Environmental Review

Environmental ReviewA Monthly Newsletter of Environmental Science and Policy

Volume Eight Number Ten October 2001

CONTENTS:

LOSS OF HABITATIN THE

WOLONG PANDARESERVEJianguo Liu

A PLAN TO RESTORETHE NATIONALGRASSLANDSGreg Schenbeck

Have Panda ReservesBeen Effective?

Introducation:

With fewer than 1,200 animalsliving in the wild, the giant panda isone of the world's most endangeredspecies. Pandas once ranged from themountains of northern China south toVietnam. Today they live in aboutthirty isolated populations in themountains of Sichuan province incentral China.

The Chinese government with helpfrom several non governmentalorganizations has taken steps to protectthe remaining pandas and rebuild theirnumbers. They have established thirty-two panda reserves; they have cooper-ated on captive breeding programsboth inside and outside China; theyhave made poaching a panda a capitalcrime; and they have made substantialefforts to improve panda habitat in thewild.

Jianguo Liu and his associatesstudied the effectiveness of efforts toprotect the pandas in China and foundthat the amount of suitable habitat forpandas in the Wolong reserve hasdeclined since the reserve was estab-lished1. Commercial-scale logging wasbanned in the reserve but local peopleare still allowed to collect wood forheating and cooking and building; eventhis reduced level of forest use contin-ues to degrade panda habitat.

We spoke with Professor Liu abouthis work and about continuing efforts

by the Chinese government to improveconditions for the giant panda.

ER: Professor Liu, what is yourtraining?

JL: Before I came to the United StatesI received a Master’s degree from theChinese Academy of Sciences inBeijing in which my major wasecology. I did my Ph.D. at the Univer-sity of Georgia, and then I did mypostdoctoral study at Harvard Univer-sity before I came to Michigan StateUniversity to join the faculty.

I have long been interested inintegrating ecology withsocioeconomics because I believe that

without that integration it’s hard toaddress many complicated issues.Traditionally, ecologists tend to focuson natural ecosystems; but unfortu-nately no single place on Earth is notaffected by human beings. Thus, I tryto integrate human factors (e.g.,socioeconomics and human demogra-phy) into the ecological context.

The panda project is just one of theprojects I have been doing since Iarrived here at Michigan State. I’malso doing some ecological andeconomic research on Michigan foreststrying to evaluate the ecologicalimpacts as well as the economicimpacts of the natural resourcesmanagement.

Another project is to see how landcover and land use patterns havechanged in Michigan since pre-European settlement times. We usesatellite data and aerial photos to assessthe changes of land use since pre-settlement, and then we have informa-tion from the 1930s up through the 90sto look at the changes in differentregions and how urbanization occurs indifferent areas of Michigan. We have asociologist on this project as well as anaquatic ecologist and we’re basicallytrying to see how land use changeshave taken place, the mechanisms ofthe changes, and their effects on boththe terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Another project that we justfinished is how the expansion of publicland would affect private land owner-ship. We have been working on theShiawassee National Wildlife Refuge,which is trying to expand to be moreeffective in habitat protection. Butwhere to buy the land is a big issue

2

Environmental Review

The Environmental Review (ISSN 1080-644X) is published the first business day of each month. Address correspondence to 6920 Roosevelt Way N.E.PMB 307, Seattle, WA. 98115. Copyright by the Environmental Review. Douglas P. Taylor, Publisher. Domestic subscriptions (12 issues) $25.00 inU.S. currency. For Canada and Mexico add $10.00. All other foreign add $21.00. Teachers, students, and seniors in the U.S. may subscribe for $15.00per year. Email subscription is free. Change of address: allow 4 weeks, giving old and new address. email [email protected] - Web site URL =http://www.igc.apc.org/envreview

Alan Franklin

because of the private land owners. Sowe did ecological and sociologicalstudies to find out whether people arewilling to sell the land to the NationalWildlife Refuge and, if they are, whichland is best for the Refuge.

ER: What was the point of yourwork on the Wolong PandaReserve?

JL: The global human popula-tion has increased dramatically,and with that, the demands uponnatural resources have in-creased significantly, and as aresult, both the quantity and thequality of natural resources,including biodiversity, havebeen reduced. In order to protectthe biodiversity more than12,000 protected areas such asnature reserves have been set upin different countries; the totalsize of the protected areas isactually bigger than the territoryof the United States or China,two of the biggest countries inthe world. Protected areas areviewed as the last best chancefor biodiversity conservation.

But once those protectedareas are established, nobodyknows whether those areas arereally protected. That’s the mainquestion we have been trying toaddress. If they are not in fact pro-tected, then where can we protect thebiodiversity? If they really are pro-tected then that’s great, but we cannotassume that.

The panda is now an endangeredspecies. In the past they had a widedistribution. You can find panda fossilsnot only in China but also in neighbor-

ing countries such as in Vietnam. Butnow the pandas’ distribution is limitedto much smaller areas mainly in thesouthwestern part of China, and theirdistribution has been fragmented. Andalthough nobody knows how many

pandas are left, a number peopleusually use is about 1,000 pandas leftin the wild.ER: How many reserves are there?

JL: China has established thirty-threepanda reserves to protect the pandahabitat. Most of these reserves are inthe southwestern part of China, mainlySichuan province. Among those panda

reserves, Wolong Nature Reserve isone of the earliest reserves and one ofthe biggest. It’s in Sichuan provinceabout three or four hours drive fromChendu, which is the capital city ofSichuan province.

The Wolong Reserve is alsopart of the Man and BiosphereProgram of the UN and so it’swell known and is treated as aflagship reserve for pandas anda lot of money has beeninvested in this reserve. Also,as some people may know,George Schaller was one of thefirst people that did biologicalresearch in this reserve. Theydid biological research on whatpandas eat and where pandasstay and what habitat pandasprefer. They also did somebehavioral studies, like matingbehavior and feeding behaviorand so on. This research isimportant, but it’s not sufficientto address the most criticalissue to pandas’ survival,which is the loss and fragmen-tation of their habitat.The pandas have low produc-

tivity, they have a smallnumber of babies in theirlifetime. But pandas have beenthere for many thousands ofyears, so biologically a lowbirth rate is not normally a

problem for them.The main problems we see today

are the loss and fragmentation of theirhabitat due to human activities. Peoplehave destroyed the panda habitat to alarge extent by cutting the trees thatpandas depend on for forest cover.

