S.D. senator hopes to garner rancher support for grasslands bill

Phil Taylor

A bill that would create the nation's first national grasslands wilderness in southwestern South Dakota may hinge on the support of a handful of ranchers who are concerned with how such a designation would impact their rights to graze on public lands.

Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) proposal to give 48,000 acres of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland the highest level of federal protections enjoys strong support from the Forest Service, American Indian tribes, and hunting and environmental groups who recreate in the area's sweeping prairie landscapes and rugged buttes.

But some remain skeptical about whether a permanent designation is necessary for an area that is already managed primarily as de facto wilderness, and vocal resistance has come from a few holders of the roughly 15 permits issued to graze on lands identified in the proposal.

"Nobody has been able to explain to me exactly what wilderness legislation would 'protect' the proposed wilderness areas from," Hermosa rancher Scott Edoff told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at a June hearing on the bill. "The historic multiple use management of these areas has allowed a variety of uses, including motorized access, rock hounding and grazing, none of which have apparently adversely affected the areas' wilderness qualities."

Also, some ranchers fear that wilderness restrictions -- which generally bar federal agencies from using motorized vehicles and equipment -- would tie the Forest Service's hands in the battle to prevent noxious weeds and prairie dogs from damaging the grasslands and the forage they provide.

In what Edoff called a "death by a thousand cuts," the Forest Service could gradually reduce the number of cattle that are permitted to graze in the wilderness areas as invasive species move further into the wilderness area.

"The Forest Service technically has the authority to manage wildlife, noxious weeds and fire in wilderness areas," Edoff said. "However, their options are clearly more limited, in terms of methods, timeliness, cost, and effectiveness, inside designated wilderness than outside of designated wilderness."

His concern drew sympathy from South Dakota Sen. John Thune (R), who said he shared ranchers' concerns with how a wilderness designation would ultimately impact pest management, natural disaster mitigation, grazing permits and recreational activities in the area.

"Currently, there are ample land use restrictions in place that have successfully kept this area in pristine condition for generations," he said.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D), South Dakota's lone representative, has not said whether she supports the objectives of S. 3310, which has no cosponsors.

Addressing concerns

Johnson said his staff is meeting with South Dakota ranchers who would be affected by the proposal in hopes of addressing any concerns ahead of a possible committee vote on the bill.

While the bill was not included in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's latest round of markups, "it is on a positive trajectory," Julianne Fisher, Johnson's spokeswoman, said.

In the meantime, the senator is working to arrange a personal visit with ranchers during the August congressional recess, said Fisher.

The senator will also have to address the concerns of state officials who are still chafing over the effects they say other wilderness designations have had on public land management in the state.

South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds (R) in a May letter to Johnson said he is disappointed the senator did not consider the negative impacts wilderness designation has caused in the Black Elk area southwest of Rapid City, where a pine beetle infestation has turned the trees surrounding Mount Rushmore National Memorial into a sea of orange.

"The problems that arise on lands designated as wilderness continue to have detrimental effects on South Dakotans, and more acres of wilderness would only exacerbate the problem," Rounds wrote. "In practice, designating the [Buffalo Gap National Grassland] as wilderness will mean fewer animals on fewer acres for a few short years before grazing is completely discontinued."

But such warnings belie the fact that pine beetles pose no threat to the relatively treeless landscape of Buffalo Gap and reflect key misunderstandings about how wilderness designations actually affect land managers, said Cheryl Warren, manager of the South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition.

"People look at these orange forests and say that seems deplorable and atrocious," Warner said of the beetle-killed wilderness area. "But the Forest Service has quite a range of management tools available to them in wilderness areas, and in this case it chose not to use them."

In the case of Buffalo Gap, concerns that the Forest Service would reduce grazing -- which is legally protected under the 1964 Wilderness Act -- assume a worst-case scenario whereby the agency allows the grasslands to degrade, which would violate the act itself, Warner said.

"I believe the [South Dakota] government is still operating under the mistaken assumption that wilderness means no management," she said, adding that a regional forester could decide to use motorized vehicles in a wilderness area if it is deemed necessary to preserve wilderness qualities.

Codifying existing management

In a conference call with reporters last week, Johnson insisted that his legislation would merely make permanent a management plan for Buffalo Gap that was finalized in 2002.

"It is managed as wilderness country now," Johnson said. "If anything, the rights that ranchers have now will be improved under this wilderness area."

The Forest Service plan recommended the vast majority of the area's 48,000 acres be managed as wilderness, and the 4,500-acre Chalk Hills area that was not included in the plan has suitable wilderness characteristics and should be included in the plan, said Joel Holtrop, the agency's deputy chief of the national forest system.

But without a congressional mandate, the striped buttes and stunning plateaus marking the otherwise grassy terrain remain subject to changes under future administrations and are already threatened by the noise of illegal off-highway vehicles, said Dan O'Brien, a Hermosa rancher who holds the largest grazing permit in the northern portion of the proposed wilderness area.

"When I take people back there on foot or on horseback, they are uniformly awestruck by the beauty and silence that is woefully lacking in their lives," he told the Senate panel. "Without this additional layer of protection, the Indian Creek Area will eventually fall prey to the same abuses and destruction, in the form of unauthorized or additional authorized off-road traffic, that other public land in our area has fallen prey to."

Johnson, who said he has solicited input from local stakeholders for more than nine months, called the proposal a "citizen-driven" bill that could boost the local economy by luring recreation seekers.

A Forest Service report released yesterday found that recreation activities on national forests and grasslands have helped sustain an estimated 223,000 jobs in rural areas and contributed approximately $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy.

Visitors spent $13 billion directly in communities within 50 miles of national forests and grasslands, according to the report.

--

Source: Land Letter

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites