eplanning.blm.gov...i Browns Canyon National Monument MP -EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report . 1 ....

Browns Canyon National Monument 1 Management Plan – Environmental 2

Impact Statement 3

Baseline Socioeconomic Report 4 Prepared by 5

U.S. Department of the Interior 6 Bureau of Land Management 7

Royal Gorge Field Office 8 Cañon City, Colorado 9

and 10 11

U.S. Department of Agriculture 12 Forest Service 13

Pike and San Isabel National Forests & Cimarron and Comanche National 14 Grasslands 15

Salida, Colorado 16

April 2018 17

i Browns Canyon National Monument MP-EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2

1.1 Considering Socioeconomics in the Land Use Planning Process ........................... 1 3 1.2 Relationship between this Report and the Eastern Colorado Resource 4

Management Plan Effort ......................................................................................... 2 5 1.3 Regulatory and Policy Basis ................................................................................... 2 6 1.4 Scope ..................................................................................................................... 3 7 1.5 Structure and Sources ............................................................................................. 3 8

2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA ...................................... 4 9 3.0 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS ................................................................. 9 10

3.1 Population ............................................................................................................... 9 11 3.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 10 12

3.2.1 Definitions................................................................................................. 11 13 3.2.2 Minorities .................................................................................................. 13 14

3.3 Low-Income .......................................................................................................... 14 15 3.3.1 Screening Analysis.................................................................................... 16 16

3.4 Housing ................................................................................................................. 17 17 3.5 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 19 18 3.6 Social Institutions and Organizations ................................................................... 19 19

3.6.1 Cooperating Agencies & Governments .................................................... 19 20 3.6.2 Known Stakeholders and Interested Parties .............................................. 20 21 3.6.3 Other Entities ............................................................................................ 20 22

3.7 Social Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs .................................................................... 20 23 3.7.1 Recreation Stakeholders............................................................................ 23 24 3.7.2 Livestock Grazing Stakeholders ............................................................... 24 25 3.7.3 Mineral Utilization Stakeholders .............................................................. 24 26 3.7.4 Wildlife and Resource Conservation Stakeholders ................................... 24 27

4.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 25 28 4.1 Unemployment ...................................................................................................... 25 29 4.2 Employment by Industry....................................................................................... 26 30 4.3 Wages by Industry ................................................................................................ 28 31 4.4 Earnings by Industry ............................................................................................. 30 32 4.5 Personal Income Sources ...................................................................................... 33 33 4.6 Specific Economic Sectors ................................................................................... 35 34

4.6.1 Agriculture (including Livestock Grazing) ............................................... 35 35 4.6.2 Mining ....................................................................................................... 37 36 4.6.3 Tourism and Recreation ............................................................................ 38 37

4.7 Public Finance ....................................................................................................... 39 38 4.7.1 Federal Payments ...................................................................................... 39 39 4.7.2 Other State and Local Revenues ............................................................... 41 40

4.8 Government Expenditures .................................................................................... 43 41 4.8.1 Expenditures in the Study Area ................................................................ 43 42 4.8.2 Expenditures in BCNM............................................................................. 44 43 4.8.3 State and Local Government Expenditures and Services ......................... 44 44

5.0 USES AND VALUES OF BLM AND USFS-ADMINISTERED LANDS ................. 46 45

ii Browns Canyon National Monument MP-EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report

5.1 Nonmarket Values ................................................................................................ 47 1 5.1.1 Use Values ................................................................................................ 48 2 5.1.2 Non-use values .......................................................................................... 50 3 5.1.3 Special Designations and Enhancement Values ....................................... 50 4 5.1.4 Tribal Uses ................................................................................................ 52 5 5.1.5 Ecosystem Service Values ........................................................................ 52 6 5.1.6 Social Values ............................................................................................ 58 7

5.2 Forestry ................................................................................................................. 59 8 5.2.1 BLM Forestry Program ............................................................................. 59 9 5.2.2 USFS Forestry Program ............................................................................ 60 10

5.3 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................. 61 11 5.3.1 BLM Livestock Grazing Program ............................................................ 61 12 5.3.2 USFS Livestock Grazing Program............................................................ 63 13 5.3.3 Livestock Grazing in Browns Canyon National Monument..................... 64 14

5.4 Minerals ................................................................................................................ 66 15 5.5 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 67 16

5.5.1 Recreation Permits .................................................................................... 69 17 5.5.2 Visitor Use Data ........................................................................................ 71 18 5.5.3 Agency Receipts and Revenue from Recreation ...................................... 73 19

5.6 Travel and Transportation Management ............................................................... 73 20 5.7 Lands and Realty................................................................................................... 75 21

5.7.1 Land Tenure Adjustments ......................................................................... 77 22 5.7.2 Withdrawals .............................................................................................. 77 23 5.7.3 Land Use Authorizations .......................................................................... 77 24

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 78 25 6.1 Future Economic Impact Analysis Modeling in the Environmental Impact 26

Statement............................................................................................................... 79 27 7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 81 28 29

LIST OF FIGURES 30 Figure 2-1: Location of BCNM MP-EIS Study Area ..................................................................... 7 31 Figure 2-2: Browns Canyon National Monument .......................................................................... 8 32 Figure 3-1: "Special" Quality of Browns Canyon National Monument ....................................... 22 33 Figure 3-2: Special Features Attracting People to BCNM ........................................................... 23 34 Figure 4-1: Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 1976-2016 .................................................... 25 35 Figure 4-2: Earnings by Major Industry Category, Chaffee County, CO, 2001-2016 ................. 32 36 Figure 4-3: Earnings by Major Industry Category, Fremont County, CO, 2001-2016 ................ 32 37 Figure 4-4: Earnings by Major Industry Category, Park County, CO, 2001-2016 ....................... 33 38 Figure 4-5: Personal Income Trends, 1970-2016 ......................................................................... 34 39 Figure 4-6: Distribution of Colorado's Share of Federal Mineral Lease Revenues ...................... 40 40 Figure 4-7: Distribution of Colorado Severance Taxes ................................................................ 42 41 Figure 5-1: USFS Grazing in Colorado, 2015 .............................................................................. 64 42

iii Browns Canyon National Monument MP-EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report

1

LIST OF TABLES 2 Table 2-1: Acreage of Land Ownership within the Study Area ..................................................... 5 3 Table 2-2: Percentage of Salida RD in Study area ......................................................................... 6 4 Table 3-1: Historical and Projected Populations .......................................................................... 10 5 Table 3-2: Population by Race or Hispanic Origin, 2016 ............................................................. 14 6 Table 3-3: Components of Total Personal Income (Millions of 2016$) ....................................... 15 7 Table 3-4: Percentage of Population in Poverty by Study Area County, 2016 ............................ 15 8 Table 3-5: Occupation and Vacancy of Homes, 2012-2016 ......................................................... 17 9 Table 3-6: Monthly Cost as Percent of Household Income, 2012-2016....................................... 18 10 Table 4-1: Employment by Industry and County, 2016 ............................................................... 27 11 Table 4-2: Average Wages by Industry and County, 2016 (2016$) ............................................. 28 12 Table 4-3: Distribution of 2016 Labor Earnings by Industry and County (Millions of 13

2016$) ................................................................................................................... 31 14 Table 4-4: By-County Personal Income Sources, Percent of Total, 2000 and 2016 .................... 35 15 Table 4-5: Farms, Land in Farms, Cropland, and Market Value, 2012 ........................................ 36 16 Table 4-6: Total Cattle Operations and Cattle, 2012 .................................................................... 37 17 Table 4-7: Mining and Mining-Related Jobs by County, 2015 .................................................... 37 18 Table 4-8: Direct Impacts of Travel and Tourism on Study Area Counties, 2016 (Millions 19

of 2016$) ............................................................................................................... 39 20 Table 4-9: PILT Payments, 2015 (Millions of FY 2016$) ........................................................... 41 21 Table 4-10: Severance Tax Direct Distribution Payments in the Study Area, 2016 .................... 42 22 Table 4-11: Labor Expenditures and FTEs by Administrative Office, FY 2015 and FY 23

2016 (millions of $) .............................................................................................. 44 24 Table 4-12: BLM and USFS Expenditures in BCNM (millions of $) .......................................... 44 25 Table 5-1: Average Recreational Use Values for the Rocky Mountain Region, per person 26

per day (2016$) ..................................................................................................... 49 27 Table 5-2: Identifying Ecosystem Services with Nonmarket Values in Browns Canyon 28