Also, as many people know,pandas eat bamboo. Bamboo is the

Volume Eight Number TenOctober 2001

3


main food source but in order for thebamboo to be good for the pandas, ithas to grow up under the trees as anunderstory plant. If there is too muchlight, then the growth form is not goodfor the pandas. In other words, if youhave bamboo there but without thetrees, without a forest cover, thepandas may not use the bamboo. Sopandas need both forest coverand the bamboo as part of thehabitat.

Also, pandas like more flatareas because they move moreeasily in the flat area, just likepeople. So too steep an area isnot good for them. And theyhave a limitation in elevation: ifyou have too high elevation,that’s not good for them; toolow elevation is not good forthem either.

Then, if you have thehuman factor incorporated intothe equation, that means thehabitat will be much morelimited because people will cutdown the forest, which willreduce the amount of habitat.And depending on where theforest is harvested, then youmay fragment the habitat, oryou divide the habitat intosmaller pieces.

ER:I'm surprised people areallowed to live in the reserve.

JL: Even in the panda reserveslike Wolong reserve, there arestill local residents who depend on thenatural resources from the forest fortheir daily life. People may think thatsince it’s a reserve, you don’t havepeople there, but that’s not the case.Actually, in the Wolong reserve thereare now more than 4,000 people livinginside the reserve.

ER: Is that an increase?

JL: Since the reserve was establishedin 1975, the number of local residentshas increased by 70 percent, and thenumber of households has more thandoubled since then because the socialstructure of the local residents haschanged dramatically. As you may

know, traditionally Chinese people hadthree or four generations live under oneroof. But nowadays young people liketo establish their own households afterthey get married, so you have morepeople separated from their parentsand grandparents who establish theirnew household. That’s why the rate ofhousehold increase is bigger than thepopulation increase in the reserve.

That has important implicationsfor the panda habitat, because morehouseholds use more land to buildhouses. Also, the efficiency of energyuse is lower in smaller households thanin bigger households. For example, ifyou make a fire in the wintertime toheat up the house, then no matter if youhave ten people in the house or two

people in the house, you have afire. And then on average, perperson, a larger household willhave a higher efficiency ofenergy use.

ER: They’re becoming morelike Americans.

JL: Right, yes. So that’s thesocial structure change. Andthis kind of a change means alot of change in the pandahabitat through human activi-ties.

ER: What are those activities?

JL: In the reserve there aremany kinds of human activitiesthat affect pandas. Farming isthe main one because theydepend on the land for food.Commercial timber harvestingwas stopped when the reservewas established, but non-commercial timber harvestingcontinues because people needtimber to build their house andmake furniture and so on. Theamount of timber harvest is

small compared to commerciallogging, but it still has impact there.

One of the most important uses offorest wood is the fuel collection.People go to the mountains to collecttheir fuel by cutting down trees; it’s notjust the tree branches. Sometimes it’strue, people will collect the treebranches for fuel wood, but many


4


times people cut down the trees inareas which would be suitable for thepandas. If you cut more trees in thepanda reserve area, then it degrades thepanda habitat.

Fuel wood is the major energysource forcooking andheating, espe-cially during thewintertime whenthe reserve iscold. The highestmountain is morethan 6,000 meters[19,200 feet].Nobody livesthere, but manypeople live in thereserves whichare 2,000 to 3,000meters above sealevel. It’s prettyhigh, so it’s coldin the wintertime,and it’s importantto have enoughfuel wood to heatin the wintertime.

Another useof fuel wood is tocook food forpigs. Pigs are themain livestock inthe reserve andtheir food has tobe cookedbecause thetemperature is solow. We’ve talkedto people in the reserve, asking them,Why do you need to cook? Why notjust feed them the raw material? Andthe local residents told us that it is notgood for the pigs to grow because thetemperature is too low.

Besides these activities there aresome indirect activities like tourismwhich will have an impact. In the past,

before the reserve was established, noone visited the area but now we’ve gotmore than 100,000 people a yearvisiting the reserve.

Some of these visitors may buylocal products, which depend on the

forest. Tourism stimulated the eco-nomic development in the reserve andindirectly increased the demand for thelocal products, so that encourages localresidents to produce more localproducts by consuming the forest. Ifthey want to produce more pigs forexample, then they have to cut downmore trees to cook the food for thepigs.

There are other activities likecollection of Chinese medicine in theforest and some other local productsthat people may sell in the local marketto tourists, and this indirectly impactsthe reserve.

Those aresome of the mainsocioeconomicactivities in thereserve, and bycombining theseactivities then yousee the impact theyhave on the pandahabitat. Ourresearch found thatafter the reservewas established, therate of loss of high-quality habitatactually was higherthan before thereserve wasestablished, mainlydue to the increasein the local popula-tion and theincrease in humanactivities in thepreserve. Thatresult was surpris-ing to us because,like many otherpeople, we as-sumed that thepanda habitat wasbetter protectedafter the establish-ment of the reserve

than before.

ER: Would the loss of habitat beenworse if the reserves had not gone in?

JL: Possibly. That’s something that wedon’t have an answer for. When thereserve was established the commer-cial logging was stopped, and now the

The giant panda is now restricted to a few enclaves in themountains of Sichuan province in south central China.Panda fossils have been found as far south as Vietnam.


