Capitol Reef Administrative History

CHAPTER 12:
GRAZING AND CAPITOL REEF NATIONAL PARK: A HISTORIC STUDY (continued)

Grazing On Public Lands Later Added To Capitol Reef: 1950 To 1969

The uneasy relationship among the federal land management agencies and south-central Utah ranchers continued throughout the 1940s, '50s, and '60s. During this time, more scientific range surveys were completed for much of the land, and carrying capacities were established. Virtually every one of the new agency limits was less than the old limits set when ranchers had determined the carrying capacity in the 1930s. This required the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to request reductions, which were often fought by the traditional users of the land. Through the advisory boards and the hearing process, the ranchers' grievances were heard, and sometimes compromises were made. Throughout the process, however, the range continued to be utilized at its highest limits. [160]

Range improvement programs provided one avenue of cooperation between federal land management agencies and the area ranchers. The BLM and USFS used a portion of each year's grazing fees to help ranchers build or improve stock ponds, trails, and fencing, and to reseed some of the more damaged ranges.

Summer Range: The National Forest Lands

By 1950, the Dixie National Forest, which included the Boulder Mountain area directly west and southwest of Capitol Reef National Monument, had been regulating grazing through permits and advisory boards for well over 40 years. While some gains had been made in terms of the range and federal-local cooperation, a history of the national forest indicates that there was still a long way to go:

Reseeding areas though greatly inadequate had tended to relieve pressures in some areas. Transfer reductions, exchanges, association purchases with cancellations and outright reductions had gone a long way toward easing the pressures and improving the relationships of stockmen and Forest Service on the Dixie ranges....The national [sic] Cattle Association had adopted a policy of cooperation. The National Woolgrowers, however, were still fighting for range rights instead of privileges along with other special considerations...1956 found the Dixie in a strong position to hold the gains that had been made and with emphasis on watershed, wildlife, recreation, reseeding, and farm pasture[,] further inroads into livestock numbers on overgrazed ranges may be effected. [161]

These livestock reductions occurred over many years. Ultimately, cattle, horse, and sheep grazing on the East Slope Allotment on Boulder Mountain was reduced from a total of 30,425 AUMs in 1920 to only 12,223 AUMs in 1959. The period of use had also been reduced. Cattle and sheep were now kept off the allotment until either May or June 1, whereas the 1920 permits allowed stock to graze as early as the middle of March. [162]

By 1959, forest service officials determined that the range was still "overstocked and the range to be in a depleted condition." A year later, an agreement was signed by the permittees on the east slope of Boulder Mountain to reduce their stock by another 35 percent over the next two years. By 1965 the last of the sheep permits had been converted to cattle, meaning even less competition. While some of the stock were later allowed back onto the range by the mid-1970s, these significant reduction numbers prove that the U.S. Forest Service was gaining control over range depletion. [163]

The method of grazing, however, had not changed since the turn of the century. Livestock were traditionally turned loose in the spring to "let them follow grass greenup to the Top, then be pushed off by fall or winter storms." Attempts by forest officials to establish a more regulated pattern were hampered by rough terrain and lack of fencing. Thus, while the number of livestock on Boulder Mountain had been significantly reduced by the end of the 1960s, the cattle were still allowed to roam the ranges far more freely than the U.S. Forest Service would have preferred. [164]

To the northwest of Capitol Reef National Monument, the large expanse of Thousand Lake Mountain is largely within the boundaries of Fishlake National Forest. The Sulphur Cattle and Horse Allotment bordered the monument from 1937 to 1969. This allotment included portions of Meeks Mesa, Spring Canyon, and Paradise Flats, which were later added to the monument through expansion in 1969. The eastern portion of the Polk Creek Allotment was included within the final national park boundaries in 1971. [165]

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, there were consistent attempts by forest rangers to control livestock numbers and seasonal use on these allotments, especially during drought years. Unfortunately, there is no detailed grazing history available for this area. Yet, the number of U.S. Forest Service requests for reductions in livestock numbers or days of use, as well as some of the statements made at the advisory board meetings, indicates that Fishlake National Forest officials were just as active as their counterparts in the Dixie National Forest. [166]

Year-Round Range: The Baker Ranch

In the south end of the Waterpocket Fold, under the present high-water mark of Lake Powell, a cattle ranch established at the turn of the century impacted livestock operations in the area until the mid-1980s. Eight hundred Desert Homestead acres were first deeded to Thomas Smith, his wife, and their daughter-in-law sometime around 1910, and then were sold to Eugene Baker and sons in 1919. The Bakers doubled the base ranch and built all the out-buildings necessary to run a year-round, virtually self-sufficient ranch. After all, the Baker Ranch was located 80 miles by horse trail from Escalante, the closest real community from which goods could be purchased. It had an orchard and grape vines, and diverted water to cultivate 60-80 acres of alfalfa and corn. Most importantly, the Bakers ran 800 to 1,000 cattle and about 40 horses on a range "bordered in a rough triangle by the Henry Mountains on the north, the Colorado River on the east, and Waterpocket Fold on the south and west." This area is estimated to be about 25x35x40 miles. [167]