National Monument .............................................................................................. 53 29 Table 5-3: Annual Consumer Surplus Value of Recreation in Browns Canyon National 30

Monument (2016$) ............................................................................................... 58 31 Table 5-4: Commercial Timber Sales Awarded in the USFS Salida RD, 2010-2017 .................. 60 32 Table 5-5: Forestry Stewardship Projects Awarded in the USFS Salida RD, 2010-2017 ............ 61 33 Table 5-6: Grazing By County ...................................................................................................... 62 34 Table 5-7: Grazing Fees: Annual Average Rates - Colorado: 2012-2018 .................................... 63 35 Table 5-8: BLM AUMS within BCNM ........................................................................................ 65 36 Table 5-9: USFS AUMS within BCNM ....................................................................................... 65 37 Table 5-10: Value of an AUM for Cattle Production (2014$)...................................................... 65 38 Table 5-11: Arkansas Headwaters visitation activities ................................................................. 68 39 Table 5-12: Visits and visitor days in RGFO, 2010-2017 ............................................................ 71 40 Table 5-13: USFS Visitor Count Data within BCNM .................................................................. 72 41

iv Browns Canyon National Monument MP-EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report

Table 5-14: Visitor Days and Participants by Recreation Site ..................................................... 72 1 Table 5-15: Salida Ranger District's Recreation Revenue, 2010-2017......................................... 73 2 Table 5-16: Existing BLM Land Use Authorization in Browns Canyon National 3

Monument ............................................................................................................. 78 4 5

Introduction

1 Browns Canyon National Monument MP-EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rocky Mountain District’s Royal Gorge Field 2 Office (RGFO) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Pike and San Isabel National Forests & 3 Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands’ (PSICC) Salida Ranger District (RD) have 4 initiated a land use planning process for the Browns Canyon National Monument (BCNM). 5 As part of the planning process, the agencies will develop a Management Plan – 6 Environmental Impact Statement (Management Plan or MP-EIS) to review and analyze 7 alternative management strategies for the USFS and BLM-administered (federally-8 administered) public lands in the monument. The BCNM was designated via Presidential 9 Proclamation 9232, and includes 11,836 acres of the San Isabel National Forest and 9,750 10 acres of BLM RGFO-administered land. This MP-EIS will guide management of 21,586 11 acres in central Colorado. The Monument includes the Arkansas River Special Recreation 12 Management Area (SRMA), the Browns Canyon Wilderness Study Area (WSA), the Browns 13 Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and a USFS roadless area. In 14 addition, a portion of the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, a cooperative management 15 area along the Arkansas River administered by the USFS, the BLM and Colorado Parks and 16 Wildlife (CPW), falls within the monument. 17

1.1 Considering Socioeconomics in the Land Use Planning 18 Process 19

This Baseline Socioeconomic Report has been prepared to assist in the planning process for 20 the BCNM MP-EIS. The BLM and USFS will use socioeconomic information to inform the 21 planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, including the analysis of 22 potential impacts of management alternatives. As a companion report to the BCNM Planning 23 Assessment (BLM and USFS 2018), socioeconomics provide an important contextual 24 element for the planning process through the presentation of social, cultural, and economic 25 conditions and trends. The socioeconomic “study area” (the area for which trends and 26 conditions are analyzed) is Chaffee, Park, and Fremont counties in Colorado. The conditions 27 and trends described in this report affect current and future uses of resources on federally-28 administered lands. (This document uses the term federally-administered land or public lands 29 henceforth to encompass both surface land and federal mineral rights managed by the BLM 30 and USFS.) Conversely, decisions made by the BLM and USFS in the planning process may 31 have social, cultural, and economic impacts. These impacts may be perceived as positive or 32 negative, depending on conditions and on the point of view of stakeholders regarding the 33 agencies’ land management decisions. 34

The BLM and USFS understand the importance of social and economic considerations in the 35 NEPA process, and the agencies’ internal scoping identified several planning issues and 36 management concerns that should help identify appropriate management decisions in the MP. 37

Introduction


Planning issues and management concerns were based on the resources, objects, and values 1 in Proclamation 9232, and include: 2

• How does BLM and USFS address sense of place, recreation and ROV values 3 identified by local and non-local individuals and local communities in 2016-2017? 4

• What potential BLM and USFS land use planning decisions would enhance 5 consistency with the plans, policies and projects of local governments and 6 communities? 7

• How can the BLM and USFS best work with Chaffee County, the tourism industry, 8 Colorado State Parks, visitor bureaus, local businesses, civic societies and others to 9 ensure visitors are provided with the correct information, and to ensure that sensitive 10 promotion of the area’s resources is accomplished? 11

• Will there be potential or beneficial opportunities for minority populations, low-12 income populations, or Tribes, and or any disproportionately adverse impacts? 13

1.2 Relationship between this Report and the Eastern Colorado 14 Resource Management Plan Effort 15

The BLM RGFO recently prepared a Baseline Socioeconomic Report for the Eastern 16 Colorado Resource Management Plan (RMP)/EIS effort (BLM 2017b). The Eastern 17 Colorado Baseline Socioeconomic Report evaluated a study area that includes the 18 socioeconomic study area counties evaluated in the BCNM Baseline Socioeconomic Report. 19 The Baseline Socioeconomic Report for Eastern Colorado is incorporated by reference. To 20 the extent practicable, this report summarizes aspects of Eastern Colorado that are common 21 across the two reports. 22

1.3 Regulatory and Policy Basis 23 A number of laws, regulations, and policies require social and economic analysis to support 24 BLM and USFS land use planning and decision-making. The Federal Land Policy and 25 Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 26 provide the statutory framework for social and economic considerations in land use planning. 27 Section 202(c)(2) of FLPMA requires BLM and USFS to integrate physical, biological, 28 economic, and other sciences in developing land use plans (43 United States Code [USC] 29 1712(c)(2)). FLPMA regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.4-3 and 43 30 CFR 1610.4-6 require BLM and USFS to analyze social, economic, and institutional 31 information. Section 102(2) (A) of NEPA requires federal agencies to “ensure the integrated 32 use of the natural and social sciences...in planning and decision making” (42 USC 4332(2) 33 (A)). Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 34 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994) requires federal 35 agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or 36 environmental effects of their programs, polices, and activities on minority populations and 37

Introduction


low-income populations in the United States. Appendix D, “Social Science Considerations 1 in Land Use Planning Decisions,” of the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005) 2 provides guidance on integrating social science information into the BLM planning process. 3 Various BLM Instruction Memoranda (IM) provide additional policy guidance relevant to 4 socioeconomic analysis. USFS’s 2012 Planning Rule Final Directives, which went into effect 5 January 30, 2015, aims to help the Forest Service protect and restore the National Forests and 6 Grasslands to benefit communities. Chapter 13 of the 2012 Planning Rule Final Directives, 7 “Assessing Social and Economic Sustainability and Multiple Uses,” outlines plan area 8 contributions to social, cultural, and economic conditions and assessing those conditions 9 (USFS, 2017b). 10

1.4 Scope 11 The BCNM MP-EIS will address management of resources and resource uses on all 12 federally-administered lands in the BCNM, in consideration of existing management for 13 overlapping special management designations. The socioeconomic analyses in the Baseline 14 Socioeconomic Report and the analysis of EIS alternatives that will follow are intended to 15 address social, cultural, and economic aspects of the full range of management actions that 16 will be considered in the planning process for the BLM and USFS-administered land within 17 the planning scope. The socioeconomic analyses are limited to conditions and trends relevant 18 to resources and resource uses on federally-administered lands. 19 20 While the BCNM MP-EIS process will consider management for a range resources and 21 resource use, restrictions associated with the monument designation will significantly limit 22 new extractive resource development (e.g., mining). Per Presidential Proclamation 9232, 23 dated February 19, 2015, the establishment of the BCNM is “subject to valid existing rights.” 24 The Proclamation further appropriated and withdrew all Federal lands within the BCNM 25 “from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the 26 public land laws or laws applicable to the U.S. Forest Service, including location, entry, and 27 patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and 28 geothermal leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the 29 monument.” 30