5


TTTTThe he he he he EnEnEnEnEnvirvirvirvirvironmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Revievievievieviewwwww is an inde is an inde is an inde is an inde is an independent nependent nependent nependent nependent newsletter ofwsletter ofwsletter ofwsletter ofwsletter ofenenenenenvirvirvirvirvir onmental science and policonmental science and policonmental science and policonmental science and policonmental science and policy puby puby puby puby published blished blished blished blished byyyyyEnEnEnEnEnvirvirvirvirvir onmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Revievievievieview Educaw Educaw Educaw Educaw Educational Sertional Sertional Sertional Sertional Services,vices,vices,vices,vices, a non-pr a non-pr a non-pr a non-pr a non-profofofofofititititit501(c)(3) cor501(c)(3) cor501(c)(3) cor501(c)(3) cor501(c)(3) corporporporporporaaaaation. It is not aftion. It is not aftion. It is not aftion. It is not aftion. It is not affffffiliailiailiailiailia ted with anted with anted with anted with anted with any othery othery othery othery otherorororororggggganizaanizaanizaanizaanization. tion. tion. tion. tion. TTTTThe he he he he EnEnEnEnEnvirvirvirvirvironmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Revievievievieviewwwww pr pr pr pr prooooovides anvides anvides anvides anvides anadadadadadvvvvvererererertising-frtising-frtising-frtising-frtising-fr ee fee fee fee fee forororororum fum fum fum fum for discussion of some of the mostor discussion of some of the mostor discussion of some of the mostor discussion of some of the mostor discussion of some of the mostinterinterinterinterinteresting and imporesting and imporesting and imporesting and imporesting and important issues of our timetant issues of our timetant issues of our timetant issues of our timetant issues of our time.....

major impact is the fuel collection, andthe amount of fuel collection is muchbigger than before the reserve wasestablished. And also, before thereserve was established there was notourism, so there was no indirectimpact from that. But it’s possible thatthe establishment of the reserve mayhave helped reduce the rate of habitatloss, we don’t know the answerbecause there was no way to compare.

ER: Did establishing a panda reserveattract people to move there?

JL: The only way that you can movethere legally is through marriage. Wedid see some girls fromoutside of the reserve getmarried with boys insidethe reserve, so that’s amigration that will help toincrease the populationinside the reserve. That’sthe only legal way thatpeople can move into thereserve.

Another reason forthis population growth isthe high birth rate, muchhigher than other parts ofthe country because themajority of the localresidents belong tominority ethnic groups,mainly Tibetans. Accord-ing to China’s policy,these minority people do not need tofollow the one-child policy. As manypeople know, China has a one-childpolicy, but minorities can still havethree or four, and sometimes evenmore children. That’s why the popula-tion has been growing so fast in thereserve. That’s another reason why wehave to consider this a social dimen-sion of the problem and ademographical issue.

ER: Do we have some GIS-typeinformation on the shape of theremaining habitat?

JL: Yes. The way we assessed the

habitat change was to combine satellitedata with field data. We have this mapto demonstrate the spatial distributionof the panda habitat. We know wherethe good habitat is, where the pandahabitat has changed from good to bador from bad to good. Also, we havemaps to demonstrate how pandahabitat has changed over time and thechanges in the overall forest as wellbefore and after the reserve wasestablished.

ER: What has been the government’sinterest in your information? Do theyplan to make any more efforts toimprove the situation?

JL: Yes. This article has generallycreated great interest, to say the least,in the media in China as well as otherparts of the world. The governmentagencies know the article, someone hastranslated the article from English toChinese and published it on the Web. Ihave not read the translation yet, butthe government agency people showedme the article. And also, a lot ofChinese newspapers and magazineshave published stories on this. Mycollaborators and I have also beencommunicating with the governmentagencies, so now the government istrying to make some changes.

One of the changes they aremaking now is to stop forest harvest-ing, including the fuel collection. Nowthere is a natural forest protection plan,a program which provides some moneyfor the local residents to be responsiblefor a particular area of the forest. So ifsomeone harvests a tree in the area forwhich you are responsible, then somemoney will be taken away, you get lessmoney from the government.

And also now they are building asmall hydropower station to provideelectricity for the local residents tosubstitute for the fuel wood. We hopethat the price for electricity will be lowenough so that the local residents can


6


afford it instead of using wood forcooking and heating.

These are the two new programsgoing on right now in the reserve. Andalso, for the long term we think it’snecessary to reduce the human pres-sure inside the reserve. In the past thegovernment had tried to move somelocal people out of the reserve, butsome of these people moved out andthen moved back again because theywere not used to the outside environ-ment. Our research showed that mostof the old people don’t want to moveout of the reserve, but young people arewilling to move out of the reserve,especially if there are higher educationopportunities. If they can go to collegeor go to technical schools, then theywill be happy and they’ll find jobselsewhere and then they will set uptheir families outside the reserve andnot have babies inside the reserve.

We did a computer simulation andfound that if we just move 22 percentof the young people outside of thereserve, then by the year 2047 thepopulation size inside the reserve willbe reduced from more than 4,000 toabout 700 people. Then the pandahabitat can recover, because if youhave fewer people then there are fewerdemands for the fuel wood and othernatural resources.

This is the long-term solution.Short-term you can provide electricity,for example, but if the price is too high,then people still have to cut down thetrees. So the long-term solution is toreduce the human pressure, but we’vegot to combine short-term and thelong-term solutions.

ER: Is there any interest in rebuildingor enlarging, defragmenting thehabitat?

JL: The government agencies aretrying to restore the habitat, but right

now mainly they’re talking aboutplanting trees and other restorationefforts. This has to be done carefullybecause it depends on what treesyou’re planting. In the past, theyplanted some trees but the plantationsdid not provide good habitat for thepandas. If you plant trees you haveforest cover but no bamboo, so that’snot good for the pandas either. You’vegot to have both bamboo and the forest.

ER: Is the government responding tothat?

JL: Yes, the government is moving inthat direction. They’re trying to restoresome of the habitat maybe just throughthe natural processes in some of theareas, and then in other areas they planttrees.

ER: 1,000 left in the wild is gettingclose to the point of collapse for thepopulation. Is black market andpoaching a serious threat?

JL: Poaching actually now is a lesserproblem because the government has areally strict punishment policy, death.So nowadays poaching is not assignificant as habitat loss and habitatfragmentation. We have been wonder-ing which one is more important, butthe habitat loss is now the mostimportant factor for the pandas.