During the 1920s, cattle were grazed year-round on this open, public domain. [168] After the Taylor Grazing Act passed, however, the Baker herds were dramatically reduced to conform more closely to the established carrying capacity of the range. For example, in 1935 the Bakers grazed about 1,200 cattle and 75 horses on the unrestricted range. By 1938, the permitted number of livestock had been reduced to the carrying capacity of the range, only 440 cattle as determined by the district grazier. These were to run on an allotment that was the Halls Creek drainage from its mouth at the Colorado River up to Muley Twist Canyon. Apparently, there was no seasonal restriction at this time. [169]

Though the Bakers protested this reduction through the hearing process, the district grazier's decision was upheld. Even though the Bakers claimed that they could not make a living with such a reduced herd, the ranch continued its operations until the mid-1940s. At that time, Eugene's son, Carlyle, purchased a ranch on the eastern slope of Thousand Lake Mountain. By 1946, the Baker Ranch, and thus the rights to its allotment, had been sold to 10 ranchers from Wayne County, Utah. These men formed the Halls Creek Cattle Association, cooperatively using the Baker property until it was purchased by the federal government for Lake Powell in 1963. Ten years earlier, the Halls Creek Cattle Association transferred its grazing privileges in lower Halls Creek northward to "more productive holdings in Wayne County." [170]

Pre-1969 grazing management records for the other areas fringing the expanded boundary of Capitol Reef pertain mostly to yearly permits. There are also a few range studies, allotment plans, and protest hearings. [171] These records suggest that the BLM (created from the consolidation of the U.S. Grazing Service and the General Land Office in 1946) sought the cooperation of established ranchers in reducing livestock numbers and regulating use. In many cases, however, the range was in such a weak condition that the BLM changes reduced, but by no means eliminated, damage to the fragile desert vegetation.

Winter Range I: Bureau Of Land Management In The South District

South of the Fremont River, along the eastern slopes of the Waterpocket Fold, is an area of traditional winter grazing known as the Sandy Allotments. This region, which includes the private ranches at Notom and Sandy Ranch (previously the Bowns Ranch), had been heavily grazed by cattle and huge herds of sheep since the late 1800s.

During 1962 and 1963, a comprehensive range survey was completed for the entire West Henry Mountain Range, which extends from the Fremont River to the Colorado River and from the Waterpocket Fold to the west slope of the Henry Mountains. Approximately the western one-third of this range was included in the 1971 Capitol Reef National Park boundary. Detailed vegetation, soil, and climate descriptions were made and final carrying capacities were established. [172]

During the early 1960s, there were 34 cattle operators with a total of 33,196 potential AUMs, and seven sheep operators with a total demand of 20,197 AUMs. These AUMs permitted grazing of 14,000 sheep and 2,000 cattle over seven and a half months in the area south of The Post (one mile south of the junction of the Burr Trail and Notom Bullfrog Road). They also allowed grazing of 4,000 sheep for seven months, 2,930 cattle during the winter, and 864 cattle during the summer. [173] The only summer usage along the Waterpocket Fold was by the Sandy Ranch, then operated by John Christensen.

The current condition of the entire range was established as .8 percent good, 43 percent fair, 39 percent poor, 10 percent bad, and 7 percent wasteland. The range conservationist noted:

The trend for most of the Unit is static with some areas declining. One of the areas which declined quite rapidly is Hall Creek in the Baker Allotment. This area is badly depleted and shows signs of very heavy use. Another of the poorer areas is the flats south of Sandy Ranch. Here most all perennial plants are gone with the exception of greasewood. The predominate forage here is Russian thistle. [174]

A dramatic increase in erosion, described as "very active and in advanced stages," was also noticed for the southern portion of what later became part of Capitol Reef National Park. Erosion was considered especially significant in the areas of Bitter Creek Divide, Sandy Ranch, the head of Muley Twist Canyon along the Halls Creek drainage, and east of The Post. The range study reported, "The erosion in most of these areas is advancing quite rapidly due to depleted forage conditions and lack of erosion control structures. The erosion in many of the above areas makes travel difficult." [175]

Much of the range was considered to be in such a fragile state that only a few extra livestock or a slight change in periods of use would be a noticeable detriment to the range. For example, one of the pastures used for study was in the vicinity of Bitter Creek Divide, along the eastern side of the Waterpocket Fold and about six miles north of the Burr Trail/ Notom-Bullfrog Road junction. For the 950 acres used in that pasture, it was determined that there were only 56 AUMs of feed available in 1962. The actual use that year was 58 AUMs. The next year there were 52 cattle in the pasture for one month, for a total of 52 AUMs, but there were also 50 cows that trespassed on this range for 10 days. This extra utilization was easily noticed by the survey crew, which recommended that this particular range be maintained at 58 AUMs. [176]

Because of the depleted condition of the range, it was recommended that the number of livestock and the seasons of use be reduced. This involved eliminating all summer ranges and establishing firm opening and closing dates, which would allow the vegetation to grow, flower, and seed. Identifying livestock distribution as a big problem, the study called for a large number of additional water development projects, salting, and fencing. Because the vegetation types were suitable for both sheep and cattle, and because the area's rugged topography made it difficult to fence out either species, the study concluded that the unit should be used by both classes of livestock. This could be done, the study suggested, by designating common use allotments or by setting up pastures and alternating livestock use. [177]