1.5 Structure and Sources 31 This report is divided into five chapters, as follows: 32

1. Introduction—provides context for this document. 33 2. Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area—defines the geographic area covered and 34

provides a high-level characterization of land ownership. 35 3. Social and Cultural Conditions—identifies and profiles population trends, 36

demographics, and other social and cultural characteristics of the socioeconomic 37 study area. 38

OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA


4. Economic Conditions—characterizes the socioeconomic study area economy in terms 1 of employment, wages, earnings, sources of income, public finance, and economic 2 indicators for specific economic sectors that are most relevant to the current planning 3 action. 4

5. Uses and Values of BLM and USFS-administered land—profiles uses of BLM and 5 USFS-administered land and describes some of the economic and social implications 6 of those uses. 7

Multiple demographic and economic data sources are used in this report. The most prevalent 8 sources are the following: 9

• Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)—The BEA provides a wide range of data on 10 economic conditions, generally gathered on a quarterly or annual basis. This report 11 draws data from BEA’s Regional Economic Information System (REIS) on a number 12 of topics. 13

• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)—This source provides data on labor market 14 conditions, e.g., employment and unemployment. 15

• Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT)—This is an 16 online tool sponsored by the BLM and the USFS. It draws on a wide variety of data 17 sources, including many of the sources below, to provide economic and demographic 18 data for user-selected counties or groups of counties. 19

• State and local data sources—A variety of state government sources are used, 20 including data from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Colorado 21 Department of Revenue. Local-level sources include local governments, regional 22 planning organizations, chambers of commerce, and others. 23

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census—The decennial census is the authoritative 24 source for socioeconomic data for the U.S. in the years immediately following its 25 publication, but additional sources provide more recent data and cover additional 26 demographic and population topics. 27

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS)—The ACS provides 28 demographic and other data for the period between the decennial censuses, using 29 survey sampling of local populations. Smaller geographic areas, such as many of the 30 lightly populated counties in the BCNM MP-EIS study area, require combining data 31 from samples taken in multiple years to provide the most accurate estimates. The 32 ACS data used in this document are based on surveys taken during the 5 years from 33 2012–2016. As such, the ACS-based data represent conditions across the 2012–2016 34 period, but 2016 estimates are reported in this document. 35

2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA 36 The socioeconomic study area includes all lands, regardless of land ownership, within 37 Chaffee, Park, and Fremont Counties (see Figure 2-1). This encompasses approximately 38 2,993,585 acres of federal, state, and private lands in three eastern Colorado counties, 39



described in Table 2-1. As discussed above, the BLM recently produced the Baseline 1 Socioeconomic Report for Eastern Colorado that creates analysis areas based on county and 2 resource uses. To maintain a consistent methodology, the BLM decided on a three-county 3 study area for this report to loosely mirror the analysis areas of the Eastern Colorado report. 4

The BLM and USFS planning area analyzed in the forthcoming BCNM MP-EIS, however, 5 will apply to the BCNM boundary. The planning area for the MP-EIS does not include other 6 federal agency, state, municipal, or private lands, nor will planning decisions in the MP-EIS 7 apply to these lands. 8

The socioeconomic analysis captures key economic activity and social relationships across 9 the three county socioeconomic study area. The study area was selected based on the 10 following considerations: 11

• Connection to Federal Lands - All counties within the study area have BLM and 12 USFS-administered acres. Therefore, there are economic or social relationships to 13 those lands in each county. 14

• Proximity to the BCNM - Chaffee County encompasses BCNM, and Park and 15 Fremont counties are adjacent to Chaffee County. Additionally, the majority of local 16 stakeholders and many of the recreational users of BCNM are anticipated to come 17 from these three counties. 18

• Connection to BCNM - The majority of economic and social relationships with 19 BCNM take place within the study area. 20

Social and economic data in this report is generally presented by study area county. Please 21 note that county names are not included on some other maps in this document because they 22 would complicate the visual portrayal of key information. Readers can refer back to Figure 2-23 1 to identify county locations as needed. Figure 2-1 also shows major transportation routes. 24

Figure 2-2 shows BLM (9,750 acres) and USFS (11,836 acres) land administration in the 25 BCNM. In the larger three county study area, BLM and USFS-administered land comprise 26 77.6 percent of Chaffee County, 46.8 percent of Fremont County, and 52.5 percent of Park 27 County. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 below describe land ownership by county in the study area 28 (USFS, 2017a). Table 2-2 describes how USFS’s Salida RD is spread across the tri-county 29 area. As Salida RD specifically manages the land within and around BCNM, their data will 30 be used throughout this report. 31

Table 2-1: Acreage of Land Ownership within the Study Area 32 Land Ownership Chaffee County Fremont County Park County Total BLM 55,224 353,112 75,995 484,331 Private 128,167 448,169 595,470 1,171,806 State 16,692 65,271 60,433 142,395 USFS 447,201 98,735 649,116 1,195,052 Total 647,284 965,287 1,381,014 2,993,585 Source: B. Taylor, personal communication, January 4, 2018 33



Table 2-2: Percentage of Salida RD in Study area 1 Chaffee County Fremont County Park County Total Salida RD Land 72.97% 16.13% 5.24% 94.34% Source: B. Taylor, personal communication, January 4, 2018 2



Figure 2-1: Location of BCNM MP-EIS Study Area 1

2



Figure 2-2: Browns Canyon National Monument 1

2

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS


3.0 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS 1

3.1 Population 2 Understanding population size, distribution, composition, and the processes driving 3 population change are an important part of developing and implementing management 4 actions that serve local communities that surround public lands. In other words, historical and 5 projected population growth are important socioeconomic indicators. Table 3-1 shows 6 historical and projected populations for socioeconomic study area counties, along with 7 similar measures for the entire state. Table 3-11 further breaks down baseline populations to 8 assess the racial and ethnic composition of the study area’s total population, as well as each 9 individual county. 10

Changes in a region’s population can be attributed in part to natural increases (births minus 11 deaths) and in part to migration (people moving in or out of an area). Between 2010 and 12 2015, the share of population change across the region attributable to net migration increased 13 (BLM, CPW, & USFS. 2017). Between 2010 and 2015, the total population change of the 14 three-county region saw an increase of 0.5 percent. This increasing rate of net migration 15 suggests that communities in the three-county area are becoming increasingly attractive to 16 new residents who may value more rural settings and outdoor-oriented lifestyles. Research 17 has found that areas characterized as having high levels of natural amenities (unique land and 18 water features, mild temperatures, scenic quality, and outdoor recreation opportunities) 19 experience greater population growth than areas with fewer natural amenities (Rudzitis and 20 Johansen 2000, Johnson and Beale 1994, Johnson and Beale 1998, McGranahan 1999, 21 Hunter et al. 2005, Frentz et al. 2004), and that this growth occurs increasingly at the 22 boundaries of public lands (Radeloff et al. 2001). The public lands in the Upper Arkansas 23 River Valley, natural settings and recreational opportunities support an outdoor-orientated 24 lifestyle which attracts new residents and retains local residents living in surrounding areas. 25

1 The 2000 and 2010 population counts in Table 3-1 are decennial census figures compiled by the State Demography Office, a component of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). The 2015 estimates and 2030 projections presented were prepared by the State Demography Office.



Table 3-1: Historical and Projected Populations 1

Geography

Historical Population

Rate of Population

Change

Projected Population

Projected Change 2015 to 2030

2000 2010 2015 2000 to 2010

2010 to

2015 2030 Total Change AARC

Chaffee County 16,312 17,797 18,604 8.3% 4.4% 24,809 6,205 1.9%

Fremont County 46,370 46,854 46,559 1.0% -0.6% 57,348 10,789 1.4%

Park County 14,523 16,286 16,189 10.8% -0.6% N/A* N/A N/A

Study Area 77,205 80,937 81,352 4.6% 0.5% N/A N/A N/A

Colorado 4,338,801 5,050,332 5,456,584 16.4% 8.0% 6,970,646 1,514,062 1.7%

AARC= Average Annual Rate of Change 2 * N/A = Not Available 3 Source: BLM, CPW, & USFS, 2017 4

3.2 Environmental Justice 5 The concept of environmental justice first became a required consideration for federal 6 agencies with the publication of Executive Order (EO) 12898 on February 11, 1994. The EO 7 requires each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 8 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 9 or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 10 low-income populations” (EO 12898, §59 Federal Register 7629, 1994). EO 12898 also 11 applies to federally-recognized Indian tribes2 and it is therefore important to determine 12 whether any Indian tribes are present in the area, have treaty or reserved rights for lands and 13 resources in the planning or project area, or have traditional cultural and historical use ties to 14 lands and resources in the planning or project area. This requires federal agencies to 15 determine what, if any, interests federally-recognized Tribes may have in a given planning or 16 project area. 17

Fundamental principles of environmental justice require that federal agencies: 18

• Ensure effective public participation by all potentially affected communities in the 19 decision-making process; 20

2 Indian Tribe” means any federally recognized Indian or Alaska Native tribes, bands, nations, pueblos, villages or communities that the Secretary of the Interior recognizes to be eligible for special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians (25 U.S.C. 479a).



