The National Grasslands: Past, Present and Future Land Management Issues Leslie Aileen Duram

Home , National grassland

36 RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995 The National Grasslands: Past, Present and Future Land Management Issues Leslie Aileen Duram

PartI: HistoricalDevelopment of the most management sensitive and one Federal Involvement the National Grasslands of the least productive soils in the world. With large numbers of farm failures on Climate in the Great Plains is character- homesteaded land, the Looking Back government ized by low annual and highly variable reacquired some land in the plains Publicland use decisions are of grow- precipitation, and large seasonal temper- region. Poor farmland was taken out of as has become ing importance, society ature variations. Overall, this is a region production by government increasinglyconcerned about these programs of extremesin terms of temperature vari- which were established to land lands. To understand the of purchase importance ations,precipitation, and soils. and relocate the farm families. the current it is beneficial to first issues, Because of these physicalcharacteris- the National Resources look back. While the of our Specifically, history tics, drought has been a recurrent phe- Board to land which National Parks and Forests are more began purchase nomenon on the plains. Documentation was in such poor condition that commonly known, the National "nothing of climatic data began only in the late is in storefor the inhabitants but extreme Grasslands are often overlooked. nineteenth century, but records show poverty and wretchedness" (National Understandingthe historical develop- periodic droughts with the Dust Bowl a Resources Board 1934). ment of the National Grasslands could severe example (Figure 1). As soil scien- The National Industrial Act help us developbetter currentland man- Recovery tist Hugh Bennett noted, the dust storms of 1933and the Emergency Relief Act of agementpolicies. "blotted out the sun over the nation's 1935 increased the government pur- Movement West capital, drove grit between the teeth of chases of these "submarginal" farm- Movement of Americans from the New Yorkers, and scattered dust on the lands. These purchases became known Eastern to the Western United States decks of ships 200 miles out to sea" as the Land Utilization (L-U) Projects. This gained intensity following the California (Bennett 1940). captured the atten- Between 1934 and 1938 many different Gold Rush of 1848. Settlement of the tion of the eastern publicand led to gov- agencies were responsible for adminis- vast interior, the Great Plains, was ernment intervention. tration of the L-U Lands: the Resettle- encouraged by the Homestead Act of 1862 and later legislation. This resulted in the transfer of public land to private ownership. Much of this land was mar- ginal and should not have been plowed. Even the largest homesteads were based upon land use practices in the humid Eastern United States, and did not adequately consider the aridity of the West. The physical environment west of the 100th Meridian is drastically different from the Eastern United States. Soils, climate, and vegetation vary from conditions in the East. Most Great Plains soils can be productive with appropriate agricultural techniques, good rainfall, and adequate soil-water storage. With less favorable conditions, these soil types are highly erodible and unproductive for farming. Along the Westernboundary of the Plains, the soils are Aridisols, among

The author is with the of Department Geography, 1. The effects the Dustbowl Southern (Itinos University, Carbondate, tL 62901- Fig. of Droughts on the Great Plains. Eastern Colorado, 1935. 4514 Source: Colorado HistoricalSociety. RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995 37 ment Administration, the Farm Security Administration,the Agricultural Adjust- ment Administration, the Land Policy Section of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (1937) was the first legislation to officially recognize and describethe acquisition of L-U projects. Title Ill of the Act states: "The Secretary [of Agriculture is autho- rized and directed to developa program of land conservation and land utilization, in order thereby to correct maladjust- ments in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion, reforestation, preservingnatural resources In effect the Act consolidated the purchased lands, so that by 1938 there were eleven million acres of L-U Project Lands under the administration of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)* in the Department of Agriculture. Although the most logical land managementagency would have been the Federal Grazing Fig. 2. Location ofU.S.F.S. National Grasslands. Service (which became the Bureau of Land Management), the LU Project tance in developing management plans. intermingled with other land already Lands were not transferred. The Grazing This was not called a "fee" as on other under their in California, Service