Get reliable rangeland science

In 1969 Congress passed The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a deceptively simple statute which substantially altered the manner in which agencies of the U.S. government make decisions regarding projects that impact the human environment. Enacted into law on January 1, 1970, NEPA laid the foundation for a coherent national approach to the environment by requiring the integration of environmental quality concerns into Federal policymaking and decision making. Through NEPA, the Federal government began requiring three vital processes during project planning that had not been consistently undertaken before. These requirements are:

1. that all Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions
2. that the public be informed of the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions
3. that the public be involved in planning and analysis relevant to actions that impact the environment

In order to fulfill these requirements, Federal agencies implement what has come to be known as the "NEPA process" when planning projects with environmental impacts. While often viewed as yet another bureaucratic hoop to jump through, the primary objective of this process.

Beginning in the 1960s, the public started to become more concerned about the impacts of agriculture on the natural environment. In addition, the public began to look to public lands for uses other than natural resources extraction like timber, grazing and mining. In response, Congress passed a series of laws that changed how we use and manage public lands. The most significant of these is the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA. Information on how NEPA works is available here (link). Other important laws include:

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960): explicitly required the USFS to manage public lands according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, e.g. that the US Forest Service should work to balance multiple interests while also ensuring the availability of resource for future generations.

The Endangered Species Act (1973): provides specific legal protections for species at risk of extinction. This law prevents any type of harm to species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered with extinction and under certain conditions can require changes in management to protect species.

The National Forest Management Act (1976): sets specific rules for how the US Forest Service conducts planning and management activities, including requiring national forests to develop and implement resource management plans that consider all uses of forests while maintaining sustainability of resource use.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976): sets similar rules for the BLM as are set for the US Forest Service in the National Forest Management Act. Also puts in place specific requirements to restore rangelands and prevent future overgrazing and rangeland degradation.

The Clean Water Act (1972): was designed to protect waterways from pollution. This law has been highly contentious over the years because of the impact of the regulations on landowners in areas with wetlands and small streams.

The Public Rangeland Improvement Act (1978): sets the formula for calculation of grazing fees that is still in use today.

The Rescissions Act (1995): required the US Forest Service to conduct NEPA analysis on grazing allotments on a specific timeline.

Grazing fees are set differently for federal public lands and state trust lands. All federal lands, whether they are managed by the BLM, US Forest Service, or some other federal agency, are always the same. The formula for setting grazing fees on public lands was last changed in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. This formula is based on the market value of forage on the public lands. It takes into account market rates for private land grazing leases, current market prices for beef cattle, and the expected costs of livestock production. Regardless of these factors, grazing fees can never drop below $1.35 per animal unit, per month and can never increase by more than 25% from one year to the next. An animal unit is generally calculated as a single cow/calf pair.

State trust lands also charge grazing fees, but the approach to calculating these fees is highly variable from one state to the next. For example, in Arizona, grazing fees are set based on the estimated value of the forage on state trust lands. In California, fees are set based on fair market value of equivalent private grazing leases. Montana, Idaho, and other states have their own formulas for calculating grazing fees. As a result, the fees for grazing on state trust land are highly variable across the western states. In some states, federal and state grazing fees are similar. In other states, the grazing fees on state trust lands are much higher than federal public lands.

Grazing permits on state trust lands are similar to permits on federal public lands. Like federal public lands, a grazing permit on state trust lands is a privilege, not a right. Ranchers must renew their grazing permits over time, pay grazing fees, and meet management standards set by the state. Generally, ranchers who currently hold a permit to graze on state trust lands have preference when the permit comes up for renewal so long as they are paying their grazing fees and meeting management requirements.

There are also important differences between federal public land and state trust land grazing permits. First, when ranchers install fencing, water systems, and other rangeland improvements on state trust land, they generally own this infrastructure. While similar infrastructure is required on federal public lands to maintain permits, the rancher does not own the improvements they install on public land. Instead, these improvements belong to the agency that manages the land – either the US Forest Service or the BLM. Second, ranchers with state trust land permits pay their grazing fees to the state rather than the federal government. In some states the grazing fees on state trust lands are low and similar to that of federal public lands. In other states they are higher than federal grazing fees. Finally, there may come a time when the state decides that there are more profitable uses of grazing lands, especially development. When this occurs, the state land department may sell the land for development or some other purpose rather than maintain the grazing permit.