In 1964, the Bureau of Land Management, in accordance with the range survey's recommendations, decided to reduce livestock by as much as 74 percent in the Sandy Allotments. Some ranchers fought this reduction by claiming as much allotment land as possible, thereby pitting neighbor against neighbor. In a September meeting with BLM District Manager R. L. Caudill, the Durfeys of Notom claimed that they were not being given proper credit for land that they had always grazed. Caudill reported that Golden Durfey was so irate about the extreme reduction in his range that he vowed to have "this area as his allotment if it is the last thing that he was able to do." [178]

Two days later, District Manager Caudill met with the Morrell brothers, who shared the upper Sandy Allotment with the Durfeys. Clearly, the Morrells and the Durfeys believed they were the victims of the larger Christensen and Don E. Taylor herds. Caudill reported:

Both the Morrells indicated their displeasure at the severity of the indicated adjustment. They criticized the Bureau for 'favoritism' to Don Taylor and the Christensen Ranches. They expressed [the] opinion that the present range condition was directly [attributable] to us allowing the Christensen Ranches to graze the area during the summer months. They further indicated that the condition was [attributable] to trespass use by Don Taylor. They indicated agreement in the discussion that the range condition was less than fair condition but stated that they were being unfairly penalized for over use and abuse of the range by the other livestock operators. [179]

Despite these protests, in January 1965 District Manager Caudill called for a 74.2 percent reduction throughout the Sandy Allotment. He explained:

I fully realize that a reduction in grazing privileges will impose a hardship upon [certain ranchers]. However, the range in the Sandy Area is predominately in a poor to fair condition. Adjustments are essential for this range, with improvement, to reach its potential grazing capacity and a good range condition. A reduction of grazing privileges in the Sandy Area is necessary to reach the grazing capacity of the Federal range. [180]

Recognizing the hardships imposed, the district manager approved the district advisory board's suggestion of a three-year phaseout. Caudill did give the ranchers some hope, however. He promised, "Range conditions and utilization studies of the Federal range will be made each year. Should these studies show an improved range condition and increases in grazing capacity, an adjustment in the third year reduction will be made." [181]

This decision also established a firm maximum period of use as between October 1 and April 15 each year. This was done over the objections from many of the ranchers, the manager wrote, because "closing the range for grazing, during the initial and critical growth period for the forage plants in the spring, will improve the condition of the range. Protection from grazing during the summer months will allow maximum forage protection and provide natural reseeding of the range." [182]

The district manager, again in consultation with the advisory board, also stipulated that the Sandy area would be separated into three allotments. The Morrells and Durfeys would have their own northern allotment, Sandy #1, around Notom; the Christensen-owned Sandy Ranches would have exclusive use of Sandy #2, which stretched along the eastern side of the Waterpocket Fold; and Sandy #3, from Cedar Mesa to The Post, would be licensed to Don E. and Afton Taylor, C. A. Clark, and Urban Hanks. It was about this time that the Waterpocket Fold Allotment along Halls Creek was also created and use permits issued to Don Taylor (Fig. 35). These partitions were most likely made to help resolve the disputes among the various permittees and make the reductions more enforceable. [183]

Just two years later, bureau officials and some of the permittees conducting a field tour found that the range in all areas had improved. This improvement was impressive enough to justify significantly revising the 1965 timetable. [184]

Figure 35. Grazing permits, allotments, and phaseout dates, 1969. (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

Winter Range II: Bureau Of Land Management In The North District

Similar difficulties arose in the northern section of what would later be Capitol Reef National Monument: the traditionally grazed areas known as the Cathedral Valley, Middle Desert, Hartnet, and South Desert. An allotment plan for the Hartnet Mesa in 1966 stated:

Prior to passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, large numbers of livestock were brought from Wayne, Sevier, and Emery Counties to winter these lands. Many of the animals remained on the range year-long, resulting in progressive destruction of soils and vegetation. Reports from stockmen in the area indicate that many trespass horses used the area until about 1955. Prior to 1946 there were at least 163 cattle and 20 horses licensed yearlong in this area. [185]

By 1953, range conditions had not improved. This sparked a dispute between William G. Taylor and Guy Pace as to who had priority use for the South Desert. The year before, the BLM range manager denied Taylor's application, explaining that there was "insufficient forage in the South Desert to take care of these 30 cattle along with qualified use already established in the South Desert." [186]

Other evidence and testimony during this appeal established that the permitted use of the South Desert and Middle Desert exceeded established carrying capacity. It was noted that Guy Pace, the primary user of the South Desert, had been forced in 1953 to move his livestock out of the South Desert early because there was not sufficient feed for them. The range manager decided that William Taylor would graze his cattle in the Middle Desert rather than in the South Desert. The hearings officer reported:

The Range Manager...testified the adjoining Middle Desert area was 30 percent over-grazed, [and] it would appear that the Middle Desert as a whole is over-obligated. For this reason the answer to the question of place of use for the appellant appears to hinge solely on proper range management practices and the availability of more carrying capacity in one area than in another does not appear to be a factor as both areas, the Middle Desert and the South Desert, seem to be fully or even over-utilized. [187]

In other words, the range was already at or above full carrying capacity and the addition of even 30 cattle for any length of time would infringe on Pace's established priority use.

