The Owyhee Debate: Lessons from Garfield County, Utah and GSENM?
One of my greater frustrations in following the debate over protection for the Owyhee Canyonlands has been the broad reliance on assertions made without supporting evidence. This is true of proponents and opponents alike. The unfortunate result has been to obstruct the conscientious examination necessary for a resolution acceptable to all (or most) sides. More importantly, it distracts from any effort to arrive at an effective approach to preserving the Canyonlands for future generations of all users–ranchers, hunters, fishermen, hikers, rafters and naturalists alike. A salient example of such assertions has been the frequent reference to the putative impact of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) on the economy and society of Garfield County, Utah.
It is of course natural and prudent when facing such a major change to look for similar cases that can shed light on the benefits and detriments that might be expected and from which lessons can be drawn on how to address them. Such an exercise can help local leaders determine what will most benefit their community and help them explain honestly to their citizens the choices facing them. With Garfield County, however, this approach has been proving to be more a case of “confirmation bias.” That is, there has been a tendency to look for information that supports one’s prior assumptions while ignoring data that contradicts them. In such cases, there is a danger of drawing the wrong lesson. To reach an outcome that is best for the future of the community rather than what seems comforting in the present, it is crucial that cases such as Garfield County be conscientiously examined.
The lesson that Malheur leaders have drawn from Garfield County is succinctly stated in a letter to the Argus Observer by Clint Shock, director of the Malheur Experiment Station:* “The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument declaration in Utah has been followed by cuts in grazing allotments, population decline and economic decline.” This is a reading of the situation that will seem reasonable to those who view wilderness protection as an intrusion into their lives. But how accurate is it? Shock’s letter drew a response from the GSENM public affairs officer: “I want to correct the letter writer’s statement about the Monument. There have been no cuts in grazing allotments, nor has there been a decline in population or economic development as a result of the Monument’s designation.”
*I identify Shock’s position only to suggest his expertise; he wrote as a private citizen and did not give his professional title.
Who is right? Finding the answer to this question is not so difficult as might be expected. Take, for example, the question of population decline. Assertions of a population decline made by such monument critics as Garfield County Commissioner Leland Pollack, are usually supported by reference to the decline in enrollment at the Escalante town high school from 151 to 67 students. County officials declared this to be an emergency and claimed that people were leaving the county. But US Census records tell a different story. According to them, the county’s population in 1990–six years before monument declaration–was 3980, 1427 of whom were age seventeen or younger; the estimated 2015 population was 5069, an increase of over 25%. Those of school age, seventeen or younger numbered 1312. This suggests county-wide school enrollment should have remained fairly constant. The Escalante HS decline likely results from demographic (fewer children of school age) or social (e.g., families choosing alternative schooling) factors. In any case, some decline should be expected given the town’s population decline from about 1300 in the late 1990’s to the current 800 residents or so, while total county population was increasing.
A close look at Garfield County’s economy gives a similar result. As the following figures show, the traditionally high-paying sectors of the non-agricultural sector were weakening well before designation.
Employment by Sector 1980-2000
Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU Trade
1980 210 379 247 84 128
1990 7 23 209 59 189
2000 12 70 142 137 296
2006 12 83 98 239*
*This figure includes Trade, Transportation and Utilities. Source: “An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions, Garfield County Profile.” Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, June 2008
Subsequent to the monument’s designation, leisure and hospitality contributed more job growth than mining, construction and manufacturing combined, rising from 792 jobs in 2001 to 821 in 2006. Anecdotal data supports the conclusion that the growth in recreation-related business driven by the monument has been responsible for maintaining the county’s economic vitality and has contributed to a building boom. Support for the monument now outweighs opposition. Recently, faced with vocal opposition from local businessmen, the county commissioners delayed voting on a resolution calling on Congress to reduce the size of the monument. Local opinion over the state of the local economy remains sharply divided, primarily between long-time residents and newer arrivals.
But what about grazing? This has been the salient question in the Owyhee Canyonlands debate. When the GSENM was established, the presidential proclamation stated “Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock grazing on Federal lands within the monument; existing grazing uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this proclamation.” A BLM-Utah fact sheet, “Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument–Grazing on the Monument: An Introduction” states, “No reductions have occurred as a result of the Monument’s designation, though small reductions within limited areas have taken place under normal BLM procedures to protect riparian resources and to address other issues.” According to the BLM, when the Monument was designated in 1996 there were 106,645 total AUMs, of which 77,400 were active. Presently there are 106,202 AUMS of which 76,957 are active. (The 443 AUM reduction arose from riparian and Glen Canyon Recreation Area requirements.) Numbers of active AUMs are determined annually by ranchers and the BLM in response to drought conditions and changes in livestock operations. Like GSENM, most National Monument declarations where grazing is conducted contain similar provisions ensuring its continuation.
Those who disagree with wilderness or protection for the Owyhee Canyonlands have not been alone in pointing to GSENM. Written testimony submitted to Congress in 2013 on behalf of the Montana Stockgrowers Association also drew on the Garfield example.
The GSENM is a prime case study of the impacts monument designations have on grazing and local communities. Designated in 1996, the GSENM covers almost 2 million acres of Utah along the Arizona border. Grazing is just one of the multiple uses being negatively impacted by monuments. Communities in and around the monument have seen cultural and economic losses and school closures. According to research by Utah State University and Southern Utah University, per-capita income in counties within the GSENM in 2011 was $1,799 below that of comparable counties. The monument’s impact on livestock grazing serves as a case study to explain this disparity. In 1999, land use plan amendments stemming from the designation closed four allotments and portions of four other allotments to grazing. More closures are being considered as we speak.
While this lists cultural and economic losses and school closures suffered by communities in and around the monument, it presents no evidence or explanation–causal or casual–of how GSENM is responsible. Studies are cited showing the per capita income in counties within the GSENM as significantly below comparable counties, but the statement does not offer any data to demonstrate how this might be attributed to the Monument. Neither does it acknowledge that the county’s economy was suffering before the Monument was established, nor does it take into account the impact of wider economic and social developments. It does refer to closures of grazing allotments as a possible explanation for the disparity. However, the closures referred to were the result of actions taken as much as four years before creation of GSENM and were not the result of establishment of the Monument itself. Moreover, it should be understood that in any case full utilization the total number of AUMS has not been possible because of insufficient precipitation and other limitations.
After a balanced examination of the data presented here and available elsewhere, I believe any fair-minded person can find lessons for Malheur County in the Garfield experience. But some of those lessons–particularly relating to economic impact–are clearly at odds with the commonly conveyed impression of the impact of the GSENM. This alone argues for a more careful and thorough-going examination of the data by knowledgable experts. Some studies have already been done, such as that by Headwaters Economics. While some may suspect these reports are biased, they are done by professionals and are worth consulting. Malheur County might consider commissioning its own study by one of the state universities. In any event, the most fundamental lesson to be gained from the Garfield County experience is the importance of dispassionate evaluation of comprehensively collected hard data with the unselfish purpose of doing what is best–now and in the future–for the land and people of the Owyhee in particular and the county as a whole.