was in the of management Department public lands. This is only in Texas, Utah and Montana. These areas while the L-U Lands had significant Interior, always the sense that more emphasis was became grazing districts or wildlife been administered the Department of by placed on local managementand less refuges. Some land was given to state or Agriculture (USDA). Departmental rivalry on the Federal role as landlord. local and thirteen tree covered made it that the USDA would agency's agencies unlikely The Grazing Association admitted areas were assigned National Forest relinquish management power over the members with three qualifications: first, status. Overall, the Forest Service kept L-U Lands (Wallach 1991). they must prove prior use to the lands; only approximately 4 million acres, which UnderSCS management, many areas second,they must prove "dependency" were designatedas National Grasslands were reseeded with crested wheatgrass of the public land in addition to their own in 1960 (Custer National Forest 1989) from Russia, which livestock can graze private lands; third, they must have (Figure 2). The National Grasslands are in the and fall. The SCS spring manage- lands as "commensura- distributed Great Plains and ment tore down fences and built stock enough private among bility" to supplement the public land Western States, with North and South to even out the distribu- watering ponds In areasestablished as L- Dakota the most acreage tion of animals and the grazing. many having (Figure grazing protect U Lands, conflict grew between the 3). areas. Most the riparian importantly, ranchers and the government. The SCS The Forest Service tightened rules and SCS extended grazing privilegesto pri- was not traditionally a land management central control,which led to more conflict vate land owners. agency, and rather than remain involved between the government and ranchers. Grazing Associations in the conflict, they stepped down. Basic management policies remained Private users were actively included in Management of the eleven million acres the same, however, and the Grazing the management of grazing practices on of L-U Land was transferred within the Associations continue to play an impor- the L-U lands. Local Grazing Department of Agriculture to the Forest tant role in the organizational structure of Associations were established. There Service in 1953(Dana 1956). grazing management. They continue to was a value" which ranchers pay the "grazing value" for rangeland, "grazing ForestService Management paid to the Association, and the which is figured differently than the graz- The Forest Service conducted a land fees in the Forests. Association then paid the SCS for assis- in ing use study of the lands the 1950s, On the Grasslands, the charge was which concluded in massive land trans- initially based on a scale, established by Editor's Note: The nameof the Soil Conservation fers. The BLM and the U.S. Fish and Service was recently changed to the National the Public Rangelands Improvement Act Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Wildlife Service received land that was of 1978 and then revised in accordance 38 RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995

North Dakota National Resources Board. 1934. Report on National Planning and South Dakota Public Works in Relation to National Resources and Including Land Co'orado Use and Water Resources with Findings and Recommendations. Wyomrng Washington DC: Government PrintingOffice. New Mexico Wallach, B. 1991. At Odds With Progress: Americans and Texas — Conservation. Tucson: University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 1985. The Kaneae Wallach, B. Return of the Prairie. Landscape. 28(3):1-5. Oregon Nebraeka . Idaho I Oklahoma I Part II: A Case Study of Pawnee National Calitorna -- ______Grassland 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Introduction to the Pawnee Acres (thoueands) There are 20 National Grasslands in the U.S., located pri- FIg. 3. National Grasslands bystate. marily in the Great Plains region. The National Grasslands are within the Forest Service, so each Grassland is administered with the Executive Order 12548 in 1986. Methods for figuring by the nearest National Forest (Argow 1962). The Pawnee the fee are based on Animal Unit Months: a base price, multi- National Grassland is located in northeastern Colorado, about plied by the Forage Value Index, and added to the Combined 75 miles from Denver and 25 miles east of Fort Collins Index(Cattle Price Indexminus the Price PaidIndex) (Coggins (Rhoads 1986) (Figure 4). and Wilkinson 1987). Indexes may vary between the Within a 30 mile by 60 mile rectangular area of Weld County Grasslands and the Forests, and thus the charge on the in northeastern Colorado, Federal, State, and private lands are Grasslands is sometimes higher than the fees for grazing in intermixed. Historical township-range land surveying and set- the National Forests. Currently 50% of this "value," must go to tlement patterns established