The Hartnet Allotment, which consumes most of the northern district of Capitol Reef National Park, was examined for a new grazing plan in 1966. Prior to 1961 there had never been a recognized allotment, and thus no long-range grazing plan. In 1961, a common-use allotment was established among James Pace, James Pace, Jr., Don Pace, and Guy Pace. At the same time, the BLM requested a 38 percent reduction in the new allotment. This would have cut the Paces' permitted grazing on the Hartnet Mesa and in the South Desert Valley from approximately 4,000 AUMs to 2,489 AUMs. This was accomplished by reducing the actual number of cattle on the range as well as eliminating all the summer and year-long AUMs. According to a 1957 range survey, these 2,489 AUMs were just below the carrying capacity for the range. Beginning in 1961, the winter range dates were restricted from about mid-October to the beginning or middle of June. This was part of an effort by Bureau of Land Management officials in Richfield to restrict the desert ranges to winter use only. The summer range was to be in the neighboring national forests and all calves were to be weaned before going onto the winter range. [188]

Range condition surveys were completed for the Hartnet Allotment in 1958 and 1961. They found no appreciable difference between the two: grazing conditions in both years were classified as poor. In fact, of the allotment's 75,800 grazed acreage, only 1,700 were listed in good condition and 11,500 acres were reported in fair condition. The poor condition of the range required a change in management practices. Accordingly, the BLM, in consultation with the permittees, recommended dividing the range into three pastures, defined by natural barriers. These pastures would be grazed on a rest-rotation pattern for the growing season April 15 to the end of the permitted time in June. This basic pattern of use has continued into the 1990s. [189]

In September 1966, the common use allotment was formally divided into the Hartnet and Cathedral Allotments. The Paces and William G. Taylor were granted 2,939 AUMs in the Hartnet, with Taylor restricted to the area nearest the Fremont River in the south end of the allotment. The Cathedral allotment to the north (of which only a small western section was later added to the park) was allotted 3,311 AUMs of winter grazing permits, divided among 13 permittees. [190]

Grazing And The Creation Of Capitol Reef National Park

It was not until the 1950s and '60s, then, that significant range reductions were first made on the ranges now within Capitol Reef National Park. While these sometimes dramatic limitations resulted in disputes among permittees and BLM officials, collaboration was essential for easing pressure on the depleted rangers east and north of the Waterpocket Fold. Yet, even with such cooperation, the resource itself was often compromised. Grazing continued on the abused land because it was often the ranchers' only source of winter feed. The Bureau of Land Management's focus was on the land's best use, traditionally assumed to be grazing. In the era before recreationists discovered southern Utah, it was inevitable that grazing would continue to be the predominant, priority use.

In January 1969, however, all these assumptions changed. In literally the last hours of Lyndon Johnson's administration, the president signed a proclamation to increase the size of Capitol Reef National Monument by 600 percent. The new monument lands now encompassed a great deal of land believed by the local residents, and by the federal multiple-use land management agencies, to be essential winter grazing lands. The outrage of the local communities toward this "federal land grab" exemplified the deep-rooted local belief in a right to graze the land. It also significantly shaped the grazing policy at Capitol Reef for the next 25 years.

Early Policy Decisions: 1969

The controversy and uproar sparked by the enlargement of Capitol Reef National Monument has been discussed in Vol. I, Chapter 11. The most outraged responses, by far, to the surprise addition of 200,000 acres to Capitol Reef came from the local, traditional land users of the public domain. They saw this expansion as an ill-considered move by an uncaring and arrogant federal government, which would destroy their livelihood and drive the residents of Wayne and Garfield Counties to the poorhouse. While all multiple-use proponents, including miners and some motorized recreationists, opposed the expansion, the ranchers were the ones with the most to lose. As a result, they were also the most vocal in their opposition.

The 1969 presidential proclamation itself addressed the concerns of livestock operators by including the same clause that was in the original 1937 monument proclamation, establishing the right to use stock driveways across the new monument lands. This concession did little, however, to mollify local opposition.

Boulder, Utah, was the home of many of the ranchers who used the southern half of the Waterpocket Fold for winter range. Residents there passed a resolution changing the town's name to "Johnson's Folly." The ranchers of Wayne County organized a press conference at the county seat in Loa, for pictures and articles describing how 41 families would be left destitute by the new monument boundary. Meanwhile, the Utah congressional delegation used the floor of Congress and hastily called field hearings to protest this perceived usurpation of rights by the Johnson administration.

At the root of all these complaints was the assumption that the national monument expansion would eliminate grazing in the affected areas. So long as the opposition remained vocal and passionate, there was the hope that the monument boundaries would be scaled back or that grazing would be allowed to continue within the expansion. The National Park Service failed to provide any clear message to the public or congressional hearings during the rest of 1969. Nevertheless, officials were working behind the scenes to establish a fair but restrictive grazing policy for the beautiful lands of a now 250,000-acre national monument. [191]

Before the presidential proclamation of January 21, 1969, National Park Service officials treated grazing matters at Capitol Reef National Monument as an easily resolvable and fairly insignificant issue. For example, when Superintendent Robert Heyder was first asked to come up with boundary proposals in September 1968, he did not seriously address grazing. This may have been because Heyder could not get the information he needed from the BLM without alerting those officials to the confidential monument proposal. Further, Heyder believed that the National Park Service could easily phase out the limited grazing within the new monument lands. [192]