Both the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau for Land Management (BLM) issue permits to livestock producers. These permits allow ranchers to use specific areas of public rangelands called grazing allotments to support livestock herds. Ranchers must meet two basic requirements to qualify for a federal grazing permit:

Base Property: First, ranchers must own private land capable of supporting a livestock operation. This is called a “base property.” Base properties are specifically linked to a grazing permit; in order to maintain a grazing permit, a rancher must also maintain control over the base property associated with it. If a base property is taken out of livestock production, the allotment can be linked to a different base property.

Livestock Ownership: The USFS requires ranchers to own the livestock they plan to graze on public lands. The BLM allows ranchers to graze both their own livestock and livestock they lease from others. When grazing leased livestock, the grazing fee is higher.

Once a rancher qualifies for a grazing permit, they must pay annual grazing fees and manage their livestock consistent with federal regulations and the management plan and operating instructions specific to the grazing allotments for which they hold permits. Ranchers can lose their privilege to graze on public lands if they fail to pay their annual grazing fees or if their management fails to meet the standards set by the USFS or BLM. Generally, ranchers are required to maintain all ranch infrastructure on public lands, including fencing and water systems, as well as follow grazing schedules set each year in collaboration with agency personnel. They may also be required to meet other management requirements, such as special management for wildlife and endangered species. Finally, grazing is only one use of public lands. The management of livestock may be altered or reduced to ensure other uses such as recreation, hunting, and wilderness are maintained.

Rangeland ecosystems are always changing. Succession is the replacement of one plant community by another. Succession occurs through changes in species composition, the abundance of species, and other shifts in plant communities over time. There are two types of succession: primary and secondary successions. Primary successions begin from bare ground such as lava flows and volcanic ash deposits. Secondary successions are those that happen after a disturbance such as fire or grazing.

Historically, rangeland scientists thought that the process of succession in rangeland systems proceeded until a single, stable “climax” plant community was reached and the system was in equilibrium. Today, advances in rangeland science have helped us to understand that many rangeland systems have more than one potential stable plant community. This has changed the way management of rangeland ecosystems is approached. State and transition models (STMs) describe vegetation dynamics and how ecosystems respond to certain disturbances or management practices. Each “state” in an STM is a stable plant community. Each “transition” is a change that can push an ecosystem to a different stable plant community, for example a wildfire, shrub encroachment, or erosion from overgrazing. By developing STMs for different places, rangeland ecologists and managers can improve our understanding of the potential impacts of different management approaches. State and transition models are now an important tool used by federal agencies in management planning and evaluation of the condition of rangeland ecosystems.

Following the end of the Civil War and the development of railroads linking western states and territories with eastern markets, the livestock industry in the western U.S. began a massive expansion. Throughout the late 1800s, livestock grazing developed into a hugely profitable business, drawing investments from eastern cities and even Europe. These investments resulted in a huge growth of western livestock herds. These herds were largely dependent on public lands for forage resources. By 1884 there were an estimated 40 million cattle in the western states, with an estimated 1.5 million head of cattle in Arizona alone. The semi-arid ranges found on the public lands of the western U.S. were not capable of supporting such large numbers and this resulted in large scale overgrazing. This era would ultimately end in both catastrophe and promise for the future. Repeated droughts in the 1880s and 1890s, and the extremely harsh winter of 1886-87, caused the death of millions of cattle and left vast areas of eroded and bare soils in their wake. 

However, this ecological disaster also had a silver lining: ranchers and government agencies recognized the need for regulations to prevent over grazing of public lands and, as a result, the new science of rangeland ecology and management to improve our understanding of rangeland ecosystems and prevent similar outcomes in the future.