Literature Cited:

1 Ecological Degradation in ProtectedAreas: The Case of the Wolong NatureReserve for Giant Pandas. J. Liu, M.Linderman, Z. Ouyang, L. An, J. Yang,H. Zhang 2001 Science 292:98-101

Preservation andRecovery of theNational Grasslands

Introduction:

The Great Plains of North Americaoriginally covered more than 500million acres, most of which has beenconverted to farms and ranches. Thegrasslands once extended fromnortheastern Mexico to southeastAlberta and from the Rocky Mountainfront range to Wisconsin, Illinois andeast Texas. The federal governmentbought back some land in this regionfrom bankrupt farmers during theeconomic and environmental disastersof the 1930s and today holds title toabout 1 percent of the total area. Theselands are administered by the USForest Service as the Great PlainsNational Grasslands.

The first comprehensive plan forthe management of the NationalGrasslands was adopted in the 1980sand the second plan is now in the finalstages of preparation. The ForestService is required to manage theNational Grasslands in accordancewith the Endangered Species Act, theNational Environmental Policy Act,and other laws meant to protect thenatural resources, but it is also underpressure from landowners, ranchers,farmers and agribusinesses to continuetheir use, often subsidized, of thesepublic lands.The Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement and revised Landand Resource Management Plans forthe national grasslands can be viewed


7


at www.fs.fed.us/ngp. We spoke withGreg Schenbeck of the US ForestService about the history of theNational Grasslands and the ForestService's evolving plans for theirprotection and restoration.

ER: Greg, what is your background?

GS: I have a BS and an MS degreefrom Colorado State University inwildlife biology and have been awildlife biologist on the nationalgrasslands for the last twenty-fiveyears. Most of my work experience hasbeen integrating fish and wildlifehabitat considerationsand objectives intolivestock grazingmanagement strategieson the grasslands. I’vealso worked extensivelyin black-tailed prairiedog management, black-footed ferret recovery,and habitat managementfor prairie grouse.

I served on thenational black-footedferret recovery team inthe 1980s and recentlyworked in black-footedferret recovery on theBadlands National Parkand Buffalo Gap Na-tional Grassland in SouthDakota (Conata Basin/Badlands ReintroductionArea). I had the opportu-nity to help release thefirst black-footed ferretsback into the wild in South Dakota in1994.

ER: The black-footed ferret is endan-gered; what about the grouse?

GS: I work with plains sharp-tailedgrouse and greater prairie chicken.Neither species is listed or a candidatefor listing under the EndangeredSpecies Act. The range of the greaterprairie chicken historically extendedacross much of central North Americabut is now substantially reduced. Thisis a bird of the prairie, and much of itshistoric habitat is now dedicated torow-crop production, primarily cornand soybean. Various conservationorganizations and agencies are activelyengaged in prairie restoration to helpensure that the listing of the greaterprairie chicken does not become an

issue in the future.

The plains sharp-tailed grouse hasfared better; it’s range has also beenmeasurably reduced but not nearly tothe extent experienced by greaterprairie chicken.

ER: How are the ferrets doing?

GS: The reintroduced ferret populationin the Conata Basin/Badlands Reintro-duction Area is currently doing welland reproducing in the wild. The latestspotlight count on the national grass-land part of the reintroduction arearevealed at least 83 adult ferrets and 48wild-born kits. This is currently one ofthe most productive and successfulrecovery sites in the nation for thisendangered species.

ER: What was it about the site thatmade it good for black-footed ferrets?

GS: The Conata Basin/Badlands area has a historyof large black-tailed prairiedog colonies. Black-footedferrets spend most theirlives in prairie dog colo-nies, eating prairie dogsand living underground inprairie dog burrows; if youdon’t have prairie dogs,you don’t have black-footed ferrets. Prairie dogson the Buffalo GapNational Grassland andintermingled private landsin Conata Basin werepoisoned extensively upthrough the 1980s, butprairie dog populations onthe national grassland arenow being allowed torecover and expand to helprestore black-footed ferrethabitat.

The first release of captive-bredferrets was in 1994, and we’ve contin-ued with annual releases since then. Infact, wild-born kits from this reintro-duction area are now being re-locatedto another reintroduction site in South

Black-tailed prairie dogs have been eliminatedfrom much of the Great Plains at the insistance ofranchers and farmers, often at government ex-pense, because they decrease profits. Withoutprairie dogs, the endangered black-footed ferretcannot exist.


8


If we lose the prairie dogs, we'll lose theblack-footed ferrets, the rarest NorthAmerican mammal in the wild today. Ferretrecovery appears to be facing an uphill battleand it just seems like the odds are against it.

Dakota.The Conata Basin/Badlands

Reintroduction Area is critical to thenational recovery program for theblack-footed ferret because there’s nohistory of plague epizootics in thisarea. Plague is believed to be an exoticdisease introduced into North Americain the early 1900s on the West Coast,and it has now moved across the Westinto the Great Plains. Prairie dogs andother rodents are very susceptible toplague. When plague epizootics occurin black-tailed prairie dog colonies, itis generally fatal to most, if not all,prairie dogs in the affected area.

Unfortunately,plague epizootics haverecently occurred inWyoming within 150miles of the ConataBasin/BadlandsReintroduction Area inSouth Dakota. Thereintroduction area isnow dangerously closeto plague areas and that worries us. Weobviously hope it stays west and out ofprairie dog colonies in South Dakota.

An extensive plague epizooticrecently occurred on the ThunderBasin National Grassland in easternWyoming. This grassland supportedexcellent ferret habitat and was comingonline as the next ferret reintroductionarea. Now that this has happened, theother potential reintroduction areas thatare currently plague free, like the onesin South Dakota, become even moreimportant to the national recoveryprogram. The future of the ThunderBasin area as potential ferret habitat isuncertain now.

ER: What’s the scenario when plaguecomes through? Do the survivors haveany residual immunity?

GS: Typically, most or all of the black-tailed prairie dogs in the affectedcolonies die. Other unaffected coloniescan serve as sources of seedstock tohelp recover prairie dog populations inaffected colonies.