On February 20, 1969, Utah BLM Director R. D. Nielson supplied a list of encumbrances within the new monument lands to the National Park Service. This occurred just one month after presidential proclamations expanded both Capitol Reef and Arches National Monuments. Included in that list were estimates of the numbers of livestock and ranchers affected by the expansion. Nielson figured there were 62 grazing permittees with 6,000 AUMs within the expanded monument. [193] Although the boundary had been made public only a month earlier, and although only a portion of most allotments fell within the new monument, Nielson's estimates were impressively close to the final counts provided two months later. The totals showed 39 individuals, some with more than one permit, allowed to graze approximately 6,077 AUMs on BLM lands, and seven permittees with 104 AUMs on Fishlake National Forest. [194]

One month later, the grazing policy in the newly expanded monuments was clarified by the Washington office. In a memorandum to the Under Secretary of the Department of Interior, Associate National Park Service Director Edward Hummel assured the public that

no orders have been issued to any Superintendents to start moving grazers out or to discontinue their grazing privileges held under previous land managers....We have, however, informed our field personnel that the grazing privileges in the extension to both monuments [Arches and Capitol Reef] will be handled in the same manner as at Canyonlands National Park. [195]

The associate director explained exactly how the grazing phaseout in Canyonlands, and thus Arches and Capitol Reef, was being handled:

The language of the Act of September 12, 1964, establishing Canyonlands, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to permit holding grazing privileges to continue in the exercise thereof during the term of the lease, permit or license, and one period of renewal thereafter. The legislative history of this provision indicates that it was the intent of Congress to authorize the Secretary to grant such renewals for a maximum period of ten years and thereafter to preclude further grazing. Therefore, the privileges for grazing in the recently acquired land may be extended for a maximum of ten years beyond the termination date of the permits that were valid on the date of the acquisition. [196]

Hummel also pointed out that there were no funds authorized for the expanded areas of the monuments and he did not expect new appropriations until Fiscal Year 1971.

Besides the lack of money, an additional problem was trying to anticipate how Congress might address the monument expansion dispute. Proposals ranged from changing the status of Arches and Capitol Reef to national parks within their previous or expanded boundaries, or even making the southern half of Capitol Reef into a multiple-use recreation area. Until money and congressional intent were known, however, National Park Service officials had to come up with a temporary plan to manage grazing in the new areas.

Since the National Park Service had neither the expertise in grazing management nor an in-depth knowledge of local conditions, officials opted for the most logical course of action: have the Bureau of Land Management continue to monitor the permittees within the new areas. It was, however, agreed that there would be no increase in AUMs, that the permits would be issued only on a year-to-year basis, and that there would be a moratorium on the building of "facility type improvements." Any changes in management or proposals for development in the new monument areas would require approval by the National Park Service superintendent and the Bureau of Land Management district manager. This temporary, cooperative effort between Capitol Reef and area BLM officials would later become permanent. [197]

Grazing Language In Capitol Reef's Legislation: 1971

By 1971, it was clear that Capitol Reef was going to become a national park with boundaries slightly reduced from those in Johnson's proclamation. Still needing resolution, however, was the time period over which the grazing phaseout would occur. [198]

The Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Frank Moss of Utah, had been refined during the previous two years to whittle away important grazing areas from the northern part of the monument. It also proposed to transfer Paradise Flats and upper Deep Creek to the monument from Fishlake National Forest, and rework the boundaries in the southeastern section of the park to conform to the natural escarpment across from the Waterpocket Fold. As to grazing, Moss's S. 29 was extremely detailed, yet effectively obtuse. For one thing, the bill called for a much more liberal phaseout of grazing than the National Park Service had anticipated. Moss wanted a 25-year permit period, followed by a phaseout that could be extended indefinitely if the grazing permit was held by the original permittee (or a member of the permittee's immediate family) at the time of the bill's passage. This would have continued grazing within most of Capitol Reef for perhaps 40 to 60 more years. S. 29 also stipulated that the Secretary of the Interior could "adjust such privileges to preserve the park land and resources from destruction or unnecessary injury." [199] This extended grazing phaseout was approved by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs because. The reason, Sen. Moss explained, was that "the committee believes that the provisions of the bill are reasonable in view of the bitter controversy raised by residents of the area who own grazing rights, and in view of the fact that the number of rights affected is very limited." [200]

The Senate's long-term phaseout version was taken almost verbatim from the enabling legislation for Grand Teton National Park. [201] Grand Teton was created by merging a tiny Grand Teton National Monument with Jackson Hole National Monument, which also had its own controversial origin because of the private lands and grazing within its new boundaries during the 1930s and 1940s. [202]

The Capitol Reef legislation would be patterned after that of either Grand Teton or Canyonlands National Park. A 10-year phaseout timeframe had already been established at Canyonlands National Park, but livestock grazers had more political clout in Grand Teton than in Canyonlands. When the Capitol Reef bill made it to the House of Representatives, the grazing section was amended to conform more closely with the 10-year phaseout desired by the National Park Service. Ultimately, though, Capitol Reef would follow in the example -- and controversy -- of Grand Teton National Park.

When the congressional conference committee met in November 1971, it concurred with the House proposal to restrict grazing to "the persons holding such grazing privileges or their heirs to continue in the exercise thereof during term of the lease, permit, or license, and one period of renewal thereafter." [203] The conference report concluded, "The Committee of Conference agreed to accept the House language on the basis that it provides an adequate, reasonable, and equitable period of time to phase out the grazing privileges within the park." [204]

The 10-year phaseout was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Richard Nixon on December 18, 1971. P.L. 92-207, which created Capitol Reef National Park, was the first specific congressional action related to the Waterpocket Fold country. The language pertaining to grazing was also the first mandated grazing policy for these lands.