• Consider the composition of the affected area to identify if minority populations, low-1 income populations, or Indian tribes are present; and 2

• Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and 3 environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations 4 and low-income populations. 5

This Baseline Socioeconomic Report provides the first steps in the environmental justice 6 analysis—a discussion of environmental justice and an initial approach to screening the 7 socioeconomic study area to identify the presence and location of any “environmental justice 8 populations.” Evaluation of potential adverse impacts on these populations will take place 9 during the impacts analysis phase of the MP-EIS process. 10

The next section discusses the technical definitions used in identifying environmental justice 11 populations, and the definition of “disproportionately high and adverse” effects. The 12 concluding section describes the screening analysis. 13

3.2.1 Definitions 14 Subsequent to publication of the EO, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), part of 15 the Executive Office of the President, issued guidance for considering environmental justice 16 within the NEPA process (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). This guidance defines 17 minorities as individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American 18 Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or 19 Hispanic. The guidance further defines a “minority population” as follows: 20

Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority 21 population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 22 percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 23 population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 24 geographic analysis. 25

The guidance also makes clear that Indian tribes should also be considered in the 26 environmental justice analysis. 27

The CEQ guidance states that “low-income” should be determined using the annual statistical 28 poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau. That is, persons living under the poverty income 29 threshold are potentially of concern. The guidance does not specify how to identify a “low-30 income population,” but in practice the same approach used for minority populations can be 31 followed—where persons in poverty status are greater than 50 percent of the area’s total 32 population, or where the percentage in poverty is meaningfully greater than the percentage in 33 the general population or an appropriate comparison area. 34

The CEQ guidance does not define what constitutes “meaningfully greater.” In practice, 35 meaningfully greater is often interpreted to identify an environmental justice population if the 36



percentage of population in minority and/or poverty status in an area is at least 10 percentage 1 points higher than in the comparison area (e.g., greater than or equal to 19 percent of the 2 population in poverty in a study area geography compared with 9 percent of the population in 3 poverty in the comparison area). This threshold has been used in many BLM MP-EISs and is 4 based on experience evaluating environmental justice indicators, the potential for adverse 5 impacts on environmental justice populations from federal management decisions, and the 6 sense that this threshold represents a meaningful difference between the affected and 7 comparison populations. 8

As to “disproportionately high and adverse” effects, the CEQ guidance states: 9

Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects: When determining 10 whether human health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are 11 to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable: 12

(a) Whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and 13 rates, are significant (as employed by NEPA), or above generally 14 accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, 15 infirmity, illness, or death; and 16

(b) Whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority 17 population, low-income population, or Indian tribe to an environmental 18 hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds 19 or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general 20 population or other appropriate comparison group; and 21

(c) Whether health effects occur in a minority population, low-income 22 population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 23 exposures from environmental hazards. 24

Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects: When 25 determining whether environmental effects are disproportionately high and 26 adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent 27 practicable: 28

(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical 29 environment that significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely 30 affects a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe. 31 Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, 32 or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, 33 or Indian tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the 34 natural or physical environment; 35

(b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by 36 NEPA) and are or may be having an adverse impact on minority 37 populations, low income populations, or Indian tribes that appreciably 38



exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general 1 population or other appropriate comparison group; and 2

(c) Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a 3 minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by 4 cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. 5 (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997) 6

The guidance and the presidential memo that accompanied the EO emphasize that agencies 7 should provide opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA process, 8 including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected 9 communities. 10

3.2.2 Minorities 11 Table 3-2 shows the racial and Hispanic status composition of Colorado and the 12 socioeconomic study area counties. Hispanic status is not a race designation; it is an ethnic 13 designation. Persons who self-identify as Hispanic may also identify as being of one or more 14 races, including White. 15

The White population in all three counties exceeds the state average. Fremont County has the 16 lowest White population percentage at 91.2 percent, which is still roughly 14 percent higher 17 than the national average. The Hispanic population is also below the state average in Chaffee 18 County (10.4 percent), Fremont County (13.0 percent), and Park County (6.0 percent). 19 Chaffee and Park counties also have a lower percentage of Black/African American residents 20 than Colorado as a whole. 21

Relative to the state population, all three counties have a smaller concentrations of minorities 22 (Table 3-2). Minorities comprise 17.4 percent of the study area population, whereas 23 minorities account for approximately 31.4 percent of the state as a whole, and minorities 24 account for 38.7 percent of the U.S. population. In 2016, Hispanics were reported to account 25 for 21.3 percent of Colorado’s population, but in the study area, they accounted for 11.0 26 percent of the population. While Hispanics account for the largest share of minority 27 populations within the project area, Black/African American, American Indian, and Asian 28 American populations are also present. Relative to the overall racial composition of 29 Colorado, American Indians/Alaska Natives account for a slightly higher share of the 30 population of the study area, and Fremont County in particular, than the state and U.S. 31 averages. 32

Population forecasts by the State Demography offices indicate that the racial and ethnic 33 composition of local populations within this region will change as the region’s population 34 grows. Over the next 15 years, the project area is expected to become more racially and 35 ethnically diverse, with minorities accounting for larger shares of populations in all three 36 counties (BLM, 2017b). Changes in the population demographics within the project area may 37 affect community values and local uses of land over time. 38



Table 3-2: Population by Race or Hispanic Origin, 2016 1

Geography Total Population

Race Alone

Hispanic All Minorities* White Black/

African American

American Indian/ Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian

and Other Pacific

Islander

Two or

More Races

Chaffee County 19,058 94.0% 1.7% 1.6% 0.8% 0.1% 1.8% 10.4% 15.1%

Fremont County 47,446 91.2% 3.9% 1.9% 1.2% 0.1% 1.8% 13.0% 20.9%

Park County 17,166 94.5% 0.7% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 2.5% 6.0% 10.6%

Study Area 83,670 92.5% 2.7% 1.7% 1.1% 0.1% 1.9% 11.0% 17.4%

Colorado 5,540,545 87.5% 4.5% 1.6% 3.3% 0.2% 3.0% 21.3% 31.4%

U.S. 323,127,513 76.9% 13.3% 1.3% 5.7% 0.2% 2.6% 17.8% 38.7% * “All Minorities” is defined as all persons other than Non-Hispanic White. 2 Source: U.S. Census Population Estimates Program, 2016. 3

3.3 Low-Income 4 Understanding the proportion of the components of total personal income (TPI) helps to 5 illustrate the amount of government assistance that is received by the low-income population 6 in the study area. TPI in Table 3-3 is categorized by labor earnings, investment income 7 (dividends, interest, and rents), and transfer payments (personal current transfer receipts). 8 The proportion of labor earnings, investment income, and transfer payments as a percent of 9 TPI varies across each county, indicating that some counties may be slightly more dependent 10 on one type of non-labor income relative to another. Across the study area, labor earnings 11 accounted for the largest share of TPI, ranging from 47.2 percent of TPI in Chaffee County to 12 61.0 percent of TPI in Park County. Transfer payments account for up to 31.1% of TPI in 13 Fremont County, as shown in Table 3-3. In general, a higher reliance on transfer payments 14 suggests that communities within the study area may have high concentrations of retirees or 15 households that rely on government assistance programs to supplement household income. 16