the one mile by one mile square the Federal Treasury, but in the past as much as 90% of the sections which form an obvious grid even today. The Pawnee receipts were spent by the local Grazing Associations which National Grassland is a checkerboard of federal land that then forwarded 10% to the federal government(Fairfax and includes 193,060 acresspread out over two vast non-contigu- Yale 1987). Each Grassland Association subtracts administra- ous areas (USDA Forest Service 1990). When driving through tive overhead and money for conservation practices from the the area on State Highway 14, it is difficultto discern Federal "value" beforeforwarding it to the Treasury. The money that is lands from those privately ownedand managed. actually sent to the Federal government is calledthe lee", and The Pawnee National Grassland is administered by the U.S. 25% of this amount is directed back to the respective county, Forest Service District Ranger in Greeley, Colorado. The for roadmaintenance and school funding. District Office, which is approximately 20 miles south of the The United States National Grasslands certainly have a nearest sectionof National Grassland, are part of the Arapaho- complexand somewhat"misfit" history (Wallach 1985). Within Roosevelt National Forests, which are headquartered in Fort the Forest Service, the Grasslands are each administered as a Collins, Colorado. Ranger District of the nearest National Forest. Although the The Greeley Ranger District Office is just north of a huge grassland ecosystem varies substantially from that of the for- Monfort meat packing plant: and lust West of a Monfort Beef est, not all National Grasslands have a separate management Research Center. Nearby roads are busy with huge trucks mandate. In general, there is little information available on the transporting cattle, and the railroad tracks beside the District Grasslands. Even contacting regional Forest Service offices Office are often blocked by long trains of cattle cars. A new can yield disappointing results, as USFS employeesdo not visitor quickly feels the presence and importance of the cattle necessarily realizethat there are Grasslands under there juris- industryin this region. diction! Several regional offices do not have of the maps Grasslands National Grasslands under their administration. As befits their Management The 1982 Forest Plan for history, the National Grasslands truly remain somewhat "misfit" the Arapaho-Roosevelt National amongfederally owned lands. Forest, which officially encompassesthe Pawnee National Grasslands, had no separate management section for the References grasslands. The Forest Service is currently writing an updated 1994 Forest Plan, but still has no plans for a separate section Bankhead-JonesFarm Tenant Act 011937.7 U.S.C. 1010-1012. devoted to the Grasslands. There will be notes on the H. 1940. The Land We unique Bennett, Defend. National Education management for the but Association Meeting. Speech. 2. prescriptions Grasslands, this still July seems to Coggins, G. and C. Wilkinson. 1987. Federal Public Land and leave the Grassland with less official Federal man- Resources Law,2nd ed. Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation. agement direction than the Forest. Custer National Forest. 1989. Trials and Tributions. Pamphlet. In the broadest sense, Congress sets up laws for manage- Dana, S. 1956. Forest and Range Policy: Historical Development in ment; the Department of Agriculture establishes the the UnitedStates. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. regulations for its agencies; and the Forest Service decides on Fairfax, S. and C. Yale. 1967. Federal Lands: A Guide to policies to Planning, out the Management, and StateRevenues. Washington DC: Island. carry management goals. But with no separate manage- RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995 39

all money earned on the Grassland, from grazing and mineral development, goes to local county governments for schools and roads. When the grazing charge fluctuates, as has recently been the case, this is detrimental to rural schools which anticipate and depend on this sourceof funding. Mineral leases have been profitable for the PawneeGrasslands in the past. In 1989, for example, over $1 million was placed in the treasury from such fees. This amountis lower now,as the price of oil is down, and fewer new leases have been purchased. The leasing process is somewhat complicated because the Bureau of Land Managementactually administers the mineral leases on National Grasslands. The Forest Service considers itself a land surface agency thus the BLM handlesthe subsur- Fig. 4. Approaching Pawnee Butteon Pawnee National Grassland, Colorado. only, face leases, but the Forest Service can opt to "disapprove"a lease and halt it ment policy, the Grasslands seem to be lowed to promote long-term sustainabili- (Peterson 1992). given a lower status by the Federal ty of the range (Gardner 1991). Yet there Further complications of mineral leas- agency. The