Unfortunately, legislators did not anticipate the problems of dealing with the large number of permittees, or realize that some permits were for 10 years and others were for only one. The last-minute, congressional rewrite of Senator Moss's bill would later trigger protests of the phaseout schedule.

Stock Driveways In Capitol Reef National Park

A separate section of the enabling act also pertained to stock driveways. P.L. 92-207 specified:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in any way rights of owners and operators of cattle and sheep herds, existing on the date immediately prior to the enactment of this Act, to trail their herds on traditional courses used by them prior to such date of enactment, and to water their stock, notwithstanding the fact that the lands involving such trails and watering are situated within the park: Provided, That the Secretary may promulgate reasonable regulations providing for the use of such driveways. [205]

In the old monument lands, there were traditional driveways through Grand Wash, Capitol Gorge, Pleasant Creek, plus a new one along the recently built road through the Fremont River canyon. These driveways were heavily used by as many as 17 livestock operations involving 1,670 cattle. In addition, several of the operators were using trucks almost exclusively to haul their cattle from summer to winter range and back. By 1970, the 1,000 head of sheep owned by Guy Coombs were also being trucked between ranges. [206]

These driveways had been first authorized by the 1937 presidential proclamation. Although there had been several proposals to designate a single driveway and close the rest to such use, this position had been weakened during the 1967 Wilderness Proposal hearings. At those hearings, National Park Service officials acknowledged traditional use of the Grand Wash, Capitol Gorge, and Pleasant Creek driveways. [207]

In the new national park lands to the north, there were three stock driveways designated by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service. The one furthest north, used by Carlyle Baker, was outside the park boundary. The second driveway went from the town of Fremont, over the northern flank of Thousand Lake Mountain, past Round Lake, and then dropped into Upper and Lower Cathedral Valleys. In 1970, this stock trail was used by 16 operators herding approximately 1,000 head of cattle and 1,200 sheep. The third driveway began on the eastern slopes of Thousand Lake Mountain the vicinity of upper Sulphur Creek. It passed along the Holt Draw/Elkhorn Road and then down the Polk Creek Road before dropping into the Hartnet and South Desert. In 1970, this driveway was used by Don Pace with 183 head of cattle, and by Ross, Van, and Chapman Taylor to drive about 150 head between Fishlake National Forest and the eastern Hartnet area. [208]

To the south of Pleasant Creek, the Oak Creek canyon was the only route consistently used by those trailing from the east slope of Boulder Mountain to the lower Waterpocket Fold. All other stock driveways were too precarious for modern cattle operations, and sheep had been eliminated from crossing the lower Waterpocket Fold due to the Taylor Grazing Act restrictions. Thus, the only consistently active driveway south of Oak Creek was the West Henry Mountain stock trail. This followed the Notom-Bullfrog Road along the eastern side of the Fold from the Fremont River south to The Post (running east of the road between Cedar Mesa and Divide Canyon). From there, some animals were driven south of The Post into the Muley Twist and Waterpocket Fold Allotments, by way of the Halls Creek drainage. In 1971, these driveways were well established, and thus authorized by the enabling legislation of Capitol Reef National Park. [209]

The use of the Fremont River canyon, Grand Wash, Capitol Gorge, and Pleasant Creek driveways was controlled by special use permits issued without charge by the superintendent. The driveways to the north and south were controlled by the other federal land use agencies. These driveways could become invalid only if permits were transferred or the range was no longer utilized. [210]

The only recorded conflict regarding the stock driveways, other than an occasional extra-slow livestock drive through the park, occurred in 1976. Rancher Jack King, while preparing to move his cattle from winter to summer range through Oak Creek canyon, discovered that the driveway above the Oak Creek dam was blocked by a landslide. King, who had a drive permit from the BLM but not the National Park Service, wanted the trail cleared as soon as possible. He hired Terry Jackson to bulldoze it open. Capitol Reef management did not even know the action had taken place until King billed the BLM $2,500 for the work, and the BLM forwarded the bill to park headquarters. [211]

After investigating the bulldozer trespass, the National Park Service decided to ask the U.S. attorney to file petty offense charges for "construction of road or trail [within the] park area without valid permit." In August 1977, District Judge Willis Ritter dismissed the charges without even hearing the National Park Service arguments. Ritter's ruling was overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a year later. [212]

The significance of this episode is that King approached the problem of a blocked stock trail much as he had for many years. He used his own initiative to clear the trail and then billed the Bureau of Land Management. Of course, by 1976, Capitol Reef National Park controlled the land, but King acted either purposely or unknowingly without regard to this fact. Many local residents would continue to handle livestock problems as though land management of the area had not changed.

As time has passed, the stock driveways became less important. More and more of the operators began trucking their livestock between ranges. In 1993, only Guy Pace was still using the stock driveways through the headquarters area, and he trailed fewer than 100 head of cattle through the Fremont River canyon. The other driveways, particularly through Oak and Pleasant Creek drainages, are also still used to trail stock on a regular basis, but not nearly to the extent they were utilized in the early 1960s.