Table 3-3: Components of Total Personal Income (Millions of 2016$) 1

Components of Personal Income Chaffee County

Fremont County

Park County Study Area Total

Total Personal Income (TPI) $760 $1,519 $693 $2,971 Labor Earnings* 47.2% 50.0% 61.0% 51.9% Dividends, interest, and rents 30.3% 18.9% 22.0% 22.6% Personal current transfer receipts 22.4% 31.1% 17.0% 25.6% Source: Economic Profile System, 2017a *Labor earnings have been adjusted to account for contributions to government social insurance and for residence is the net inflow of the earnings of inter-area commuters, and thus reflect net earning's share of TPI

Poverty rates can provide insight into the social and economic well-being of residents, and 2 the potential demand for local social services. The U.S. Census Bureau identifies populations 3 in poverty by using income thresholds that are recalculated annually (Institute for Research 4 on Poverty, 2016). The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status of individuals and 5 families by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the 6 cost of a minimum food diet in 1963. The poverty level definition is adjusted based on family 7 size, composition, and age of householder, and inflation using the Consumer Price Index. 8 “Family” is defined as persons living together who are related by birth, marriage, or 9 adoption. 10

Examples of the poverty thresholds for 2016 are: for individuals under the age of 65, less 11 than $12,486 in annual income; for a two-person household including one child under 18, 12 less than $16,543; for a family of four with two children, $25,160 (U.S. Census Bureau, 13 2018). 14

Table 3-4 presents the percentage of the population in poverty across the socioeconomic 15 study area based on the 2016 Poverty and Median Household Income Estimates from the 16 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program. In 2016, Fremont County exceeded the 17 percentage of people in poverty in the U.S. as a whole, while Chaffee and Park Counties had 18 lower rates of poverty than the U.S. as a whole. Poverty rates vary widely across the study 19 area, spanning from 9.2 percent in Park County to 17.5 percent in Fremont County. Only 20 Fremont County has poverty rates (17.5 percent) that are higher than the entire U.S. (14.0 21 percent) or the entire three-county study area (14.4 percent). 22

Table 3-4: Percentage of Population in Poverty by Study Area County, 2016 23 Population Living in Poverty

Chaffee County

Fremont County

Park County

Three-County Region

Colorado U.S.

People below poverty line 11.4% 17.5% 9.2% 14.4% 11.0% 14.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a. 24

Although income and poverty rates are highly correlated with people’s material 25 circumstances, these rates do not take into account living costs besides food, the depth or 26 intensity of deprivation, or how long people have been struggling with poverty. Many 27 struggling with poverty may fall just below the poverty line and are considered working 28



poor, or they may struggle with poverty as a result of the lack of housing affordability or the 1 seasonal nature of local work. 2

3.3.1 Screening Analysis 3 Identification of potential environmental justice populations requires data on population 4 makeup (numbers of persons by race and Hispanic ethnicity), data on poverty (numbers of 5 persons living under the poverty level), and identification of any special Indian tribal areas or 6 tribal interests. The data must be sufficiently disaggregated to show any significant variations 7 across the socioeconomic study area in concentrations of minority populations or populations 8 living in poverty. 9

For the most recent data for population by race and Hispanic status and population in poverty 10 broken down to the county level, please refer to Table 3-2 and Table 3-4 County level data is 11 appropriate because it provides a reasonably disaggregated view of population variations 12 across the study area. 13

For an initial screening analysis, this report used the following criteria to identify potential 14 environmental justice populations: 15

• The minority or poverty percentage is more than 10 percentage points over the 16 reference population percentage; or 17

• The minority or poverty percentage is greater than 50 percent. 18

None of the counties in the study area meet either of the above criteria to be identified as 19 potential environmental justice populations. If a county were to be determined to meet either 20 of these criteria for either or both the minority population or the population in poverty, the 21 county was considered to have an environmental justice population and therefore was 22 “flagged” as an area of potential concern from an environmental justice perspective. Please 23 note that no determination has been yet been made regarding the likelihood of 24 disproportionately high and adverse effects on these populations, as such determinations can 25 only be made once the management alternatives are defined and the impact analyses are 26 performed. 27

With respect to identifying Indian tribal areas, there are no Indian reservations in the study 28 area. Persons who self-identify in the ACS as Native American/Alaska Native were included 29 in the analysis of minority populations. Please see additional discussions of ongoing 30 consultation processes with Tribes in Sections 3.6.1 and 5.1.4. 31

Additional environmental justice analysis will continue to occur throughout the MP-EIS 32 process. The approach will generally proceed as follows: 33

• The BLM and USFS will continue to provide opportunities for all potentially affected 34 communities to participate in the planning process and have effective input to the 35 agencies’ decision-making. 36



• The BLM and USFS will examine the management actions of each alternative to 1 determine if any have the potential to cause disproportionately high and adverse 2 effects on environmental justice populations, based on the nature of each action. 3

• If any actions have this potential, the BLM and USFS will then examine the locations 4 of the environmental justice populations relative to where the action(s) would occur, 5 and will encourage members of potentially affected environmental justice populations 6 to help BLM and USFS determine if proximity or other factors create a reasonable 7 likelihood that the action(s) could have disproportionately high and adverse effects. 8

• If such effects are identified, the BLM and USFS will encourage members of 9 potentially affected environmental justice populations to help develop and comment 10 on ways to modify the action(s) to avoid or mitigate these effects, and/or consider 11 other actions that could mitigate the effects. 12

3.4 Housing 13 Table 3-5 compares housing occupancy, housing tenure, vacancy rate, and housing type 14 indicators for the socioeconomic study area. The study area counties had higher rates of 15 vacant housing than the U.S. or the state as a whole in 2016, as estimated by the 2012-2016 16 ACS. A large part of the low occupancy rate in each of these counties is explained by the 17 high percentage of housing units in each county that are for seasonal, recreational, or 18 occasional use. This percentage, as estimated by the 2012-2016 ACS, is especially high in 19 Park County (44.3 percent) and is also high in Chaffee County (16.9 percent). In all, there are 20 an estimated 8,994 homes in the three-county study area that are for seasonal, recreational, or 21 occasional use (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c.). This type of housing unit includes seasonally-22 used “second homes,” seasonal rental units, and recreational cabins that can be found in areas 23 of Colorado with desirable outdoor recreation amenities. It is likely that some of the 24 individuals who use these housing units utilize public land for recreation or otherwise benefit 25 from the open space and other environmental amenities provided by BLM and USFS-26 administered lands. 27

Table 3-5: Occupation and Vacancy of Homes, 2012-2016 28

Occupancy and Vacancy Status of Homes Chaffee County Fremont County

Park County

Three-County Region

Colorado U.S.

Occupied 74.8% 84.7% 52.2% 71.8% 89.8% 87.7%

Vacant 25.2% 15.3% 47.8% 28.2% 10.2% 12.3%

For rent 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.6% 2.2%

Rented, not occupied 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5%

For sale only 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.6% 0.8% 1.1%

Sold, not occupied 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5%



Occupancy and Vacancy Status of Homes Chaffee County Fremont County

Park County

Three-County Region

Colorado U.S.

Seasonal, recreational, occasional use 16.9% 5.0% 44.3% 20.5% 4.9% 4.0%

For migrant workers 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 4.0% 5.8% 1.8% 4.1% 2.1% 4.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c. 1

2

shows the percentage of owner-occupied homes with monthly costs for rent or home 3 ownership that exceed 30 percent of the homeowner’s income. This measure provides an 4

indicator of the affordability of housing in each county. The national average of owner costs 5 that exceed 30 percent of total income is 32.3 percent, and the state average is 30.5 percent. 6 The values for this indicator are high in all of the counties in the study area and are as 7 follows: Chaffee (37.0 percent), Park (41.7 percent) and Fremont (34.1 percent). The low 8 affordability of homes is true for renters as well. 45.9 percent of people in the three-county 9 region pay above 30 percent of their household income in gross monthly rent. However, this 10 is close to the national average of 47.9 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c). 11

Table 3-6: Monthly Cost as Percent of Household Income, 2012-2016 12

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c. 13

14

Monthly Cost as Percent of Household Income

Chaffee County

Park County

Fremont County

Three- County Region

Colorado U.S.

Monthly cost 30% of household income 37.0% 41.7% 34.1% 37.1% 30.5% 32.3%

Gross rent 30% of household income 46.9% 52.4% 43.7% 45.9% 48.5% 47.9%

Monthly Cost as Percent of Household Income

Chaffee County

Park County

Fremont County

Three- County Region

Colorado U.S.

