Why Continue Livestock Grazing on National Forests

Jo- . I' j- .~.'. . April 2002 3

- Livestock Grazing On The National Forests Why continue to do it?

By David Bradford, Floyd Reed, Robbie Baird LeValley, Calvin Campbell and Steve Kossler

razing on the National Forests and Public Lands continues to be contentious. It is the subject of Gvigorous debate and even lawsuits. A number of groups, including the Sierra Club, have increased their opposition to public land grazing, calling for its outright abolishment. To date this has not happened. Why? Why do the Forest Service, the BLM and other public land agencies continue to allow grazing on the national forests and public lands? . To begin to answer that, we need to go back to why the National Forests were established and why grazing was allowed on these lands. The origil}al forest reserves were established in 1891 by presidential order to protect the forests of the mountain ranges of the West from fire and reckless cutting. These original forest reserves were ex- actly that -reservations where human activity was pro- hibited. No timber cutting, no livestock gra.:z;tpg,in fact, no trespassing was allowed. . These reservations created consigerable C°t;lr6versy, as many western settlers believed they we..re being locked-out of valuable lands. In 1897 thecCongress spec- ified the purposes for which the forest reserves were established and provided for their protection and administration. In 1905 the forest reserves were transferred from thy Department of Interior to the Department of Agriculture. The reserves were renamed national forests anti placed under the administration of the newly established Forest Service. The management of the national forests continued to be contentious. In 1907 the Forest Service issued a publication, The Use of the National Forests. This book became known as The Use Book. It was intended to explain to the public what the national forests were, what they were for and how they were to be used. It was recognized that the national forests were for use of the people of the West as well as for the-whole country. The development and use onhe forests would provide growth and prosperity. The range resources of the national forests were recognized ginning. John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, opposed as important and should be used. The emphasis was on livestock grazing and Gifford Pinchot, first Chief of the commonsense management that allowed benefits for the Forest Service, supported it. This disagreement was the present and sustained the resources for the future. basis of a lifelong rift between the two men. We should note that the issue of livestock grazing on Has the purpose of the national forests changed? We the national forests was controversial from the very be- . ~ L .; 4 RANGELANDS 24(2)

do not believe it has. The Forest Service continues to emphasize that livestock grazing is a legitimate use of national forest rangelands. That commitment is identified in the Forest Service manual. The objectives of the range management program for the National Forests and National Grasslands are: 1. To manage range vegetation to protect basic soil and water resources, provide for ecological diversity, improve or maintain environmental quality, and meet public needs for interrelated resources uses. 2. To integrate management of range vegetation with other resource programs to achieve multiple use objectives contained in Forest Dyer allotment was grazed season-long by 1048 cow/calf pairs from May 15 to October 15, 1948. Note 2-foot deep, raw gully, bare ground and lack of vegetative land and resource management cover. Shrubs are primarily snowberry. Precipitation for the year was "average." plans. Photo by A. Cramer October 15,1948. Photo courtesy of Denver Public Library. 3. To provide for livestock forage, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource values dependent on range vegetation. 4. To contribute to the economic and social well being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by pro- moting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood. S. To provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and management of grazing animals. Can livestock grazing on public lands produce any benefits? If so, what are they? We plan to discuss the various ways that the ranches in the North Fork of the Gunnison River Valley in western Dyer allotment now managed under a deferred/rest rotation system-this area was Colorado (the North Fork) that hold rested in 2001. Precipitation for the year was 88% of average. Photo by David Bradford, October 12, 2000. grazing permits on the adj acent Gunnison National Forest are inter- Ecological Benefits ducive to their individual survival. connected. We hope to show how this Biological-Plants evolved with Fire, drought, floods, landslides, ~ relationship is producing ecological, the ability to withstand a variety of wind-storms, tornados, grazing, in- economic and social benefits to the environmental conditions. Nature is sects and disease are all environmen- people of the communities of the often not a well-tended garden. Most tal disturbances that affect plants. West, as well as the rest of the United plants and animals are faced with Plants developed physiological mech- States. conditions that are often not con- anisms that allow them to survive, ~ # ~