Grazing Management in the 1970s: Preparing for a Phaseout That Didn't Happen

Once the legislation creating Capitol Reef National Park had been signed into law, park managers faced three imminent grazing issues. The first was a need establish to a cooperative agreement allowing the BLM to continue monitoring grazing within the park boundaries until the practice was phased out at Capitol Reef. The second was the need to document just how grazing was impacting the park's resources. The third was the need to establish an equitable way to phase out grazing among the various permittees, since the permit periods varied.

Throughout the 1970s, National Park Service officials believed that the grazing phaseout would be implemented as scheduled. Accordingly, they saw little need for the National Park Service to spend money on or dedicate personnel to an issue that would be eliminated fairly quickly. The park's former Chief of Resource Management Norman Henderson recalled:

With the grazing issue clearly settled, the NPS entered a maintenance phase with regard to actual management of livestock use within the park...The NPS initiated no research and conducted no monitoring of the grazing activities within Capitol Reef National Park. It is apparent that the NPS considered the grazing issue settled and that in a few years there would be no impacts to worry about so there was no need to conduct studies. [213]

Due to the number of different allotments and variety of permits, the Bureau of Land Management was asked to continue handling the day-to-day grazing matters within the park during the winter grazing period. The U.S. Forest Service was asked to help with the small amount of summer grazing on upper Polk Creek and in Paradise Flats. The cooperation between the sister agencies, while sometimes strained because of different mandates, was usually excellent. This good working relationship, especially with the BLM, has been a key reason why the National Park Service only recently suggested that the park manage the day-to-day grazing operation within its boundaries. [214]

It was obvious to Capitol Reef managers, nevertheless, that the traditional methods of grazing livestock were incompatible with National Park Service mission and policy. The number of cattle grazing in Capitol Reef during the winter was estimated in 1974 at 1,014 over 5.3 months a year, for a total of 5,343 AUMs (once animal death and loss was factored). These numbers made it nearly impossible to manage the new park lands in the same manner as some of the older, more pristine national parks. Since the cattle tended to congregate in the vicinity of roadside water catchments, anyone traveling on the park's backroads would notice that Capitol Reef National Park was not exactly a pristine environment. Capitol Reef officials found it difficult to fit their wilderness ideals to actual conditions in parts of the park. [215]

A draft wilderness proposal and a comprehensive environmental assessment on the proposed grazing phaseout were completed in 1974. These documents helped to document range damage and presented alternatives for grazing management and range rehabilitation. Unfortunately, these documents were not useful for long-term planning, for two reasons. First, the alternatives would become moot when the grazing phaseout was extended in 1982; and second, they were written by National Park Service employees who appeared to be biased against grazing. [216]

The draft wilderness proposal determined that grazing could coexist with wilderness so long as certain restrictions were met. Some of the more heavily grazed areas in the northern end of the park were eliminated from wilderness consideration. Nevertheless, grazing would occur in each of the wilderness units. Proposed restrictions on grazing would prohibit motorized vehicles during roundups and on the 10 miles of stock trails within the wilderness units. It was believed that this would be problematic only in the South Desert, where the access road from Lower South Desert Overlook was to be closed. [217]

While the wilderness proposal touched on the problems of grazing, it was based on the assumption that grazing would be phased out by as early as 1975 across much of the southern end of the park. The last permit, within the Hartnet Allotment, was expected to be terminated in 1992. This relatively quick phaseout was seen as a good reason why wilderness designation should be considered in the grazed areas of Capitol Reef National Park. [218] What had yet to be worked out, however, was an equitable solution to the disparity between permit phaseout dates.

In order to gather the pertinent information and provide alternatives for an equitable grazing phaseout, an environmental assessment on the grazing phaseout was completed the same year as the wilderness proposal. This document provided an extremely detailed analysis of the natural resources, such as soils, vegetation, and wildlife, and recounted how each had been affected by 100 years of grazing. The environmental assessment also examined the economic implications of the grazing phaseout and provided six alternatives for the eventual elimination of grazing from Capitol Reef, as mandated by Congress. [219]

The scientific analysis presented in the environmental assessment goes a long way in establishing the adverse effects of grazing in the desert environment. The report also argues for a correlation between climatic fluctuations and the increased damage from grazing, and points to the damage caused by not rotating cattle out of riparian zones on a regular basis. [220] For example, the environmental assessment reported that older cottonwood trees in heavily grazed areas along the Fremont River were noticeably absent, presumably because cattle had somehow destroyed that generation of trees. [221]

The conclusion reached by this environmental assessment was that grazing was incompatible with the values and management philosophy of the National Park Service in the 1970s. In discussing the altered landscape, the assessment states:

Overuse of areas where ground water availability would normally produce picturesque miniature meadows as well as those areas where warmer micro-climate reduces winter and spring snow cover to expose vegetation are denuded and normal surface conditions are destroyed. We are often asked, 'Why do you permit consumptive cattle and grazing activities to damage the land and aesthetic values of our national parks when human visitors are prevented from doing much the same thing with off-road vehicles, out of bounds camping, plant, animal and mineral collecting, pets off leash, etc., etc.?' Cattle ranchers are allowed vehicle access, for instance to certain areas that visitors are prevented from driving in: South Desert, Halls Creek, Divide Canyon Road, Swap Canyon, a trailer house on Burr Flat and a dozen or more corrals. It is difficult to display consistent management practices for natural values where these two opposing interests interact. [222]