Pawnee National Grassland has been no comprehensive, published es have been in effect since December does not necessarily feel neglected, how- reportassessing the range quality of the 1990, when new leases were halted on ever, as the Staff Range Conservation National Grasslands, or the Pawnee, the Pawnee because the Grassland pro- explained: "It's goodto be left alone. That specifically. vides nesting habitat for the Mountain way we can do our own thing [within the The Pawnee National Grassland prop- Plover. This shore bird flies from Mexico general laws, regulations, and policies]" erty is intermixed with private lands in and Southern California to nest in the the area and conditions from prairie grasslands, and is now listed as a Pawnee Land Use vary pasture to pasture dependingon past and Category One Species, which means There are about 8,600 head of cattle current use, precipitation, soils and veg- that it is a candidate for federal listing as on the Pawnee concentrated in annually, etative cover. Although within in the a threatened or endangered species by a five month summer A certain period. region of the National Grasslands, there the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. is ascertained for each carrying capacity are no stipulations for land use on the Studies are currently beingconducted to designated pasture. If the weather is dry private lands, because private ownership better understand the habitat require- the and summer, the five during spring rights supersede Federal management ments and mating habits of the Mountain month period for grazing is reduced, as initiatives. Overall, most public pastures Plover. Specifically, the research will is often the case on the Pawnee. With on the Pawnee appear to be in better answer questions about the importance the Mountains to the West and Rocky condition than private areas. Even with a of the Pawnee National Grassland for the Cheyenne Ridge to the North, the few Pawnee in the bird's habitat. If the Grasslands are of pastures poor condition, patterns precipitation vary drastically. the Pawnee Conservation significantly important for this indicator Most Range short-grass prairie ecosystems believes the Grasslands overall are in species, and if the species is found to be receive 12-15 inches of rain annually. goodcondition (Peterson 1994). endangered, then all activities which Precipitation on the Pawnee is spotty, Grazing is an important element in the interfere with nesting habits will be miti- however, and varies from three to twelve characteristics of the Forest gatedor halted. inches over different areas of multiple-use annually Service for the Grasslands. Grazing The Forest Service is working closely the Grassland. charges for the Grasslands are set by with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Estimated biomass is an vegetative Congress, and in 1992, the cost was on management decisions which could consideration in important management $3.42/AUM (Animal Unit Months), but affect the bird. Although no new mineral decisions and, the Grasslands are dropped to $2.04 in 1993. Of the money leases have been allowed, currently- extremely sensitive areas prone to taken in from grazing, the local Grazing held leases are still valid. If a lease-hold- abuse and the overgrazing. So, vegeta- Association, which is responsible for er wishes to develop their mineral rights, tion at one time be present given may maintenance, receives a variableportion then an environmental analysismust be less at another time. Careful drastically for maintenance. Twenty-five percent of completed because of the sensitivity of management strategies must be fol- 40 RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995

the Mountain Plover. It can take to an many years complete but this may change. Ecosystem Management may also mean Environmental Impact Statement, so future activities on the lower numbers of cattle grazing the Grasslands. It is unclear, Grasslands are somewhat in limbo. While current activities however, if Ecosystem Management would provide the continue undisturbed, a future EIS could this change situation. National Grasslandswith specific management goals and a Even with the various agency interactions and recent more distinct compli- recognition among Federal Lands. The Ranger cations, there is little conflict between relatively ranchers, man- Conservationist stated, "It is beneficial for the Pawneeto try agers, and visitors at the Pawnee, to the according Range Ecosystem Management, although the emphasis might shift Conservationist. "The Pawnee is located near the Front Range awayfrom grazing to more wildlife and recreation uses." which has large cities and three large universities; it is not an isolated ranching community. So, the ranchers are exposed to References many ideas and people, which helps them see the environ- Argow, K. 1962. Our National Grasslands: Dustland to mentalistviewpoint. Also, the short grass prairie ecosystem Grassland. American Forests. January. shows its sensitivity