A ~ April 2002 5

shrub-lands on the Forest that have become overly mature, or overly dense or stagnant. These areas are grazed by a large number of cattle for a short period of time. This treatment will open up the shrub canopy, creating a more open stand, and providing more palatable under-story vegetation. These treatments are also used where prescribed burning is not feasible or undesirable. Obviously, it is also a less severe treatment than spraying with herbicides. Grazing is a natural process. It can be managed to maintain plant health and even used as a land treatment to provide a more desirable plant com- munity. Undeveloped open space- Cattle grazing in High Park on West Terror allotment. Photo by David Bradford. Ranches that hold grazing permits on national forests are composed of and sometimes even thrive when im- As another example, sheep are com- a combination of private and public pacted by these disturbances. monly used to graze tall larkspur to lands. In general the private lands Grazing is actually one of the more reduce the potential of poisoning are located in the lower elevations benign environmental disturbances cattle that follow the sheep. Neither on prime agricultural lands. Ranches that plants encounter in nature. of these treatments will completely that hold grazing permits on the However grazing by herbivores can eliminate these native plants but will GMUG NF are required to own a severely impact plants. Plants that reduce their density to levels that are certain amount of private or base are grazed too often can be reduced considered to be more normal. property. This requirement states in vigor or even killed. Grazing by Grazing is also being used to treat that a permit holder must own suffi- domestic livestock needs to be based deer and elk winter range. There are cient base property to sustain their on plant physiological needs in order for the plant to sustain itself. Grazing strategies for domestic livestock have developed to the point that they not only will maintain plant health but also can actually be used as vegetation treatments. The grazing of goats on noxious weeds, such as leafy spurge, is a fairly common grazing treatment used in many areas. But grazing can also be used for other types of vegetation treatments. For example, on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG NF) cattle have been used to treat areas where native plants, such as mulesear, have increased beyond the range of natural variability. This treatment involves Range ride with Leroux Creek grazing pool permittees to discuss range conditions, grazing the area with a large number grazing plans and range improvements. West Elk mountains in background. Photo by of cattle for a short period of time. David Bradford.

...... ~r" ~ ... 6 RANGELANDS 24(2) permitted numbers of livestock for a with the overall land ownership pat- It is important to note that the use period of time equal to the time they tern in Delta County? The 86,000 of the National Forest for summer graze the national forest or half the acres represents about 11% of the range allows North Fork ranchers to time they are off the national forest. total area of the county and 25% of manage their home ranch primarily This requirement goes back to the the total private land in the county, early days of grazing on the national see Table 1 Delta County Land forests. It was developed to assure Ownership. Counting only the lands Table 1 --Delta County Land Ownership that local, legitimate livestock oper- the ranches hold fee title to this is Ownership Acreage Percent ations would be given preference for 7 % of all land in the county and BLM 209,946 28% grazing their livestock on the adja- 15% of the private land in the en- National Forest 189,378 26% cent national forests. tire county. This represents a signifi- Total Private 341,156 46% cant number as the North Fork Transient or speculative grazing Breakdown of operations were given a lower prior- Valley represents approximately Private Land: ity for issuance of grazing permits. 40% of Delta County. In summary, Agricultural 284,570 38% As a consequence of the base prop- approximately 50% of the private Irrigated 74,000 10% erty requirement all grazing permit Non~irrigated 210,570 28% land in the North Fork Valley is Other 4.2% holders on the GMUG NF own a 31,069 owned by ranches that hold grazing Municipal 15,312 2% certain amount of land used in their permits on the adjacent Gunnison Roads 10,205 1.4% overall ranching operations. National Forest. This represents a Total 100% In the North Fork Valley there are significant amount of land in the val- 740,480 47 ranches that hold national forest ley. grazing permits. The amount of pri- Similar studies show similar re- vate land that each ranch owns sults. The ranches along the eastern as irrigated hay meadows. Looking ranges from 30 to 11,000 acres. side of the Uncompahgre Plateau in at the contribution of a National There is a total of over 50,000 acres western Delta County comprise over Forest Service grazing permit strict- of private land or base property tied 34,000 acres of private ranch land. ly on a calendar basis, public land to these 47 ranches. In addition to This represents an additional 10% of ranches use their Forest Service this deeded land, these ranches lease all the private land in Delta County. grazing permit for 1/4 to 1/3 of their an additional 36,000 acres of private The other large agricultural area in total forage base. However this is land for grazing. The 50,000 acres of Delta County is Surface Creek, near somewhat misleading. By maintain- deeded land plus the 36,000 acres of Cedaredge. This area also has a sig- ing their irrigated pastures ranchers leased land provides over 86,000 nificant number of ranches with are able to produce up to 45% of acres of ranch land in Delta County. National Forest grazing permits. their total forage needs for the year. These 86,000 In effect by grazing acres are provid- their livestock on ing undeveloped the National Forest open space III ranchers are able to Delta County. manage their land Looking at it on for maximum for- a per ranch age production dur- basis-each ing the peak grow- ranch holding a ing season. As a grazing permit consequence these on the Paonia parcels of land in Ranger District the mountain val- of the GMUG leys are maintained NF is providing as large blocks of an average of green, undeveloped 1,830 acres of open space. undeveloped Scale-As noted open space. in the discussion How do these above the greatest ranch lands fit amount of private ~ '" .. :"" April2002 7