It was thus argued that, since grazing was destructive to the natural environment, it should be eliminated as soon as possible. Of course, the National Park Service also had the congressional legislation that provided a relatively quick phaseout. The problem was that the legislation did not take into consideration that some permits were on a yearly basis and some were 10-year permits. To solve this dilemma, the environmental assessment proposed six alternatives. These ranged from an inequitable phaseout under a literal interpretation the legislation, to gradual phaseouts for the yearly permittee and no renewal for those holding 20-year permits (effectively ending grazing in 1982). Alternative 6 was the most extreme choice. It called for grazing to be "immediately" phased out within Capitol Reef "and presently applicable AUMs be transferred to other contiguous Federal lands." Based on the positive and negative effects listed for each alternative, this was the one clearly favored by the author(s) of the environmental assessment. [223]

The favored Alternative 6 failed to consider the fact that there were no suitable "contiguous Federal lands" to which to transfer the park's AUMs. The draft wilderness proposal noted:

The Bureau of Land Management indicates there is little prospect for accommodating the livestock displaced from Capitol Reef on ranges they administer....As a result, as grazing permits expire, the Bureau of Land Management will be reducing the number of AUMs in each shared allotment commensurate to the loss of range within the park. [224]

The environmental assessment went to great lengths to demonstrate that winter grazing was mere maintenance, and that cattle usually lost weight during the time they were on Capitol Reef lands. The document also placed a value of $4.71 on each AUM to show that the economic value of cattle ranching in Capitol Reef was insignificant. These figures did not show that, since there was no other available winter range, closing the park to grazing could force several livestock operators out of business. Thus, the economic impacts of a rapid phaseout would not be as innocuous as the environmental assessment suggested. Another problem with the environmental assessment was that, if one of Alternatives 3 through 6 was approved, the grazing phaseout would be initiated earlier than the 1982 date assumed by most local ranchers.

While the assessment was open to public review and comment for 30 days, those comments, unfortunately, are not part of the permanent record. Local newspapers reported that the locals were outraged at some of the proposed alternatives. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners opposed Alternatives 3 through 6. Verl Bagley, the area's agricultural extension agent, complained:

Our ranchers are having a hard time understanding why it's even necessary for the Park Service to consider alternatives to agreements previously made by Congress and the President. I hope the people of Wayne County will join the county commission and stockmen in writing letters of protest to the Park Service and to our solons in Washington about the disregard by the Park Service for previous promises. [225]

Evidently, local ranchers were resigned to the inevitable phaseout beginning in 1982 and ending in 1992. However, the environmental assessment had offered at least three new alternatives requiring a more rapid withdrawal, leaving ranchers feeling betrayed. Their protests soon received the attention of Sen. Moss. Moss angrily protested to Secretary of Interior Roger C. B. Morton that the National Park Service was breaking its promise to him regarding grazing rights in the park. [226]

An agreement between the ranchers and National Park Service officials may not have been possible so soon after the sudden expansion of Capitol Reef. The wilderness proposals and the grazing phaseout schemes presented in the environmental assessment further polarized positions.

In June 1975, National Park Service Director Russell Dickenson finally decided how the grazing phaseout at Capitol Reef National Park was to be structured. [227] As previously mentioned, grazing permits affecting Capitol Reef were either for one year or 10 years. This meant that if the legislative wording was strictly interpreted, then some permittees would be phased out in two years and others would have 20 years. This proved to be a unique situation, since both Arches and Canyonlands, whose grazing phaseouts were governed by the same legislative wording, had to deal only with 10-year permits. Because of this uniformity, those parks effectively phased out their grazing by 1983. [228]

After taking the ranchers' and conservationists' opinions into consideration, Director Dickenson elected to go with a fairly safe compromise. The 10-year permits within Capitol Reef would be given one period of renewal, as stipulated in the enabling legislation of December 18, 1971; one-year permittees would be allowed to renew their permits annually over 10 years, beginning December 18, 1972. All permits would be terminated by May 31, 1982. This meant that the beginning of the phaseout would be delayed by about seven years, which was supposed to mollify the ranchers. It also meant that grazing would still end at Capitol Reef in 1992, which was meant to satisfy the conservationists. [229] While it seemed that the issue finally had been resolved, this compromise merely extended the grazing controversy at Capitol Reef.

This was essentially an argument over which should take precedence, the traditional grazing use or the more recent preservationist philosophy. At the turn of the century, when the livestock industry became the economic foundation of south-central Utah, there were few people who placed aesthetic values over economic ones. As the national park idea evolved along with a general environmental consciousness during the course of the 20th century, conflict between the old and new attitudes toward land use was inevitable. National park managers would have to deal with the clash of philosophies that resulted when a new national park was established in a traditional multiple use area. If the change occurred too quickly, then conflict was bound to be more bitter.

At Capitol Reef, managers whose job it was to preserve and protect new park lands brushed aside the local traditions, justifying their proposals with calculations of AUMs, forage content, and dollars. The National Park Service figures showed that the winter grazing ranges of Capitol Reef were fairly insignificant for most of the permittees. The figures could not indicate how local people would react to the elimination of winter range grazing. Yet, the failure to involve the local permittees in the removal process led directly to new phaseout legislation that has enabled grazing to continue well beyond the initial target date of 1992.