NEPA--Environmental Assessment

which includes ranching as well as farming, provided 6% of the all county jobs in 2006, but only 1%
on the personal income, and is a shrinking sector of total jobs.
Social Factors: Montrose County is fairly homogeneous ethnically and racially. Whites make up
about 82% of the population, with Hispanic or Latinos contributing about 15%, American Indians
about 2%, and about 5% other races (percentages add up to more than 100% because some
individuals report more than one race). The county is considered average for economic
specialization, with in over-reliance on construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and
an under-reliance on manufacturing and finance industries.
The importance of the ranching sector is highlighted more as a social benefit than as an economic
base to the area as a whole. It is an important part of the people’s heritage in Montrose County.
Ranching operations in the area often operate at a loss or close to the margin and their profitability
can be substantially affected by a variation of market conditions. If access to federal lands for
livestock grazing is altered appreciably, this change would affect ranching profits and possibly
overall business viability. Ranching is the significant portion of the income for all five permittees for
this landscape.
The regional economy surrounding sheep grazing includes more than just livestock production. The
related economics of winter pasture rental and agricultural products currently also play a role in the
regional agricultural economy as a whole.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Alternative 1 –No Action
The No Action Alternative would reduce public land available for livestock grazing by roughly
172,000 acres. This acreage includes Forest Service and BLM acreage from all the allotments in the
landscape except the one allotment (Silverton Watershed) that is already closed to grazing. From a
regional perspective, this loss of public livestock grazing acreage would not be noteworthy.
However, locally this acreage is important because it contributes greatly to the viability of five
private land ranches. The private ranch lands are not economic units in themselves, and rely on the
public lands for viability of their operations. High land prices prohibit the addition of more private
lands for ranching. Besides the obvious value to the ranching families, the viability of the ranches is
valuable to the community at large for open space, wildlife habitat, and other amenities.
Preservation of the ranching sector is essential to the economic health of the region (PSU 2001).
Alternative 1 would have the greatest negative social impact to local communities as the elimination
of all livestock grazing on all allotments would cause dependent ranching operations to go out of
business. If individuals and families move from the area, communities may lose their leaders,
volunteers, participants, or other types of community energy and capacity in terms of residents. In
addition to loss of human resources, selling of ranches often results in the splitting and subdivision
of value-rich lands.
Alternative 2
Continuation of the current situation would not create any further costs to operations grazing on
FS/BLM lands. Outside forces, such as interest rates, fuel prices, or market conditions could change
the margin of profit for any operation regardless of AUM’s grazed on federal lands, but there would
likely be no change from the current economic situation due to FS/BLM action.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 requires allotments be managed more actively than Alternative 2 due to new design
criteria. Because of the flexible nature of adaptive management, it is difficult to predict the impact
to ranching operations. Some operators may be effective in monitoring and adjusting to adaptive
97