to a recent low of 605 in 2009 and a slight increase to 870 in 2010.

• Stakeholders in BLM public lands have a wide range of attitudes, beliefs, and values regarding public lands management. Broad categories of stakeholders that are particularly important to the

5.0 Conclusions Socioeconomic Baseline Report


scope of this planning effort are: habitat and resource conservation stakeholders, motorized recreation stakeholders, non-motorized recreation stakeholders, livestock grazing stakeholders, and economic development stakeholders.

• Based on analysis of minority populations and populations living in poverty, the only place in Washington County flagged as an area of potential concern for impacts to EJ populations is Hildale City, based on the high percentages of its population living under the poverty level. In addition, the American Indian population of the county is flagged for EJ consideration in the impacts analysis phase of this BLM planning action because of its high percentage of individuals in poverty.

Key economic conditions and trends in the socioeconomic study area include the following:

• A lower percentage (60 percent) of Washington County’s population is in the labor force than for the state (70 percent) or nation (65 percent) as of 2006–2008. This reflects the high retiree population in the county.

• The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Washington County has closely paralleled the national rate since roughly September 2008, and has been roughly 2 percent higher than the state rate. Historically, the county has had much stronger employment growth following recessions than has the state or nation.

• The largest employment sectors in Washington County from 2001 to 2009 were Retail Trade; Health Care and Social Assistance; Government; Accommodation and Food Services; and Construction. The first four of these grew steadily through this period, with minor declines recently for Retail Trade. Construction increased rapidly from 2001, becoming the largest sector by 2005. However, construction jobs fell off rapidly after 2007, reflecting the impact of the recession on population growth and development in Washington County.

• The proportion of households in Washington County with earnings (i.e., from participation in production as wage earners or proprietors) has been substantially lower than the proportions for the state and nation. Conversely, the proportions of Washington County households with Social Security income or retirement income were higher than the rates for the state and nation.

• Non-labor income as a percentage of total personal income has grown in Washington County from 1970 through 2008, as it has for the state and nation. The percentage of non-labor income in the county has been considerably higher than the state or national percentages throughout this time period.

• The overall pattern for the distribution of income in Washington County is that of a generally middle-class population with lower proportions of low-income and high-income households than the populations of the state and nation.

• The largest numbers of firms in Washington County are in the Construction; Retail Trade; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and Health Care and Social Assistance industries. The number of Construction firms dropped substantially from 2008 to 2009 due to impacts of the recession.

• In Washington County, the following industries have particularly high location quotients and have large shares of employment: Construction; Retail Trade; Health Care and Social Assistance; and Accommodation and Food Services. These industries are therefore very important to the local economy; they support significant amounts of local earnings and jobs by bringing in

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 5.0 Conclusions


outside income at higher rates than average U.S. counties do. The following industries have high location quotients, but have a smaller share of employment: Transportation and Warehousing; and Other Services, Except Public Administration. These industries bring meaningful outside income into the local economy, but their relative impact to the local economy is smaller than the industries noted above because of the lower levels of employment for each industry.

• The tourism sector of the Washington County economy is important, accounting for nearly 7,000 jobs in 2007 through 2009. In 2009, an estimated 21.7 percent of Washington County’s jobs were in industries that include travel and tourism jobs, compared to 13.7 percent for Utah and 14.9 percent for the United States. These same industries have grown faster in Washington County since 1998 than in the state and national economies.

• PILT from the Federal Government totaled $2.69 million in 2010. Other payments related to federal lands totaled $0.75 million.

• Management of BLM-administered land may affect state and local expenditures for maintenance of state and local roads, law enforcement personnel and equipment, emergency medical services, search and rescue teams, conservation and wildlife management, fire management, solid waste collection and disposal, and public utilities.

• BLM expenditures related to federal lands benefit the local economy because federal salaries to land management staff that reside in the study area and federal contracts to businesses located in or with employees residing in the study area represent inflows of money.

Key social and economic aspects of BLM public land uses and values in the decision area include the following:

• The BLM St. George Field Office administers approximately 634,505 acres of public lands within Washington County. This constitutes 41 percent of the land area of Washington County.