Monthly cost 30% of household income 37.0% 41.7% 34.1% 37.1% 30.5% 32.3%

Gross rent 30% of household income 46.9% 52.4% 43.7% 45.9% 48.5% 47.9%



3.5 Public Services 1 Public services include roads, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical response, 2 healthcare facilities and services, schools, water and wastewater infrastructure, other utilities, 3 and landfills. Levels of resource use (e.g., recreation) on public lands can affect public 4 services in a variety of ways. These effects may be direct, such as wear and tear on roads 5 from increased traffic, or indirect, such increased demand on schools or utilities if 6 employment associated with activities and development on adjacent public lands 7 significantly increases population. Conversely, use of BLM and USFS-administered land 8 may contribute to local public services by generating revenues and taxes that flow directly or 9 indirectly to local governments (see Section 4.7). 10

Many factors affect levels and quality of public services. These include physical factors such 11 as infrastructure, facilities, and equipment (e.g., roads, fire stations, fire trucks; all of which 12 require maintenance) and operational factors (e.g., funding availability, numbers of law 13 enforcement officers or teachers, availability of plow drivers to remove snow from roads). 14 Please refer to Eastern Colorado RMP (BLM, 2017b) for a further discussion of potential 15 impacts to public services. As mentioned in the Eastern Colorado RMP, impacts on public 16 services can result from changes in resource development and utilization. On one hand, 17 large-scale resource development can lead to investments in infrastructure, facilities and 18 other public services. On the other hand, drops in resource utilization, and associated 19 reductions in public revenues, may result in reductions in public services or increased taxes 20 to maintain current levels of public services. 21

3.6 Social Institutions and Organizations 22 The following section lists government agencies, political institutions, social organizations, 23 and interested group stakeholders in the management processes and decisions. 24

3.6.1 Cooperating Agencies & Governments 25 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and Chaffee County are cooperating agencies. CPW, a 26 state agency within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, is the responsible 27 authority for all wildlife populations in the State of Colorado. CPW collaboratively manages 28 the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area with the BLM and USFS. The Browns Canyon 29 segment of the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area is within BCNM, including the Hecla 30 Junction and Ruby Mountain recreation sites. CPW also manages recreation-related activities 31 at boat-in sites along the river and at fee sites including fees, recreation permits for river 32 outfitters and other special uses. In addition, CPW manages boating use, recreational site 33 facilities, law enforcement, public safety, and rescue in the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation 34 Area corridor of the monument and along the entire upper Arkansas River (BLM, 2017c). 35

Chaffee County’s approximately 18,658 residents (U.S. Census, 2015) are represented 36 legally and fiscally through an elected Board of County Commissioners. The municipal 37



governments of the cities of Salida, CO and Buena Vista, CO are nearby and depend 1 economically on recreation occurring in the monument. 2

The BLM RGFO consults with 17 affiliated tribes for major planning actions. However, one 3 of them (the Pawnee) is only interested in the northeastern part of the RGFO. Thus, for this 4 planning process, only 16 tribes will be consulted (BLM, 2017c; Troyer, 2017). They 5 include: 6

• Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 7 • Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of 8

Oklahoma 9 • Cheyenne River Sioux 10 • Comanche Nation of Oklahoma 11 • Crow Creek Lakota 12 • Eastern Shoshone 13 • Jicarilla Apache 14 • Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma 15

• Northern Arapaho 16 • Northern Cheyenne 17 • Oglala Sioux 18 • Rosebud Sioux 19 • Southern Ute 20 • Standing Rock Sioux 21 • Ute Mountain Ute 22 • Northern Ute Tribe23

3.6.2 Known Stakeholders and Interested Parties 24 General categories of potential public stakeholders include local and national interests of 25 public land access and conservation organizations; permittees; rafting and the outdoor 26 recreation industry; universities and schools; property owners; and interested individuals and 27 businesses. These groups include, but are not limited to (BLM, 2017c);28

• Friends of Browns Canyon 29 • Friends of Fourmile 30 • Conservation Lands Foundation 31 • Backcountry Horsemen of 32

Colorado 33 • Sierra Club - Rocky Mountain 34

Chapter 35 • Wilderness Society 36 • Trout Unlimited 37 • Quiet Use Coalition 38

• Greater Arkansas Nature 39 Association 40

• Veterans Expedition 41 • Latino Outdoors 42 • Cattlemen’s Associations 43 • Grazing Permittees 44 • Commercial Guiding Businesses 45 • Private Recreationalists 46 • Universities 47 • Natural Heritage Programs48

3.6.3 Other Entities 49 The Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory Council is a statutory advisory committee 50 established under Section 309 of the FLPMA. The council serves in an advisory capacity 51 concerning the planning and management of lands and resources in the BLM Rocky 52 Mountain District, including the monument. 53

Other interested agencies include federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and 54 Environmental Protection Agency; state agencies such as Colorado State Land Board, 55 Colorado State Forest Service, and Colorado State Historic Preservation Office; local 56



agencies such as Fremont and Park counties; and state and US Congressional Districts (BLM, 1 2017c). 2

3.7 Social Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs 3 Potential actions and consequences discussed in other sections of this report may affect the 4 way of life of communities in intangible but significant ways; thus, it is important to 5 understand social values, attitudes, and beliefs and how they shape the affected population’s 6 perception of, or reaction to, a change in land management. 7

Prior to the initiating the management planning process, the USFS and the BLM completed a 8 report, Social Landscape Assessment of Browns Canyon National Monument (CBI, USFS, 9 and UCCS, 2017), which summarizes the public’s perspectives on the social, economic, 10 environmental, and resource conditions of BCNM. Similarly, as part of the Arkansas 11 Headwaters Recreation Area MP-EA planning process, a concurrent effort evaluated visitor 12 experiences and expectations along the river corridor. The Recreation Outcomes and Settings 13 Focus Group Report (CPW, 2016) identified special places and desired recreational settings 14 by segment. 15

Browns Canyon, and the Arkansas River segment through it, is a highly sought after ‘special 16 place.’ Browns Canyon offers meaning and importance for a variety of reasons; including 17 scenic views, whitewater recreation, biological resources/wildlife, ease of access, learning 18 opportunities, and economic activity (CPW, 2016). Overall, the public has a deep 19 appreciation for the unique experiences BCNM offers, such as rugged and remote terrain and 20 solitude. 21

There is an awareness that designation of BCNM comes with both positive and negative 22 effects. With designation, improvements and funding may increase, but it may also increase 23 visitation and the associated challenges in regulation and enforcement. An acknowledgement 24 for collaborative management approach among agencies at all levels and user groups was 25 recognized. 26

Ten themes were identified through the Social Landscape Report (CBI, USFS, and UCCS, 27 2017): 28

• Desire to share the wonders of Browns Canyon with visitors, but concern about 29 impacts to the biophysical and social environment from over-use, spillover, or 30 dispersal of visitors into new territories (social trails, dispersed camping sites). 31

• Desire of local communities that depend on resource-based industries 32 (recreation/tourism, grazing) to maintain a viable source of revenue while also having 33 a level of visitation and residential growth that is sustainable for nearby communities. 34

• Desire to have adequate and ample facilities to manage high-density areas (e.g., Hecla 35 Junction, Ruby Mountain) and to accommodate a diverse range of uses, but to 36 emphasize low-developed, ‘primitive’ sites to provide more dispersed or rugged 37 experiences without facilities. 38



• Desire to expand and improve trails and river facilities to accommodate a variety of 1 recreation users (motorized, equestrian, mountain bikers, seniors, ADA), but also 2 provide places in the BCNM that are harder to reach, where solitude can be found. 3

• Desire for commercial river outfitters to provide quality visitor experiences, but for 4 recreational boaters and fishers to also have opportunities for using the river without 5 being crowded. 6

• Desire for a balance between traditional and historic resource uses (grazing, logging, 7 prospecting) and recreation-based industries (fishing, whitewater boating, hiking) and 8 amenities. 9

• Need to address concerns of adjacent private landowners and the issue of visitors 10 wandering off-trail and trespassing onto private property near the BCNM (especially 11 Turret area). 12