However, once plague becomesepizootic in an area, future reoccur-rences may be problematic. The longterm prospects for the prairie dogpopulations in an affected area seemsto be a slow downward trend. Weknow that plague is an exotic diseasewith which prairie dogs and ferrets didnot evolve and adapt. If we lose the

prairie dogs, we’ll lose the ferrets, therarest North American mammal in thewild today. Ferret recovery appears tobe facing an uphill battle, and it justseems like the odds are against it.However, the success at the SouthDakota reintroduction area lifts ourspirits, and we hope to continue doingeverything within reason on thenational grasslands to help recover thespecies.

ER: How big are the national grass-lands?

GS: The Forest Service currentlymanages about 3.8 million acres intwenty national grasslands in thewestern and central United States.Over 95 percent of the NationalGrassland acreage is located on the

Great Plains. The smallest nationalgrassland is the McClellan CreekNational Grassland in Texas at 1,400acres. The largest is the Little MissouriNational Grassland in North Dakotawith over a million acres of publicgrasslands and rugged badlands. Mostof the national grassland acreage on theGreat Plains is in the northern plainsstates where I work.

These lands were originallyacquired under federal authority fromdestitute settlers who, for the most part,had gone west in the late 1800s to fileon claims under the Homestead Act.

Making an agricultural livingon the relatively smallacreages under the Home-stead Act was tough. Most ofthem struggled, and thencame the Dust Bowl andDepression in the 1930s,which was the proverbialstraw that broke the camel’sback for a lot of farmers. Thefederal government acquired

a lot of farmland between 1936 and1946, and federal assistance wasprovided to relocate many of theseunfortunate families.

Originally, these lands werereferred to as Land Utilization Projectsand were managed by the Soil Conser-vation Service. In 1954, the Secretaryof Agriculture transferred the manage-ment of the lands to the U.S. ForestService. They were established asnational grasslands in 1960 throughfederal regulation to be held in thepublic trust and to be managed under aprogram of sound and progressive landconservation and utilization.

Landownership in nationalgrassland areas is generally mixed withintermingled public and private lands.


9


.

It's not just livestock grazing that's degradingthe grasslands, exotic vegetation seems tobe moving in from every direction.

This can complicate themanagement of thenational grassland areasbut it can also providesome excellent oppor-tunities for conserva-tion partnerships.

Since the 1980s,overall managementdirection for thenational grasslands hasbeen provided incomprehensive landand resource manage-ment plans, as requiredby the National ForestManagement Act.These plans are to berevised every ten tofifteen years, anddecisions on the secondgeneration of plans forthe national grasslandson the northern plainsare about to be made.

A Final Environ-mental Impact State-ment and the revisedplans were issued inJuly 2001, for another6-month public comment period. Weexpect a Record of Decision sometimein 2002 after the new comments areevaluated and considered. We receivedinput from over 26,000 individuals,agencies, tribes and organizationswhen the draft plans wereissued in 1999. I’mamazed at how the publicinterest in the nationalgrasslands has grownsince we issued the firstland and resourcemanagement plans backin the mid 1980s.

ER: Why do you think people are so

interested in grasslands?

GS: It makes sense that public interestin these lands is going to grow as ournation’s population grows. However, acouple issues during my tenure here on

the northern plains grasslands havedefinitely accelerated that interest.Drought conditions prevailed here

during the mid to late 1970sand we heard a lot ofcomplaints, primarily fromhunters and other conserva-tionists, that the grazing onthe grasslands needed to bemodified to prevent furtherharm to the vegetation, soilsand wildlife. A commontheme in the comments wasthat the Forest Service wasnot responding adequatelyand in a timely manner to thedrought. Since then, huntersand other conservationistshave remained a fairly vocalgroup on how the nationalgrasslands are managed.

Management of theprairie dog populations onthe national grasslands hasalso focused a lot of publicattention on the grasslands.In 1972, President Nixonissued an executive orderthat limited the use ofpesticides on federal lands.The order ended the use ofnon-selective poisons thatposed secondary poisoningrisks to non-target wildlife

on federal lands. In the absence of anypoisoning and because of the droughtconditions, prairie dog populationsincreased substantially during the1970s. As prairie dog populationsexpanded, landowner concerns

increased. Within a fewyears, a more selectiverodenticide was approved forprairie dog control, andproposals were made to usethe newly registered rodenti-cide to reduce prairie dogpopulations on several

national grasslands. It was then thatconcern and involvement by nationalenvironmental, animal welfare and

The National Grasslands, administered by theForest Service, represent about 1 percent of theoriginal Great Plains ecosystem.


10


conservation groups escalated. Interestin the national grasslands by these andother national organizations has notonly remained high but has continuedto grow and expand to other issuesbeyond prairie dog management on thenational grasslands.

The National WildlifeFederation has been active inraising public awareness andinterest in the national grass-lands. This organization hasmade grassland and prairieconservation one of it’snational priorities. TheFederation has implemented amajor public educationprogram on this subject andhas highlighted the importantrole that national grasslandsand other public areas can playin grassland conservation.

ER: Do the local people feellike they’re being run over byoutsiders?

GS: It’s not uncommon tohear ranchers on the grass-lands and other local commu-nity leaders comment that thenon-locals have no right to tellthem how to run their busi-nesses and that local citizensshould have more say abouthow public lands in their areaare used and managed thannon-local people.

The grandparents andgreat grandparents of some oftoday’s ranchers owned thelands where their descendantsnow run livestock under a federalgrazing permit. Also, many of theranchers and their families have playedand continue to play key roles inbringing recovery to the land, so a

sense of local ownership is certainlypresent and to be expected. I’m surethat the increasing number of visitorsto the national grasslands is alsounsettling to many of the ranchers, whoyears ago enjoyed their solitude and

privacy in these sparsely populatedareas. So with these things in mind, itshould not be a surprise that a we/theyattitude is commonly expressed. Iknow this same scenario has played out

time and time again across the westernpublic lands, but for the nationalgrasslands, these types of issues were alittle slower developing.

However, this is at a time whenagricultural economics are lessthan favorable, and this willundoubtedly fuel continueddebate and discussions aboutlocal versus regional and nationalpriorities. The public processassociated with the developmentof the first and second generationof land and resource manage-ment plans for the nationalgrasslands has, we hope, pro-vided a constructive frameworkfor these debates and discus-sions.

