Liberty County's population was 2,295 in 1990, which was a 1.5 percent decrease from 1980. In 1990, less than 1 percent of the county's population was Native American. Chester is the County's only incorporated city, with a 1990 population of 942. This represents a 2.2 percent decline in population since 1980, when the population totaled 963 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990).
Toole County's population was 5,046 in 1990, which was a 9.2 percent decrease from 1980. In 1990, 2 percent of the county's population was Native American. Shelby, Sunburst, and Kevin are incorporated cities in Toole County. The population of these cities declined between 1980 and 1990. Shelby, the county seat, had a 1990 population of 2,763 compared to the 1980 population of 3,142, a 12.1 percent decline in population.
The two counties are sparsely populated, averaging 2.2 people per square mile in 1990. These rural counties have been losing population for decades. The population of the counties in 1970, 1980, and 1990 is shown in Table 3.3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toole |
|
|
|
|
Social well being indicators for Liberty and Toole Counties include both positive and negative factors. Positive factors include the area's remoteness and sparse population which result in freedom from urban problems such as high crime rates and overcrowding. Divorce rates are low compared to state statistics, outdoor recreational opportunities are plentiful and family ranching operations remain predominant.
Liberty and Toole Counties are lacking some basic services. The number of physicians per 100,000 is lower than the state and national average. Liberty County has a lower proportion of people in the working age groups (18 to 65 years) than the state as a whole. People in these age groups typically move out of the area to attend school or find employment. However, residents of traditional ranching areas in the western United States typically feel this lifestyle offers a very positive environment for individuals and families. Toole County has a higher proportion of people in the working age groups. This could be due to oil and gas development in this county.Local residents, particularly area ranchers, Native Americans from a variety of tribes, and some Montana environmental protection organizations are vocal in their opposition to exploration and mining in the Sweet Grass Hills. Though the actions under consideration have been exploration, many fear it would ultimately result in mining. Therefore it is difficult to separate concerns about exploration from those associated with mining. Concerns include damage to surface and groundwater supplies, loss of the area's natural beauty, disturbance of wildlife habitat, and loss of recreation opportunities. Concerns about exploration and mining in the Sweet Grass Hills are long standing: they were documented during the preparation of the West HiLine RMP (BLM, 1987 and 1988b), during public comment for the East Butte Exploration Project in 1989, and from comments received during scoping for this EIS (BLM, 1993b). It should also be noted that some support for exploration was expressed. Some individuals indicated mining could be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. Others expressed concern for private property rights. Concerns are also discussed in the Cultural Resources section.