land in the county is agricultural land. The farms and ranches in Delta County provide the largest, least fragmented, undeveloped blocks of private land in the county. In addition some ranches are located direct- ly adjacent to the public land where they hold grazing permits, while some are located at a distance from them. In either case, these areas provide the greatest opportunities for managing large blocks of undeveloped land for wildlife habitat and biological diversity in the lower valleys in the county. When farms and ranches are sold- off or subdivided this often results in smaller land units. This results in fragmentation of habitat. These smaller land units cause a decrease Hidden Valley Sub-division above Paonia, Colorado. Developed since 1995. Mt. in opportunities to manage for large- Lamborn of West Elk Mountains in background. Photo by David Bradford. scale wildlife habitat and biological diversity in the lower elevations in lands need to be preserved though duces nearly 12% of all the earnings the county. Development along the public acquisition. Development of in the county and over 16% of all Front Range of the Colorado Rockies these lands will result in the loss of employment in the county. is causing the loss of habitat for the these very limited habitats. There are In addition there are a number of black-tailed prairie dog and the many benefits to maintaining these additional economic factors relating Prebbles meadow jumping mouse. habitats. Obviously maintaining the to public land ranches. One factor is The population of Delta County in- existing agricultural operations pro- the effect of development on the creased 33% from 1990 to the year vides the most economical means of county tax base. A number of stud- 2000. This represents a significant maintaining these large-scale blocks ies have been completed to measure increase in 10 years. It is likely that of land. the impacts of different land uses on increased development on the a county's tax base. A 1998 study of Western Slope and the loss of addi- Economic Benefits Custer County, Colorado by the San tional ranches will result in the loss Agriculture has been the tradition- Isabel Foundation, Custer Heritage of habitat for wildlife species such al mainstay of the economy of Delta Committee, Sonoran Institute and as the Gunnison sage grouse and the County. Along with mining, it is the the American Farmland Trust, Gunnison and white tailed prairie economic activity that has most in- showed that: dogs. The continued operation of fluenced the character of the towns 1. Agricultural land and open space ranches in the western valleys pro- and the landscape. Agriculture and provide more in tax revenue to vides the greatest opportunity to mining created the infra-structure the county than they demand in maintain large blocks of undevel- and the society of Delta County. service costs-$0.54 in services oped valley land. While agricultural earnings have de- for every $1.00 in tax revenue. Habitat-An additional consider- clined, it remains a significant part 2. Commercial and industrial land ation is that private agricultural in- of the Delta County economy. put more in county coffers than terests own much of the valley bot- Currently the economy of Delta they take out in services-$0.71 tom-lands and associated riparian County is based on agriculture, con- in services for every $1.00 in tax habitats. If these lands are sold or struction, manufacturing/timber, revenue. subdivided these limited valley bot- tourism and various service activi- 3. Residential land, incur higher ser- tom riparian habitats will be nega- ties, such as retail sales, transporta- vice costs than it provides in rev- tively affected or lost. The ranches tion, communications, utilities, real enue-$1.16 in service costs for and farms that hold these lands ei- estate, finance, insurance, education every $1.00 in tax revenue. ther need to be maintained or the and health services. Agriculture pro- There are economic benefits to ,.. ..~ ~1 8 RANGELANDS 24(2) maintaining agriculture in Delta County as well as economic costs of losing agricultural lands to development. We believe it can be argued that there is an economical value to maintaining agriculture as part of our county economic base.