ER: What were the main issuesfor the first management plans?

GS: Prairie dog managementwas definitely one of the mostcontentious issues. The mainquestion was the extent thatprairie dog populations on thenational grasslands should bereduced to respond to adjoiningprivate landowner concerns.Another question was the extentthat prairie dog populationsshould be reduced to addressconcerns about loss of forage forpermitted livestock on thenational grasslands.

Conservation, recreation andenvironmental interests weremostly concerned with therecreational and environmentalvalues of prairie dogs and

proposed maintaining or expandingexisting prairie dog populations andpreventing or limiting any significant

Buffalo Gap National Grassland in SouthDakota has a successful black-footedferret re-introduction program, butofficials are worried about plague, whichcould wipe them out again.


11


population reductions. Animal welfaregroups were against poisoning basedon concerns about humane treatment ofprairie dogs.

Another major issue was theappropriate level of livestock grazingon the national grasslands. Many of thecomments received during the devel-opment of the management planexpressed concern thatsome national grasslandareas were being over-grazed. Many of theconcerns about theovergrazing related to theeffects on wildlife andrecreation on the nationalgrasslands.

Other significantissues included how toreduce negative effects oflivestock grazing on theregeneration of trees andshrubs along streams andintermittent drainages;how oil and gas develop-ment on some of thenational grasslands shouldbe managed to helpconserve and reduceimpacts on wildlife; howto conserve threatenedand endangered fish andwildlife on the grasslands;and to what extent shouldthe national grasslands bemanaged for recreationalactivities.

ER: Is there much tall grass prairieleft?

GS: The Sheyenne National Grasslandin southeastern North Dakota is theonly national grassland that occurs inthe area typically referred to as the tallgrass prairie. Actually, the Sheyenne

occurs along the western edge of thetrue tall grass prairie but provideshabitat for many rare plant and animalspecies that are commonly associatedwith tall grass prairies. Nationally,there are relatively few public parcelsof tall grass prairie, so a major issue forthe Sheyenne was simply the extentthat it should be managed for tall grassprairie restoration.

ER: What kind of recreational activi-ties are permitted on the nationalgrasslands?

GS: Hunting is a major recreationalactivity on most of the national grass-lands. Upland bird hunting requirescover to produce the birds and to holdthem on the grasslands. Livestock

grazing needs to be closely managedand monitored to prevent excessivereductions in the amount of cover.

Deer hunting is another popularactivity on the national grasslands. Alot of the deer hunting occurs along thestreams, rivers, and draws wherethere’s tree and shrub cover. If youwant quality deer habitat out here on

the prairie, livestockgrazing needs to beclosely managed andmonitored to avoidexcessive damage toshrubs and young trees. Ifgrazing removes thewoody cover, youproduce less deer on theprairie and the quality ofthe big game huntingexperience is reduced.

On the other side ofthe coin, managed grazingcan also be used toperiodically reduceherbaceous cover andactually enhance the treeand shrub regeneration.Herbaceous cover cancompete with young treesand shrubs that are tryingto get established. Motor-ized versus non-motor-ized access for recreation,including big gamehunting, and otheractivities on the national

grasslands was and continues to be asignificant discussion item.

ER: Can you generalize about theeffects of grazing livestock alongstreams?

GS: In some areas, shrubs and treeshave essentially disappeared from theprairie drainages due to the lack of

On the remnants of the Great Plains ecosystemtwelve species are listed under the EndangeredSpecies Act, six are candidates for listing, andseventy-one others are imperiled or vulnerable toextinction.


12


TheEnvironmental Review

newsletter is a low cost, highquality resource for

students, teachers, libraries,or anyone interested in the

environment.

Email subscriptions in Adobepdf format are free.

Call 206/523/2501 or write usat 6920 Roosevelt Way NE,

PMB 307, Seattle, WA. 98115or email us at

[email protected]

regeneration. I have observed numer-ous drainages where all that’s left is oldstumps and downed trunks and noregeneration. However, there can beother factors in addition to livestockgrazing that can contribute to thesetypes of conditions. Another thing tokeep in mind is that the scientificcommunity is still debating whethertree and shrub cover should be consid-ered part of the native grasslandenvironment. In fact, I recall aninterview on this issue in a past issue ofEnvironmental Review [May issue2001 Ed.].

The increase of exotic vegetationon the national grasslands is also asignificant ecological issue. We nowhave large areas, especially alongstreams and floodplains that aredominated by exotic grasses such assmooth brome and Kentucky blue-grass. Species like smooth brome havean extensive and deep root system thateventually results in a monoculture ofsmooth brome and reduced capabilityof woody species to regenerate alongstreams and rivers.

So it’s not just livestock grazing,it’s exotic vegetation that seems to bemoving in from every direction. Theproliferation of small impoundmentsacross grassland watersheds are alsoaltering the hydrology causingreduced suitabilility for tree and shrubgrowth in some areas. Construction oflarger irrigation reservoirs have alsoaltered downstream flow patterns andsuitability for cottonwood floodplains.

ER: What was the effect of the firstplan on the grasslands?

GS: As a result of the first generationof plans, more focus was placed onmanaging key drainages for woody

regeneration. For example, in manyareas, we shifted livestock grazingduring the summer months, when cattlemake use of riparian areas for shade,forage and water, to spring or wintermonths. Winter grazing is less injuri-ous to woody vegetation here on theplains. Other riparian areas have beenfenced so that livestock grazing couldbe managed more closely and separatefrom adjoining uplands. Cattle wereexcluded from other areas, and in somecases, summer grazing was simplyreduced to levels that would providefor some regeneration. So it’s been avariety of management actions includ-ing changes in season of use, timing,numbers, management systems, and insome cases exclusion of livestock thathas resulted in improvements.

ER: How successful was that? Wasthere an improvement as far as thelocal people were concerned?

GS: Yes, we’ve received manycomments from national grasslandvisitors, including hunters, aboutimproved riparian conditions on thenational grasslands. At the same time,we continue to receive criticism forareas where we have either failed tomake changes or made changes thathave not been effective. However, tobe fair in answering this question, Ialso need to acknowledge that somefolks tell us not to be concerned abouttree regeneration cause trees aren’tsuppose to be on the prairie anyway.