• This planning effort focuses on management of resources and associated uses in the approximately 63,478 acres of public land within Beaver Dam Wash NCA and the approximately 44,839 acres of public land within Red Cliffs NCA through development of NCA RMPs, as well as ACEC and OHV area designations through an Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP, and development of a CTTMP for the Field Office.

• Based on the numbers of permitted AUMs, actual use of AUMs, and the value of production per AUM, livestock grazing in the NCAs (almost entirely in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA) has an estimated value of $71,300 per year. This represents 1.9 percent of the county’s total livestock production value. Economic impacts (jobs, income, gross regional output) from this production value will be estimated during the impacts analysis phase of the planning process, using the IMPLAN economic impact model.

• Recreation is a popular use of BLM public lands. Visitation to the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs in 2011 totaled 12,135 and 129,262 visits, respectively. Visitation across the remainder of the Field Office totaled 368,051 visits. During the economic impacts analysis phase, this visitation data (subject to ongoing St. George Field Office research to breakdown the data) will be used in conjunction with visitor expenditure data from the literature to estimate economic impacts.

5.0 Conclusions Socioeconomic Baseline Report


• The CTTMP is a significantly expanded analysis encompassing multiple forms of transportation. Because of the strong recreational component (OHV use, other trail use), the CTTMP economic impact analysis will be coordinated with the economic impact analysis for recreation.

• BLM lands and realty actions and policies can have important socioeconomic effects. Land disposals, ROW grants, leases, and permits allow economic activity and may further the economic development of communities within the socioeconomic study area or serve other important social purposes. Withdrawals and acquisitions may be pursued to protect important resources of economic or social significance to the public. However, the scope of lands and realty actions within this BLM planning effort is limited.

• A growing body of evidence suggests that “natural amenities” such as scenery, access to recreation, and the presence of protected areas (such as designated wildernesses or other forms of protection) have positive economic benefits for communities possessing such amenities.

• Nonmarket values of BLM public lands are the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the environment or uses of natural and cultural resources that do not involve market transactions and therefore lack prices. Economists have developed methods for estimating these values, and some of these value estimates may be worth considering in the impacts analysis phase.

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 6.0 References


6.0 REFERENCES 1

American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Available online at 2 http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html. 3

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010. Regional Economic Accounts, Regional Definitions. 4 Internet. Accessed June 2010 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/definitions/#E. 5

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999a. St. George Field Office (formerly the Dixie Resource Area) 6 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. March 1999. United States Department of 7 the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah and St. George 8 Field Office, St. George, Utah. 9

BLM. 2010. Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-061. Guidance on Estimating Nonmarket Environmental 10 Values. February 16, 2010. 11

Burr, Steven W., Jordan W. Smith., Douglas Reiter, Paul Jakus, and John Keith. 2008. Recreational Off-12 Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands in Utah. Prepared by Utah State University for the Utah 13 Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Office. 14

Council on Environmental Quality, 1997 - Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the 15 President. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 16 December 10, 1997 17

Department of the Interior (DOI). 2010. Payment in Lieu of Taxes County Payments and Acres. Available 18 at http://www.nbc.gov/pilt/pilt/search.cfm. 19

Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (Dixie MPO). 2011. Southwest Utah's Population Growth 20 (Projections). Accessed November 15, 2011 at http://dixiempo.wordpress.com/data-resources/. 21

Donner, Peter. 2011 (September and November). Senior Economist, Utah Governor’s Office of Planning 22 and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis Division. Personal communication. 23

Francese, Peter. 2003. Trend Ticker: The Second Home Boom. American Demographics. June 2003. 24

Headwaters Economics. 2007. The Potential Economic Impacts of the Badlands Wilderness in Central 25 Oregon. 26

Headwaters Economics. 2011. Summary: The Economic Importance of National Monuments to Local 27 Communities; and web page “The Economic Importance of National Monuments to Local 28 Communities.” Accessed September 2011 at 29 http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/national-monuments/. 30