Social Benefits Agriculture has provided long- term benefits to the North Fork Valley (as well as many other areas). Agriculture has been a significant economic activity in the North Fork Valley since the valley was settled in 1881/82. It has proven to be sustain- able. Many of the ranches in the North Fork Valley have existed for a long time, with some being recognized as "Century Ranches". As noted previously, irrigation- based agriculture had created the "green" landscape that characterizes the North Fork Valley, as well as As the debates over grazing on state constitutional amendment. Is most of the other valleys in western public lands intensify, there is in- Colorado and the West. It is, in fact, there a relationship between urban creasingly rapid urban, suburban and this rural, green, agricultural land- growth and the maintenance of agri- exurb an development occurring in cultural operations? We believe scape that appeals to many and at- Colorado and across much of the there is. tracts them to settle in these western West. This phenomenon is also cre- valleys. At the same time while agri- ating concerns and becoming the culture provides a greener land- Programs To Preserve Open subject of vigorous debate. Is there a scape, some forms of agriculture Space connection between rapid human de- have a greater impact on the land In Colorado as well as other states, than others. Fruit orchards and row- velopment and livestock grazing on numerous programs to preserve agri- public lands? We believe there is. cultural and undeveloped lands have crops, while providing important The loss of farm and ranchland in and desirable products, alter the na- developed. At least 7 counties and Colorado averages 250 acres per day tive vegetation of the land in a sig- one city in Colorado have created nificant manner. (90,000 acres per year), and 11,300 "Open Space" programs. These are acres per day nationally. county and city government pro- However, the mix of agricultural The concern over the loss of unde- products/types has provided a di- grams that have been created in order veloped lands has increased in verse combination that often compli- to maintain agricultural lands, range- ment one another. Livestock are Colorado to the point that concerned lands and other undeveloped lands. citizens initiated an amendment to The intent of open-space programs is often grazed on row crop aftermath, the state constitution in the 2000 such as corn stalks, sugar beets and generally to preserve land for scenic, state elections limiting uncontrolled onions. Livestock ranching provides agriculture, wildlife habitat and growth. The initiative failed, but on the lowest impact form of agricul- buffer values. The programs are gen- December 11, 2000, The Denver ture, with the land being maintained erally funded through a tax, often a Post printed an editorial stating that in generally continuous cover and sales tax but also through special often in its natural state. As with growth remains an issue for mill levies on property taxes. Colorado and that if the state legisla- much of our human activities, there Boulder County and the City of ture fails to address the growth issue are trade-offs. Some negative effect Boulder have some of the largest again in 200 I then concerned citi- is often caused in the production of a Open Space Programs in the state of zens are sure to push for another positive one. Colorado. The City of Boulder pro- t.. 4?- April 2002 9