ER: That shapes your thinking for thesecond-generation management planthen. I assume you sat down and said,Well, where can we do better?

GS: Yes, we’ve done our best at tryingto describe current conditions such asidentifying the percentage of riparian

and wooded draw areas that areregenerating on each grassland and thepercentage of areas that are not. Wehave prescribed in the revised plansthat at least 80 percent of all riparianhabitats and woody draws be broughtunder management that will providefor regeneration. However, it has to berecognized that the potential to regen-erate has essentially been lost in somedrainages due to the deterioration orloss of seed sources or the parent rootsystem of the woody species.

ER: What about the prairie dogs?

GS: There’s considerable debate onwhether prairie dogs cause agriculturaldamage. You can select studies toprove any position you want to take.It’s been my experience and observa-tions that prairie dog and livestockrelationships need to be evaluated andanalyzed on a temporal and spatialscale. Young prairie dog colonies


13


expanding in an area that’s grazed bylivestock may initially enhance theforage resources for livestock, as longas the prairie dogs occupy a relativelysmall proportion of the pasture orranch unit. For example, some plantspecies in the heavily grazed prairiedog colonies may actually enhance thenutritional quality and diversity of theoverall forage base.

However, in olderprairie dog colonies, theproduction of nativegrasses may be dramati-cally decreased as thecontinued heavy grazingby prairie dogs andlivestock depletes some ofthe more productiveperennial native grasses.So if a significant part of apasture or ranch unit iscovered by old prairie dogcolonies, there will likelybe a decrease in theamount of availablelivestock forage.

On the national grasslands, we alsohave the responsibility to help con-serve and recover threatened, endan-gered and sensitive species. In additionto the social and economic factors, wealso need to factor in the needs ofwildlife like black-footed ferrets,mountain plover and burrowing owls,species that depend heavily on thepresence of large prairie dog popula-tions and colonies.

The black-tailed prairie dog hasbeen petitioned for listing as a threat-ened species. A twelve-month findingby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicelast year indicated the species waswarranted for listing but precludedbecause of other higher-priority

species. This put a little different spinon prairie dog management for us.Now, in addition to several otherwildlife species that are alreadyprotected under the EndangeredSpecies Act and to some extentdependant on prairie dogs, we alsohave the prairie dog itself as a candi-date for protection under the Act.

ER: So it makes sense to at least try tocut them some slack.

GS: Yes, in response to the twelve-month finding of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, many of the GreatPlains states formed a memorandum ofagreement to work together to developstatewide prairie dog conservationplans. The plans are still in theformulative stage, so we didn't have theadvantage of seeing this guidance aswe developed the revised plans for thenational grasslands. However, weanticipated that the state plans wouldsuggest a higher priority for expandingprairie dog populations on publicrather than private lands.

Under the revised plans for the

national grasslands, use of rodenticidesto reduce or eliminate specific prairiedog colonies on the national grasslandscan only be considered where there is apublic health and safety issue. Anexample of this scenario would bewhere soil is blowing off of a prairiedog colony across a county road andcausing visibility problems. Anotherexample is where a prairie dog colony

on national grasslands isexpanding onto anadjoining rural residence.Another scenario whereuse of rodenticides couldbe considered is wherepublic or private facilitiesare at risk. For example,this could include use ofrodenticides where prairiedogs are burrowing into arural cemetery.

Most of the prairiedog poisoning on thenational grasslands in thepast has occurred as theresult of agriculturaldamage on adjoining

private lands. Direction in the revisedplans indicates that the approvedstatewide prairie dog conservationplans should be consulted for addi-tional guidance on how to deal withagricultural damage on adjoininglands. For example, it’s anticipated thatthe statewide plans will set a target fora desired statewide acreage of prairiedog colonies. If the statewide acreagegoals are not being met, it is unlikelythat poisoning would be approved onthe national grasslands to reduceagricultural damage on adjoininglands. Use of rodenticides on thenational grassland would be morelikely if the statewide goals were beingmet or exceeded.


14


Also, several new areas have beenidentified in the revised plans as black-footed ferret recovery habitat. Expan-sion of black-tailed prairie dog popula-tions in some of these areas wouldactually be encouraged and acceleratedthrough management activities.Although not identified as black-footedferret habitat, we’ve also identifiedadditional areas where we want tofocus on expanding prairie dogpopulations. Various managementactivities including landownershipadjustment, prairie dog relocation, andvegetation management to encourageprairie dog expansion may be em-ployed in these areas.

ER: What is your goal there withprairie dogs? Do you have some pointset in mind where you want to be?

GS: We did not set a target or goal forprairie colony acreages on any of thenational grasslands on the northernplains. We’re simply providing forcolony expansion by further limitingrodenticide use to those scenarios I justmentioned. We also indicated that wewould actively accelerate expansion ofprairie dog colonies in selected areasunder specified conditions. We alsoindicated that we would try to addressprairie dog management conflictsalong the boundaries of the nationalgrasslands through landownershipadjustments.

In the past we did set prairie dogcolony acreage goals. Under thisdirection, some prairie dog colonieswere poisoned simply because theacreage goal had been met. No otherreasons for poisoning some of thesecolonies were apparent. We wanted toavoid this type of situation in thefuture, and from a prairie dog conser-vation standpoint, I think avoiding

numerical acreage goals is the rightthing to do.

ER: What else is there in the new plan?

GS: The second generation plans putmore emphasis on managementactivities that enhance the diversity ofnative plant communities. This will beaccomplished through a variety ofmanagement actions. The revised planscall for areas to be periodically restedfrom annual livestock grazing. Theplans also specify that some areas willbe grazed lightly while others will begrazed at moderate or heavy levels toachieve a variety of vegetative condi-tions. In the past, most nationalgrassland areas were grazed at similarrates or intensities. The enhanceddiversity of vegetation conditions willprovide for a broader array of ecologi-cal conditions, native plants andanimals and recreational opportunities,while still providing for the productionof important goods and services.