• Specific concerns for developed facilities at high-use sites (put-ins, trailheads, 13 campsites), where crowding is causing challenges for parking and sanitation and 14 raising concerns for visitor safety and satisfaction; rooted in a desire to help visitors 15 launch their journeys in a way that is safe and satisfying. 16

• Recognition of BCNM’s historic and cultural heritage resources and a desire for 17 targeted management of these areas, including restoration and interpretation (mining, 18 railroad). 19

• Recognition of BCNM’s potential as a place for learning, discovery, and 20 environmental education. The Monument’s compact and accessible nature as well as 21 the uniqueness and diversity of wildlife, geology, history, culture, and recreation 22 opportunities make this area an ideal learning laboratory. 23

Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 tabulate the attributes believed to make the BCNM special (CBI, 24 USFS, and UCCS, 2017). 25



Figure 3-1: "Special" Quality of Browns Canyon National Monument 1

2



Figure 3-2: Special Features Attracting People to BCNM 1

2 Additional values and issues resulting from these two studies are summarized by stakeholder 3 group below (CBI, USFS, and UCCS, 2017; CPW, 2016). 4

3.7.1 Recreation Stakeholders 5 The range of quality recreation opportunities available in the BCNM was highlighted most 6 commonly by recreational users. Water-related activities, hiking, and climbing are the 7 primary activities in which these visitors engage. Many recreation opportunities are based on 8 the scenic qualities and natural beauty of the area, including views of the nearby Collegiate 9 Peaks and the rock formations in the canyon and gulch areas. Additionally, recreational 10 stakeholders mentioned the ruggedness and the ability to access primitive areas as valued 11 experiences. The Stafford/Railroad Gulches provide opportunities for hiking and spectacular 12 climbing. 13

Water-related activities focused on the beauty of the Arkansas River, along with the features 14 that are important to whitewater recreation enthusiasts, boaters, and anglers. Rafting through 15 a canyon and not seeing any other kind of outside transportation is a unique attribute through 16 the Browns Canyon section. Accessibility of the river to different skill levels was noted, as 17 the river is an ideal place to teach and learn whitewater skills and introduce newcomers to the 18 sport. Water-related activities also include a high quality fishery and gold medal waters. 19 Maintaining these attributes are critical to recreationalists. 20



Recreationalist are concerned that the new monument designation would attract more visitors 1 to the area, and that agencies would respond with improvements to facilities, which would in 2 turn attract more visitors. However, there was a mixed desired for both increased 3 accessibility to the BCNM especially for motorized and equestrian trails and no new 4 infrastructure or access. 5

Recreation also provides a range of market and nonmarket values such as value to 6 recreational users, and economic activity due to spending by recreational users at local 7 businesses. Economic benefits of recreation are described in Chapter 5. 8

3.7.2 Livestock Grazing Stakeholders 9 Livestock grazing has a long history in the area. Ranchers seek to maintain access for grazing 10 lands that their families have depended on for generations. Potential impacts from monument 11 designation, such as growth in visitation, on these ranchers’ livelihoods is their main concern. 12 Potential impacts to economic activity resulting from livestock grazing is discussed in 13 Chapter 5. 14

3.7.3 Mineral Utilization Stakeholders 15 Participants of these focus groups included those interested in recreational mineral collection. 16 The wild-west mining history and mining and railroad heritage is a unique attribute of the 17 BCNM. The Arkansas River is a good source for recreational gold prospectors with fine 18 gold, garnets, and obsidian available in the riverbed. 19

3.7.4 Wildlife and Resource Conservation Stakeholders 20 The BCNM is located in a warm drier steppe region with lower montane ecosystems. The 21 key biodiversity resources include piñon and juniper trees and a variety of cacti, evergreens, 22 and wildflowers. Views of the Sawatch Range, granitic gneiss, and a wilderness setting in an 23 isolated canyon are unique attributes of BCNM. Participants valued opportunities to get away 24 into wild and a remote setting that is easily accessible. The primary concerns of these 25 stakeholders revolved around the need to balance public access and use with opportunities 26 for solitude. Future crowding and continued overuse may impact the ecosystems and the 27 social environment. 28

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


4.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 1

4.1 Unemployment 2 The unemployment rate is a key economic indicator; a low rate generally indicates a 3 functioning economy, while a high rate is a concern for the general economy and likely 4 indicates that some individuals in the labor force are in economic distress due lack of work 5 and associated income. In addition, changes in the unemployment rate from year to year 6 provide a good picture of the relative health of the economy over time. 7

Figure 4-1 shows changes in the annual unemployment rate over time for counties in the 8 study area. As would be expected, the trend in unemployment for the study area counties is 9 similar over time. Ups and downs in the unemployment rate tend to be similar within a state, 10 with some differences in timing; however, the magnitude of the peaks and valleys may differ 11 considerably. 12

Between 1976 and 2016, Chaffee County’s unemployment rate has ranged from a high of 13 15.6 percent in 1982 down to a low of 2.7 percent in 2016. Fremont County’s unemployment 14 rate has ranged from a low of 3.9 percent in 2000 to a high of 12 percent in 2011. In 2016, 15 the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. In Park County, the unemployment rate has ranged 16 from a low of 2.6 percent in 2000 to a high of 10.1 percent in 1983, with a 2.8 percent 17 unemployment rate observed in 2016. 18

Figure 4-1: Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 1976-2016 19

20 Source: Economic Profile System, 2017a 21

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Une

mpl

oym

ent R

ate

Park Chaffee Fremont

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


4.2 Employment by Industry 1 The distribution of jobs by industry is one measure of the relative importance of certain 2 industries to a local economy. Table 4-1 presents data on employment by industry—jobs and 3 percentage of total jobs – for each county in the study area. 4

Jobs that have the potential to be directly supported by production-based uses of the federal 5 land, such as livestock grazing, occur mainly in the non-services related sector. The specific 6 industries in Table 4-1 that are most directly affected are: 7

• Agriculture, forestry, fishing, & hunting 8 • Mining (including fossil fuels) 9

Jobs that are directly supported by public land recreation occur mainly in the services related 10 sector. The specific industries in Table 4-1 that are most directly affected are: 11

• Retail trade 12 • Arts, entertainment, and recreation 13 • Accommodation and food services 14

Several aspects of the 2016 employment shares (industry jobs as a percentage of total jobs) 15 shown in Table 4-1 for the study area are notable: 16

• Service sector jobs constitute over half of the total jobs in each of the three counties. 17 Service sector jobs make up 66.0 percent of Chaffee County employment, 55.2 percent 18 of Fremont County employment, and 59.2 percent of Park County employment. 19

• Each of the three counties varied as to which specific service industries accounted for 20 the majority of these service jobs. In Chaffee County, most service sector jobs were in 21 accommodation and food services, which accounted for 13.1 percent of total 22 employment. In Fremont County, health services accounted for the bulk of service 23 jobs, at 13.8 percent of total employment. Most service jobs in Park County were in 24 other non-public administration services, which accounted for 10.6 percent of the 25 county’s total employment. 26

• Non-service sector jobs constitute 14.6 percent of the total employment in Chaffee 27 County, 13.6 percent in Fremont County, and 21.2 percent of the total employment in 28 Park County. Construction accounts for the largest portion of non-service sector jobs, 29 followed by manufacturing and agriculture. 30

• Government sector jobs (federal, state, and local combined) account for 19.3 percent 31 of total employment in Chaffee County, 31.2 percent of total employment in Fremont 32 County, and 19.5 percent of total employment in Park County. 33

34

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


Table 4-1: Employment by Industry and County, 2016

Industry Chaffee County Fremont County Park County

2016 Jobs Percent of Total 2016 Jobs Percent of

Total 2016 Jobs Percent of Total

Total Employment 10,403 17,286 4,524 Non-service related industries 1,524 14.6% 2,346 13.6% 961 21.2%

Agriculture forestry, fishing, & hunting 274 2.6% 559 3.2% 155 3.4%

Mining (including fossil fuels) 16 0.2% 106 0.6% Suppressed N/A

Construction 954 9.2% 1,044 6.0% 662 14.6% Manufacturing 280 2.7% 637 3.7% 144 3.2%

Services related 6,862 66.0% 9,546 55.2% 2,679 59.2% Utilities 56 0.5% 59 0.3% Suppressed N/A Wholesale trade 290 2.8% 181 1.0% 135 3.0% Retail trade 1,266 12.2% 1,998 11.6% 390 8.6% Transportation and warehousing 132 1.3% 432 2.5% 82 1.8%