very When the is clearly. grass grazed to Gardner, B.D. 1991. "Rangeland Resources: Uses and a certain point, the animals lose Changing begin to weight, and the Productivity". In: Kenneth Frederick and Roger Sedjo, eds. ranchers gladly movethem off the land," (Peterson 1994). This America's Renewable Resources:Historical Trends and Current contrasts with tall grasses that are not as stressed Challenges, pp. 123-166. Washington DC: Resources for the obviously Future. by grazing. Bob. 1992. Ranchers do not with the Peterson, Personal Interview. Pawnee Station Range necessarily agree Range Conservationist. Greeley Colorado. Conservationists assessment of optimistic relations among Peterson, Bob. 1994. Personal Interview. Pawnee Station Range Pawnee Grassland interest groups. "I don't know where he Conservation. Greeley Colorado. gets his figures on cattle weights and forage," one rancher Rhoads, Dorothy and Lee. 1986. History of the Pawnee National Grassland. explained, requesting anonymity. cattle and Pamphlet. Average weight USDA Forest Service. 1990. Pawnee biomass are used to determine National Grassland. Map. density the level of sustainable Washington DC: Government Office. allowed on the Printing grazing Grassland each season. The rancher USDA Forest Service. 1992a. May. Report of the Forest Service. continued, "we are told that we have to either decrease the Washington DC: Government Printing Office. USDA Forest Service. numberof cattle we run or decrease the lengthof grazing time 1992b. June. Chief's Directive to Regional Foresters and Station on the Grasslands. That hurts us at home. We have to Directors. keep USDA Forest Service. 1992c. the animals home and tear September. Rocky Mountain Region longer up our own place." Other Reply to Chief. ranchers expressed concern about the increasing use of the Pawnee for recreation, as this brings outsiders to the area. "We can't drive our cattle down the road any more [to change pastures]. People won't stop or even slow down if there is a Part III: Thoughts on Future Land Management cow in The National Grasslands are the most frontof them.They don't understand about ranching." overlooked of all fed- owned lands in the United On the other hand, ranchers who do not graze on public erally States. Although they are administered the United States lands express another opinion. "It's a differentball game for by ForestService, it is possible to read literature on this us. We don't have that extra land to use. We have particular agency, and find nothing public to the take care of our own land because that is all we have." regarding Grasslands. In fact, whole books devoted to Environmentalists that Forest Service planning exist which do not even mention the emphasize federal management of the National Grasslands National Grasslands should be more (for example Wilkinson and Anderson conducive to recreation What is in such as bird and 1987). lacking literature, is also oftenabsent in fed- watching, hiking camping. They believe that eral land as the grazing fees should be or management goals, Grasslands are somewhat increased, perhaps grazing should ignored the Forest Service. Ratherthan be more limited on by possessing a clear these publiclands. mandate, the National This to Grasslands are simply administered begins describethe variety of land use goals among under the nearest National Forest. different The multiple-use and sus- interest groups on the Grasslands. The question tainable-yield goals of the Forests are the remains if the only guidelines complexmanagement situation will shift policy to given for the managementof the Grasslands. the include more Although voices, or will remain closely aligned with ranch- ecosystems vary greatly between the Forests and the ing interests of the as grazing associations, has beenthe case Grasslands, no separate land management plans are provided historically. for the Grasslands. Thereare four main on which to elaborate. Future Changes? points First, management of the National Grasslands is under the Forest The 1992 Forest Service states Report Ecosystem Service, which deals primarily with forestresources ratherthan Management is the trend for the future Forest (USDA Service grassland resources. Second, the Act 1992a,b,c). This would the Endangered Species replace traditional commodity- influences land use and management possibilities on the based management scheme of multiple-use and sustainable- Grasslands. Third, the Wilderness Act could be useful for yield goals. "Managementtechniques on the Grasslandwill grassland protection and Fourth, as biodiversity. perhaps legisla- change Ecosystem Management takes hold," the Pawnee tive change should encourage SCS involvement with the Range Conservationist said. The Forest Service does not National Grasslands, since this agency assists private land conduct research owners presently any on the Pawnee Grasslands, and the National Grasslands are intermixed with pri- RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995 41 vate