Another big issue that is cominginto focus with the revised plans iswilderness designation on the nationalgrasslands. Numerous areas on thenational grasslands were evaluated asproposed wilderness, and two areas onthe Buffalo Gap National Grassland inSouth Dakota were taken forward asproposed wilderness in the revisedplans. In addition to wilderness,additional acreage is designated forbackcountry non-motorized recreation.There’s little doubt that some will thinkthat the Forest Service has not gone farenough in designating proposedwilderness on the national grasslandswhile others will say the agency hasgone too far.

Some changes in managementdirection for oil and gas development

on the national grasslands are alsoprescribed in the revised plans. Thisincluded some additional limitations onoil and gas development to reducepotential impacts on sensitive wildlifespecies. How this direction fits with therecently released national energypolicy will undoubtedly be fullyevaluated over the next severalmonths. It’s impossible to predict thefinal outcome of this evaluation.

ER: Is the new plan really all thatcontentious? It's been said the ranchingcommunity and the lobbyists werecomplaining bitterly about it. Do yousee that?

GS: We’re facing tough issues here.The farm and ranch economy ishurting. We have a new nationalenergy policy. There’s more and moreinterest in the national grasslands forconservation and recreation, and thenational grasslands are taking on agrowing importance, at both local andnational scales. Yes, the level ofsensitivity and controversy is high, butthis is an open federal decision-makingprocess that’s designed to deal aseffectively as possible with these typesof issues. Also, the Forest Service hasgiven these issues and the developmentof the revised management plans itsfull attention and has worked hard tofind the most appropriate blend ofactivities and management for thenational grasslands.

Additional Reading andInformation Sources:

Bachand, R.R. 2001. The Americanprairie: going, going, gone? astatus report on the Americanprairie. National Wildlife Federa-tion, Rocky Mountain NaturalResource Center, Boulder, CO.28pp.


15


Name ____________________________________Address ___________________________________________________________________________City ____________ State ______ Zip _______

TTTTTababababable of Contents:le of Contents:le of Contents:le of Contents:le of Contents: EnEnEnEnEnvirvirvirvirvir onmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Reonmental Re vievievievieviewwwww VVVVVolume Sixolume Sixolume Sixolume Sixolume SixJanuary - December (2000)January - December (2000)January - December (2000)January - December (2000)January - December (2000)

One Year Subscription($25.00) ____surface($15.00) Student ____Email subscriptions are free.Back issues at $2.50 each ___(But many are available freeon our Website.)_________________________Visa ___ Mastercard ___

#________________________exp date _____________amount _____________

Signature:___________________________or payment enclosed ____

To order back issues, or tosubscribe to a full year ofEnvironmental Review for $25.00mail this card to us at:

Environmental Review6920 Roosevelt Way NE PMB 307Seattle, WA. 98115

Students, seniors and teachers maysubscribe for $15.00 per year.

January

Soil Conservation and Soil Erosion inthe Upper Midwest: Stanley TrimbleClimate Change and Emerging MarineDiseases: Drew Harvell

February

How to Fight Urban Sprawl:Timothy BeatleyDecline of Stratospheric Ozone andIncreases in UV Radiation:William Randel

March

Reproductive Failure of Wet ForestTrees:Lisa M. CurranInvesting in Future Energy Sources:Daniel Kammen

April

On the Ecology of Human Pathogens:Andreas BaÜmlerDisasters and Democracy:Rutherford Platt

May

Paths to a Sustainable Hydrogen-BasedEconomy: John A. TurnerThe Geological Disposal of NuclearWaste: Rodney C. Ewing

June

A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis:Jim LichatowichWhat is the Threat from BiologicalWeapons: Raymond Zilinskas

July

The Earth Climate System Has GainedHeat: Sydney LevitusBiodiversity as a Political Football:Michael Huston

August

Will Fish Farms Add to World FishSupplies?: Rosamond NaylorWhy Did Los Alamos Burn?Thomas Alcoze

September

The Reason Wild Salmon Are in Trouble:Daniel ChasanChina's New Forest Policy:Guofan Shao & Guang Zhao

October

Fundamentalist Christians Fight Science:Eugenie ScottHow Much Does Conservation Cost?Claire Kremen

November

A History of the Salmon Crisis II:Joseph Taylor1000 Years of Climate Change:Thomas Crowley

December

Pollution Effects on Marine Wildlife:Peter RossBlack Footed Ferret Recovery:Della Garrell

To receive a free emailsubscription send your email

address to: [email protected]


PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE

PAID# 5771

SEATTLE WA

6920 Roosevelt Way NE PMB307Seattle, Washington 98115

Environmental Review ispublished by a non-profit,

501(c)(3) corporation.

A one-year subscription to theEnvironmental Review

(twelve issues) costs $25.00

Students, teachers and seniorsmay subscribe for $15.00 per

year.

Printed on recycled paperwith soy based inks.



NEXT MONTH

DEFORESTATION INTHE AMAZON

Scott Bergen

SEA SURFACETEMPERATURES

INFLUENCERAIN PATTERNS

IN THE U.S.David Enfield

Email subscriptions in pdfformat are free.

Send your email subscriptioninformation to

[email protected]

Dolan, C.C. 1999. The nationalgrasslands and disappearingbiodiversity: can the prairie dogsave us from an ecological desert?Environmental Law 29:213-234.

Duram, L.A. 1995. The nationalgrasslands: past, present and futureland management issues. Range-lands 17(2):36-42.

Olson, E. 1997. National grasslandsmanagement—a primer. USDAOffice of General Counsel,Natural Resources Division,Washington, D.C. (available forreview at many USDA ForestService offices or www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng/contents.html)

Senner, S.E., and B.D. Ladd. 1996.Ecosystem management and thenational grasslands. Pages 231-240 in F.B. Samson and F.L.Knopf (eds). Prairie conservation:North America’s most endangeredecosystem. Island Press, Washing-ton, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2001.America’s grasslands. Brochureand/or Video available fromUSDA Forest Service, RockyMountain Region, P.O. Box25127. Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.


Documents

Environmental Review