Heaps, Michael. 2011 (November). Traffic Engineer, Horrocks Engineers. Personal communication; 31 provided 2040 population projections by city used in the Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit 32 Study. 33

Horrocks Engineers. 2011. Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study. Prepared for the Dixie Metropolitan 34 Planning Organization. May 16. Accessed November 15, 2011 at 35 http://dixiempo.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/washington-parkway-extension-cost-benefit-study-36 may-16-20.pdf. 37

Hutchings, Curt. 2011 (November). Transportation Planning Manager, Five County Transportation 38 Planning Office, Five County Association of Governments (administers the activities of the Dixie 39 Metropolitan Planning Organization). 40

6.0 References Socioeconomic Baseline Report


Jakus, Paul M., John E. Keith, and Lu Liu. 2008. Economic Impacts of Land Use Restrictions on OHV 1 Recreation in Utah. Department of Applied Economics, Utah State University. Prepared for the 2 Utah Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Office. 3

Keith, John E., and Steven W. Burr, Jody Gale, Paul M. Jakus, Richard S. Krannich, Douglas Reiter, and 4 David G. Tarboton. 2008. Utah’s Public Land Socioeconomic Baseline Study: Summary Report. 5 Prepared by Utah State University for the Utah Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordination 6 Office. 7

Loomis, John. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public 8 Lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-658. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 9 Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 10

National Park Service (NPS). 2010. Cedar Breaks National Monument. Internet. Southern Paiute Indians. 11 Accessed May 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/cebr/historyculture/southern-paiute-indians.htm. 12

rootsweb.ancestry.com. 2011. Shivwits Indian Reservation. Accessed December 2011 at 13 http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~utwashin/towns/shivwit.html. 14

Ruhl, J. B., et al. 2007. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 15

Sonoran Institute. 2004. Public Lands Conservation and Economic Well-Being. 16

Stynes, Daniel J., and Eric M. White. 2006. Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by 17 Activity. Michigan State University. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service. 18

Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape Patterns of Exurban Growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology 19 and Society 10(1):32. Appendix 3 available at 20 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/. 21

The Wilderness Society. 2007. Natural Dividends: Wildland Protection and the Changing Economy of 22 the American West.U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Glossary of Terms. Internet. Accessed September 23 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_a.html. 24

USDA Economic Research Service. 2004a. Natural Amenities Scale. Available online at 25 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/NaturalAmenities/. 26

USDA Economic Research Service. 2004b. Retirement Destination Counties. Available online at 27 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/maps/Retirement.htm. 28

USDA Economic Research Service. 2009. Baby Boom Migration and Its Impact on Rural America / ERR-29 79. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR79/. 30

USFWS. 2008. Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies 31 in 2006. 32

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. 2010. Utah Agriculture Statistics – 2010. Accessed September 33 2011 at 34 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Utah/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/AB135 0.asp. 36

Utah Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park Visitor Survey Results. 37 Division of Parks and Recreation, Planning Section. 38

Utah Department of Public Safety. 2009. 2009 Crime in Utah. Bureau of Criminal Investigation. 39 Accessed December 2011 at http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2009.pdf. 40

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Utah GOPB). 2008. 2008 Baseline Population 41 Projections. Available at http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/popprojections.html. 42

Socioeconomic Baseline Report 6.0 References


Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Utah GOPB). 2010. Economic Report to the Governor, 1 2010. Available at http://www.governor.state.ut.us/DEA/ERG/2010ERG.pdf. 2

Utah History to Go. 2011. http://historytogo.utah.gov/. 3

Utah State Parks. 2009. Sand Hollow State Park Draft Resource Management Plan. Utah Department of 4 Natural Resources, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation, Planning Section. 5

Utah State Tax Commission. 2011. Annual Report 2010 Fiscal Year. Available online at 6 http://tax.utah.gov/commission/reports/fy10report.pdf. 7

Utah State Tax Commission, Property Tax Division. 2011. Utah Property Tax 2010 Annual Statistical 8 Report. Available online at http://propertytax.utah.gov/finalannualstats/2010annual.pdf. 9