Information 117 1.1% 121 0.7% 63 1.4% Finance activities 258 2.5% 273 1.6% 55 1.2% Real estate 411 4.0% 439 2.5% 194 4.3% Professional, scientific, and technical services 630 6.1% 543 3.1% 427 9.4%

Management of companies and enterprises

Suppressed N/A 5 0.0% Suppressed N/A

Administrative support and waste management and remediation services

195 1.9% 420 2.4% 250 5.5%

Education 140 1.3% 73 0.4% 58 1.3% Health services 626 6.0% 2,380 13.8% 105 2.3% Arts, entertainment, and recreation 712 6.8% 467 2.7% 112 2.5%

Accommodation and food services 1,363 13.1% 1,141 6.6% 327 7.2%

Other services, except public administration 666 6.4% 1,014 5.9% 481 10.6%

Government 2,012 19.3% 5,394 31.2% 884 19.5% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), 2016b. 1

According to a 2017 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Southern 2 Colorado Economic Development District (SCEDD), the Upper Arkansas River Valley has 3 been experiencing modest growth in the light manufacturing industry and the telecommuting 4 population. While transportation remains a key challenge, the ability of individuals to work 5 from home and the lifestyle within the area are attracting entrepreneurs and businesses not 6 very dependent on remaining in or near large metropolitan areas (BLM, CPW, & USFS, 7 2017). As the technology sector has grown in the region, Fremont County has taken initial 8 steps to foster growth of the local technology sector. In response to growth in the technology 9 industry, Chaffee County has experienced an increase in co-working spaces. Regional 10

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


construction activity has increased to keep pace with housing supply demand (SCEDD, 1 2017). 2

4.3 Wages by Industry 3 Wages and other employee compensation vary across industries. Thus, the contribution of 4 each industry to income in a local economy is a function of both the number of jobs in the 5 industry and the level of compensation. Small industries, as measured by number of jobs, 6 may be disproportionately important to an economy if the compensation per job is high. 7

Table 4-2 presents industry average wages from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs 8 (DOLA). Notable findings from the data in Table 4-2 include: 9

• The average 2016 wage across all industries is highest in Fremont County and lowest 10 in Chaffee County. The range in averages wages across the three counties is roughly 11 $3,900. 12

• Average private sector wages were 7.1 percent above the county average in Chaffee 13 County, 6.0 percent above the county average in Fremont County, and 5.3 percent 14 above the county average in Park County. 15

• Of private sector wages, non-services related industries generally earned higher 16 average wages than service related industries. 17

• Average government wages were 32.5 percent above the overall county average in 18 Chaffee County, 43.7 percent above the county average in Fremont County, and 8.6 19 percent above the county average in Park County. 20

• Many of the directly supported jobs from livestock grazing on BLM and USFS-21 administered land occur in the agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting industry (a 22 component of the non-services related sector). Across all areas, the average wage for 23 jobs in the agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting industry is considerably lower than 24 the average wage for all jobs. 25

• Service industries most directly affected by recreation on BLM/USFS-administered 26 land—retail trade; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food 27 services—all have jobs with average wages that are considerably lower than the 28 average wage for all jobs. 29

• In Fremont County, the mining (including fossil fuels) industry has the highest 30 average wage of all jobs, but only accounts for less than one percent of total jobs. 31 Thus, the income generated in this industry is disproportionately greater than the 32 percentage of jobs in the industry. 33

Table 4-2: Average Wages by Industry and County, 2016 (2016$)

Industry

Chaffee County Fremont County Park County Avg.

Annual Wages

Percent from Avg.

Avg. Annual Wages

Percent from Avg.

Avg. Annual Wages

Percent from Avg.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


Table 4-2: Average Wages by Industry and County, 2016 (2016$)

Industry

Chaffee County Fremont County Park County Avg.

Annual Wages

Percent from Avg.

Avg. Annual Wages

Percent from Avg.

Avg. Annual Wages

Percent from Avg.

Total Employment $34,424 $38,324 $36,400 Non-service related industries $36,296 5.4% $46,783 22.1% $33,176 -8.9%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, & hunting $21,580 -37.3% $21,736 -43.3% $32,500 -10.7%

Mining (including fossil fuels) N/A N/A $63,908 66.8% N/A N/A

Construction $50,544 46.8% $41,756 9.0% $41,600 14.3% Manufacturing $36,764 6.8% $54,704 42.7% $25,428 -30.1%

Services related $37,414 8.7% $34,441 -10.1% $43,480 N/A Utilities $82,004 138.2% $53,508 39.6% N/A N/A Wholesale trade $36,712 6.6% $36,192 -5.6% $90,844 149.6% Retail trade $29,380 -14.7% $25,324 -33.9% $29,432 -19.1% Transportation and warehousing $40,664 18.1% $33,176 -13.4% $41,496 14.0%

Information $36,244 5.3% $41,184 7.5% $72,228 98.4% Finance activities $53,196 54.5% $48,308 26.1% $77,012 111.6% Real estate $34,008 -1.2% $28,808 -24.8% $31,772 -12.7% Professional, scientific, and technical services $50,856 47.7% $41,860 9.2% $62,244 71.0%

Management of companies and enterprises N/A N/A $62,296 62.6% N/A N/A

Administrative support and waste management and remediation services

$24,648 -28.4% $24,648 -35.7% $45,916 26.1%

Education $28,704 -16.6% $31,408 -18.0% $24,648 -32.3% Health services $43,212 25.5% $34,632 -9.6% $30,888 -15.1% Arts, entertainment, and recreation $19,240 -44.1% $18,096 -52.8% $14,144 -61.1%

Accommodation and food services $18,512 -46.2% $14,404 -62.4% $16,120 -55.7%

Other services, except public administration $26,416 -23.3% $22,776 -40.6% $28,496 -21.7%

Government $45,604 32.5% $55,068 43.7% $39,520 8.6% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), 2016b. 1

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


4.4 Earnings by Industry 1 Earnings data provide a comprehensive view of the importance of different industries in an 2 economy because earnings integrate both job numbers and compensation. Earnings 3 (alternatively, labor earnings) are defined as the sum of employee wage and salary 4 disbursements, supplements to employee wages and salaries, and proprietors’ (self-5 employed) income. Supplements to wages and salaries “consists of employer contributions 6 for government social insurance and employer contributions for employee pension and 7 insurance funds” (BEA, 2018). 8

The BEA compiles data on earnings. These data utilize the same industry groupings as the 9 employment by industry data above but use slightly different data than the data used in the 10 wages by industry section. 11

Notable findings from the data in Table 4-3 include: 12

• The percentages of labor earnings generated by the non-services related industries 13 accounted for 15.1 percent of total earnings in Chaffee County, 12.6 percent of total 14 earnings in Fremont County, and 17.6 percent of total earnings in Park County. 15

• Many of the directly supported jobs from livestock grazing on BLM and USFS-16 administered land occur in the agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting industry (a 17 component of the non-services related sector). Across all areas, jobs in the 18 agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting industry account for one percent or less of 19 total earnings in the county. 20

• Within the services sector, the industries contributing the greatest proportion of total 21 labor earning were health services in Chaffee and Fremont Counties, and wholesale 22 trade in Park County. 23

• Service industries most directly affected by recreation on BLM/USFS-administered 24 land—retail trade; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food 25 services—contributed between 0.2 and 17.6 percent to each county’s total labor 26 earnings. 27

28

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS


Table 4-3: Distribution of 2016 Labor Earnings by Industry and County (Millions of 2016$) 1

Industry Chaffee County Fremont County Park County

Total Wages Percent of Total Total

Wages Percent of

Total Total Wages Percent of

Total Total Employment $259.70 $514.00 $88.80 Non-service related industries $39.20 15.1% $64.60 12.6% $15.60 17.6%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, & hunting $1.10 0.4% $1.10 0.2% $0.70 0.8%

Mining (including fossil fuels) N/A N/A $5.20 1.0% N/A N/A

Constr

eplanning.blm.gov...i Browns Canyon National Monument MP -EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report . 1 ....

Documents

Transcript of eplanning.blm.gov...i Browns Canyon National Monument MP -EIS Baseline Socioeconomic Report . 1 ....