lands. Grasslands to establish vegetation recovery zones and native The National Grasslands are under the management of the prairie areas. Forest Service, although grassland and forest ecosystems Key management issues are easy to identify, solutions are vary significantly. Each National Forest operates under a more complex. In fact, there are numerous possible manage- Forest Plan, but the respective Grasslands oftendo not appear menttechniques for the National Grasslands. in these In addition, it is seems that the National guidelines. Possibilitiesfor Future Grasslands are given a lower status than the forests, as evi- Management A of could be denced in books, and communication. Some wide spectrum management techniques maps, personal These from Forest Service employees are not familiar with the term employed on the National Grasslands. range the Grasslands to to no in "National Grassland" although these lands are administered returning private ownership change to the creation of wilderness areason the through this very agency. It seems that the grasslands are management grasslands. The some of which are at least somewhatignored by their governing agency. following ideas, radical, Public awareness and use of the Grasslands are also less provide food for thought. A line of argument is noted for each below: than that of Forests. Certainly the traditional multiple-use and option of the forests are manifested in the sustainable-yield policies 1. Return to private land: Grasslands with and leasing, and there grazing oil/gas/mineral It could be argued that the National Grasslands provide no is less recreational use on the National Grasslands currently real use for the public, and thus there is no reason to maintain than in the National Forests, this may be changing. although them as public lands. Perhaps these lands should be trans- Recent discussion within the ForestService has emphasized ferred to private ownership. Historical perceptions of the plains a shift toward Ecosystem Management (USDA Forest Service as a infested the This mean a reduction in with an drought-ridden, pest region support argument 1992a,b,c). may grazing that the plainsare unable to support land usesother than graz- increased on research, and emphasis grassland ecosystem ing (Sears 1959; Kollmorgen 1969). In addition, because the recreation such as of bird and uses, watching, camping, hiking. Grasslands are interspersed with private lands the private Such a land use however, would impact change, significantly owners should also manage the Grasslands. Some ranchers ranchers in the region, who are mostly accustomed to isolation indicate want to more land but none is available, so from outside visitors and tourists. This raises an they buy important they are forced to have grazing allotments on federal lands. about the of federal land question responsibility management Turning the National Grasslands over to private ownership to human social communities as well as agencies protect plant wouldassist ranchers in continuingtheir current livelihood. and animal communities. The Endangered Species Act is important for the National 2. Turn over to BLM: Grasslandsand all federal lands. Managementcan change The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was the basis for the estab- drastically if a threatened or endangered species has a prima- lishmentof the BLM, which occurred in 1946. Sincethat time, ry habitat on the Grasslands. If the species is found to be the BLM has been the main agency for range management endangered, all development could be halted and grazing may and grazing on federal lands. It is equipped and experienced be restricted. Another key point may be the interaction of to deal with the National Grasslands, since grazing is, and Ecosystem Management and the Endangered Species Act. If should be, the main land use of these lands. Given this time of Ecosystem Management leads to more research on the federal budget cuts, the consolidation of all public grazing Grasslands, there could be in-depth studiesof various species. lands within one Federal agencywould be most efficient. This would require long-termfinancial commitment, from the Federal government or private sources, for conducting com- 3. Leave unchanged within the ForestService: prehensive inventory of species. Such study also provides an The National Grasslands do not need a separate land use opportunity for cooperative research among Federal agencies, management mandate. These federal lands were designated universities, and others. If more is understood about certain to the Forest Service in the 1950s, and this management species, more accurate methods of identifying and classifying should continue as is. Although there are differences between them as threatened or endangered could be developed. the forestand the grassland ecosystems, it is beneficial for the The Wilderness Act may prove important for the Grasslands. ForestService to retain these lands. It is difficult to change this While most current Wilderness Areas are