gram started in the 1960' s and the 80,000 acres of land on which there of Boulder County. There is a price Boulder County program, started in are conservation easements. These tag associated with the management the 1970's. Both programs are funded figures indicate that Americans be- of Open Space lands. through sales taxes. The City of lieve our undeveloped lands need Is this a rationalization for con- Boulder has acquired 30,000 acres of additional forms of protection. One tinued use and abuse of public land and spent nearly $100 million in major caveat in considering conser- lands from livestock grazing? acquisition of these lands. Boulder vation easements as a means of pre- Absolutely not. We know that un- County has acquired 47,000 acres serving open space is that there is controlled and under-managed graz- and nearly 13,000 acres with conserva- some concern as to the long-term ing can cause resource damage. In tion easements, spending nearly $250 ability of these lands to be main- general, the public lands have shown million in acquisition. Obviously, the tained under the terms of the ease- a marked improvement in resource people in Boulder County are con- ment. There has not been a legal conditions in the last 50 years. This cerned with the loss of agricultural challenge to-date in maintaining a is difficult to document on a large- and undeveloped lands. conservation easement and there is scale basis. The large amount of land Another method for preserving concern that a legal challenge could involved in such an assessment, agricultural and undeveloped lands break an easement. combined with the tremendous vari- is a "Conservation Easement". A Once these lands are acquired they ation in land types and habitats conservation easement is generally still require some form of manage- makes these types of assessments described as a right, an interest in ment. Management can be custodial difficult and expensive to complete. real property or an interest in land. or more active. Whatever the level of As a result, this information is often Easements are entirely voluntary and management there is still a cost asso- lacking. are either donated or sold by ciated with management. Boulder The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre landowners at their discretion. These County spends nearly $8.0 million and Gunnison National Forests easements vary considerably from for management operations per year. began a review of historic pho- state to state and are used to protect With 4.0 million visitors per year, tographs and evaluations that were a variety of resources on private there is good justification for these done on the three forests in the late property from scenic vistas, urban costs. Nonetheless, this level of man- 1940's-1950's. This review has parks, gardens, greenways, wildlife agement requires nearly $133 per shown tremendous damage had been corridors, open space, wetlands, acre to manage the Open Space lands done to parts of the Forests by im- groundwater recharge zones, farm- proper livestock grazing. When land, cultural and historic lands, habitat and river corridors. These easements work by restrict- ing or obligating the activities that may occur in the property and thus limiting a landowner's use of the property. The intent is to protect or preserve a particular resource that is provided on the property. A government entity, a charitable corporation, a charitable association or a charitable trust may hold Conservation Easements. Most conservation easements in the last fifteen years have been acquired by charitable trusts - generally called land trusts. Since the mid-1980's over 650 land trusts have been formed in the United States. In Colorado over 29 land trusts have been formed. These North Fork Valley with West Elk Mountains in background. Base ranches are located along the river bottom, with National Forests rangelands on the slopes of groups have acquired over 3 million the mountains. Photo by David Bradford. acres. In Colorado there are nearly ,; "'-I- ~~ 10 RANGELANDS 24(2) these sites were re-evaluated and re- land ranches in the western valleys Larimer, EI Paso, Douglas, Eagle, photographed there was significant in Colorado and the adjacent Summit and Routt, once had many improvement that has occurred in National Forests. ranches that held grazing permits on these areas. These areas have contin- Our evaluation shows that private adjacent national forests. These per- ued to be grazed, with the improve- land ranches in western Colorado mits were waived back to the gov- ment attributed to improved man- with public land grazing permits are ernment and livestock grazing no agement. We need to continue to providing significant benefits to the longer is occurring on these areas of emphasize improved management people of the West and the American the national forests. What has hap- on public lands where it is inade- public in general. These benefits are pened to the ranch lands that were at- quate to maintain resource condi- ecological, social and economic. tached to those grazing permits? tions. But we also need to recognize These so-called public land ranches What has happened to the national those areas where there is excellent make up a significant portion of the forest lands since grazing has been management and use those as exam- private lands in many western coun- eliminated? We can study these ex- ples for others. ties. As a consequence they produce amples to see the actual "benefits" of A major factor in the improvement a significant portion of native plant removing grazing from the national of conditions to range lands in the and wildlife habitats in the limited, forests. To date, this has not been North Fork Valley and Delta County mostly privately owned valley bot- done. If this debate about grazing on is the educational program initiated toms. The conversion of these agri- national forests is to continue, these by Colorado State University cultural areas to human housing de- questions need to be addressed. Cooperative Extension Service velopments causes distinct losses of There is a significant relationship known as "The Range Management habitat in these valley bottoms. between private land ranches in the Schools for Ranchers." These schools In addition, these ranches provide West and the public land grazing provide improved range and livestock a significant amount of the open permits that those ranches hold. management to ranchers and produce space that characterizes rural west- There are benefits that our commu- dramatic on-the-ground improve- ern Colorado. Development on agri- nities derive from that relationship. ments. The schools have been taught cultural lands is creating increasing We need to change how we view in western Colorado since 1995. concerns for the public. The loss of that relationship. We need to recog- These schools have been an over- open space and the conversion of the nize that ranches with public land whelming success. rural landscape to an urban, subur- grazing permits provide significant They have created a collaborative ban and exurban environment is cre- ecological, social and economic ben- approach to improved range manage- ating increasing concerns for west- efits to the communities of the West. ment on the public lands. The ern communities. Government spon- These ranches are an integral part of schools have also produced numer- sored "Open Space" programs and the western landscape. We need to ous on the ground results. Several "Conservation Easements" can help focus on the entire ecosystem and ranches in the North Fork Valley mitigate the loss of these open decide what our desired future con- have been recognized for their out- spaces but they are expensive and dition of that ecosystem will be. standing management. The Campbell still require some type of on-going and Sons Ranch and the West Elk land management. The rapid devel- About the authors: David Bradford is Livestock Association have been opment of housing is also creating rangeland management specialist, Paonia Ranger District, GMUG NF, Paonia, recognized for their management of an economic impact that rural coun- Colorado. Floyd Reed is range staff offi- National Forest rangelands. There is ties are struggling to deal with. cer, GMUG NF, Delta, Colorado. Robbie If we are to continue to discuss the a direct link between the on-the- Baird LeValley is Colorado State ground improvements and the Range removal of livestock grazing from University livestock/range extension spe- Management Schools for Ranchers. public lands, we need to consider cialist, Tri-River Area, Delta, Colorado. We believe these examples demon- what will happen to the ranches that Calvin Campbell is a rancher in the strate that livestock grazing can currently hold those grazing permits. North Fork Valley-Campbell & Sons Will management on those private Ranch, Hotchkiss, Colorado. Steve occur on public lands and also ac- Kossler is a rancher in the North Fork complish the many resource objec- lands change? Will they remain as Valley-Mt. Lamborn Ranches, Paonia, tives that the public lands are ex- active ranches? Will they be sold Colorado. pected to provide. We believe these and subdivided for housing? There examples also strongly demonstrate are existing examples. Numerous the relationships between private Colorado counties, such as Boulder, ~ " f .. .. ~ April2002 11

