GSENM Grazing EIS and Plan Amendment

• Limited to planning decisions specific to livestock grazing

• Socio-economic analysis input-output model• Decisions must be consistent with the

purposes and objectives outlined in the proclamation

• Comply with all applicable laws and regulations

2013 Utah State Statute• H.B. 382 Escalante Region Grazing Zone• Recognizes and preserves the significant

history, culture, custom and values of the grazing industry

• Maximizes efficient and responsible preservation, enhancement, and development of grazing practices

• Requests federal agencies to facilitate this process

40% Survey Response

• Average rancher’s livestock spend their time:• 36% GSENM• 20% Forest Service• 16% Private Pastures• 15% Feeding Hay• 8% Other BLM• 4% Glen Canyon NRA• 1% State Lands

If GSENM grazing was eliminated, ranchers say….

• 79% No cost effective alternative• 72% “Out of business”• 62% Sell out to developers• 62% Find off-ranch employment

Resource Development Projects are Needed

• 94% Water Developments• 74% Reseeding• 71% Woody Plant Thinning• 68% Fencing• 64% Flexible Grazing Plan

• With these improvements, ranchers estimate an 88% increase in grazing could occur

Economics of Grazing

• Direct – $12 million – 111 jobs

• Total Effect– $23 million– 208 jobs

Replace Grazing with Tourism

• Major shift from “windshield tourism”/tour bus accommodations to active destination tourism

• Need 60,000 visitors to spend $200/day• 500 tourists/day must be fed, housed and

have a quality experience• 249 new motel rooms

• Livestock Grazing multiplier is 46% larger than the highest tourist related multiplier

Ranching Culture• 45% have ranched 100 years or more • 19% have ranched over 50 years• 35% have ranched less than 50 years • Generations ranching on GSENM: • 50% are 5th, 6th or 7th

• 20% are 4th • 20% are 3rd • 10% are 2nd or 1st

Conclusion

• Any reductions or eliminations in grazing on the GSENM, will impact the history, culture and economy of Kane and Garfield Counties

Questions