Venturoni, L., P. Long, and R. Perdue. 2005. The Economic and Social Impacts of Second Homes in Four 10 Mountain Resort Counties of Colorado. (Paper prepared for presentation as part of the “Tourism 11 and the Tourist in the American West” Paper Session at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the 12 Association of American Geographers, April 7, 2005, Denver, Colorado). 13

Workman, J.P. 1986. Range Economics. McMillian Publishing, Inc. New York, New York. 14

15

6.0 References Socioeconomic Baseline Report


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

This page intentionally left blank. 9

10

Socioeconomic Baseline Report Appendix A

St. George Field Office A-1

APPENDIX A—DEFINITIONS OF LABOR AND NON-1

LABOR INCOME 2

Personal Income: Income received from all sources, including income received from participation in 3 production as well as from government and business transfer payments. It is the sum of compensation of 4 employees (received), supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors’ income with inventory valuation 5 adjustment and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj), rental income of persons with CCAdj, personal 6 income receipts on assets, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social 7 insurance. 8

Labor Income 9

Net Earnings: Net earnings by place of residence is earnings by place of work less contributions for 10 government social insurance, plus an adjustment to convert earnings by place of work to a place of 11 residence basis. Earnings by place of work is the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements 12 to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income. 13

Non-Labor Income 14

Dividends, Interest, and Rent: Personal dividend income, personal interest income, and rental income 15 of persons with capital consumption adjustment, sometimes referred to as “investment income” or 16 “property income.” 17

Dividends: This component of personal income consists of the payments in cash or other assets, 18 excluding the corporation’s own stock, made by corporations located in the United States or 19 abroad to persons who are U.S. residents. It excludes that portion of dividends paid by regulated 20 investment companies (mutual funds) related to capital gains distributions. 21

Interest: This component of personal income is the interest income (monetary and imputed) of 22 persons from all sources. 23

Rent: Rental income is the net income of persons from the rental of real property except for the 24 income of persons primarily engaged in the real estate business; the imputed net rental income of 25 the owner-occupants of nonfarm dwellings; and the royalties received from patents, copyrights, 26 and the right to natural resources. 27

Personal Current Transfer Receipts: This component of personal income is payments to persons for 28 which no current services are performed. It consists of payments to individuals and to nonprofit 29 institutions by federal, state, and local governments and by businesses. Government payments to 30 individuals includes retirement and disability insurance benefits, medical benefits (mainly Medicare 31 and Medicaid), income maintenance benefits, unemployment insurance compensation, veterans’ 32 benefits, and federal education and training assistance. Government payments to nonprofit institutions 33 excludes payments by the Federal Government for work under research and development contracts. 34 Business payments to persons consists primarily of liability payments for personal injury and of 35 corporate gifts to nonprofit institutions. 36

Income Maintenance: Income maintenance payments consists largely of supplemental security 37 income payments, family assistance, food stamp payments, and other assistance payments, 38 including general assistance. 39

Unemployment Insurance Compensation: Unemployment insurance compensation includes state 40 unemployment compensation, unemployment compensation of federal civilian employees, 41 unemployment compensation of railroad employees, unemployment compensation of veterans, 42

Appendix A Socioeconomic Baseline Report

A-2 St. George Field Office

and trade adjustment allowances to workers who are unemployed because of adverse economic 1 effects of international trade arrangements. 2

Retirement and Other: Retirement and other payments consists of retirement and disability 3 insurance benefit payments, medical benefits, veterans benefit payments, federal education and 4 training benefits, other government payments to individuals, government payments to nonprofit 5 institutions, and business payments. However, disbursements received from private retirement 6 programs (e.g., from 401k accounts) are not included. The BEA REIS data does not currently 7 capture this source of income, which is an important source of income in Washington County 8 given the substantial population of retired persons. 9

Source: BEA 2010. 10

SGFO Socioeconomic Baseline Report 2012€¦ · Socioeconomic Baseline Report for the Resource...

Documents

Transcript of SGFO Socioeconomic Baseline Report 2012€¦ · Socioeconomic Baseline Report for the Resource...