References Bradford, D. F., Reed, J. Campbell, Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2202. C. Campbell, and C. Campbell Gustanki, J .A., Squires R.H. editors Adams County, Boulder County, 2000. Campbell and Sons Ranch: 2000. Protecting the Land: Douglas County, EI Paso County, Colorado Section SRM 1999 Conservation Easements Past, Present Jefferson County, Larimer County, Excellence in Rangeland Conservation and Future. Island Press, Washington Pitkin County and the City of Award." Rangelands V. 22, No.4, 8- D.c., Covelo, CA. Boulder. 9. Sayre, Nathan F. 2001. The New Ranch American Farmland Trust. 10-31- Chapman, Mary, Nancy Fishering, Handbook: A Guide to Restoring 2000; website: http://farmland.org and Maria Forster. 1997. "The Western Rangelands, p. 21-32. The Baird LeValley, R. , J. Murray, F. Regional Economic Design Project: Quivira Coalition, Santa Fe, N.M. Reed, J. Hawks, and D. Bradford. Final Report on the Base Economy of The Use of the National Forests. U.S. 2000. The Range Management School Delta and Montrose Counties. Department of Agriculture, Forest for Ranchers: or How to Teach Range Delta County Assessors Office. Service, 1907. Management to a Bunch.of Cowboys." Personal Communication; November Vavra, Martin, William A. Laycock, Rangelands. V. 22, No.4, 10-13. 11,2000. and Rex D. Piper. 1994. Ecological Bradford, D. 1998. "Holistic Resource Ferriday, James 2001. "Uncompahgre Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West Elks-Why It Works." Plateau Base Ranch Mapping in the West, p. 202. Society for Range Rangelands V. 20, No. I, p. 6-9. Project." Draft Report-IO/25/2001. Management, Denver, CO.

.. .,