in mountain and long-standing administrative policy, and there is no reason for the level alpine environments, the Act was intended to protect a variety change. There should be little guidance from Federal District of ecosystems. Perhaps portions of the Grasslands could be on local Grasslands, as local Forest Service personnel identified for Wilderness designation, since this ecosystem is are best qualified to manage each National Grassland individu- clearly under-represented. ally. The SCS has been a prominent agency in regard to grass- 4. Give separate mandate within the Forest Service: land and plains ecological protection on private lands, yet even The Grasslands should remain under Forest Service admin- the SCS has been criticized. The General Accounting Office istration, but be given more direction. A separate section in published a report in 1977 which stated that soil conservation each Forest Plan would address the management needs attention, but that the SCS has "not made satis- appropriate priority of the Grasslands. Consolidationof and needs to put more money into land goals specific manage- factory progress", ment all National Grasslands could be initiated. retirement, and less money into well-drilling and terracing goals among would apply to the Grasslands, and (Rowley1985, 189). Although the SCS has no regulatory man- Ecosystem Management could involve in the management goals. agement powers, this agency could work with the National changes 42 RANGELANDS 17(2), April 1995

5. Research mandate for sustainable agriculture: USDA Forest Service. 1992b. June. Chief's Directive to Regional Land-Utilization Projects were initially establishedto help Foresters and Station Directors. in USDA people rural areas, thus the National Grasslands should be Forest Service. 1992c. September. Rocky Mountain Region used to Chief. solely for conducting research on plains ecosystems. Reply Wald, J., and D. Albersweth. 1989. Our This should include agricultural or human impact topics such Ailing Public Rangelands. as: National Wildlife Federation and National Resource Defense perennial/native grasses, long-termsustainable cropping Council. techniques, Holistic Resource Management (HRM) ranching, Wilkinson, C. and H.M. Anderson. 1987. Land and Resource rural sustainability/viability, and economic issues of subsidies Planning in the National Forests. DC: and Washington Island Press. price supports (Wald and Albersweth 1989). Such a mandate could occur within continuedadministration by the Forest Service, but would require drastically different goals for management.

6. Creation ofWilderness Areas: The Wilderness Act of 1964, established the Wilderness Preservation System. Part of the goal in wilderness preservation is protecting biodiversity and genetic diversity, It would be beneficial to develop wilderness areas on the National Grasslands, as this is a unique ecosystem. Current rules for Wilderness designation require contiguous land areas untouched by human development. Such stringent rules may need alteration in the case of the Grasslands, since most plains areas, including the Grasslands, have been marked by a grid-work of section roads every square mile. Larger contiguous land areas would require the purchase of some private land. Specific decisions as to the form of Wilderness would be needed. It may be possible to restore the prairie with native vegetation and reintroduce native species (such as bison) to the areas. Burning and other processes of the natural prairie ecosystem would be necessary. This could producea human- created, Wilderness Area to protect the valuable grassland ecosystem. ConcludingRemarks Land managementissues on the National Grasslandsare complex and may not be easily solved with one "right"answer. The U.S. Forest Service is currently reviewing its management goals and techniques, so new approaches may soon be ent. appar- Land management goals and policies are evolving in new directions with Ecosystem Management, and this may impact the National Grasslands as well as National Forests. Land managers, ranchers and concerned citizens with an interest in "our" public lands should take the initiative to raise questions about current methods and to suggest possible An changes. important first step is to explore whatbroad rang- ing management choices exist, rather than be constricted by past experience and perceptions. At the very least these new ideas open the door for potential new management possibilities. Overall, the time has come to set new land management goals, and stop ignoring the National Grasslands. References

Kollmorgen, W. 1969. The Woodsman's Assaults on the Domain of the Cattleman. Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 59(2):21 5-239. Rowley, W.D. 1985. US Forest Service Grazing and Rangelands: A History. College Station: Texas A & M. PB. 1959. Sears, Deserts on the March. Norman: University of Oklahoma. USDA Forest Service. 1992a. May. Report of the Forest Service. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.