The Story
Since 2021, over 130 trespass cattle complaints have been filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by the Center for Biological Diversity in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA). The Center’s co-founder, Robin Silver, has described the cows in the river as an “invading hoard” and while he may be the most outspoken in his opinion, he’s not alone. Many environmental advocates are concerned by the negative impacts cows are havig on the San Pedro River’s protected riparian ecosystem.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter have done more than just express their concern over cows in the river. They’ve taken the BLM to court, alleging that the agency is violating its legal mandate to “conserve, protect and enhance” the SPRNCA and the Endangered Species Act by failing to remove trespass cattle from the river and continuing to authorize grazing on four ranches within the preserve.
Their argument is simple, cows and riparian conservation aren’t compatible in the arid West. And by allowing cows to remain in this area, the BLM is jeaopardizing the survival of multiple endangered species. They claim that just one trespassing cow on the river has the potential to wipe out the remaining Huachuca water umbel population in the SPRNCA.
“We’re just pulling our hair out over here going, what else do we need to show you?” said Cyndi Tuell, Southwest Programs Director for Western Watersheds Project. “There’s science specific to this spot on the planet that shows that cows are bad for this spot on the planet. There’s a legal requirement that you can’t allow cows if they’re bad for the spot, and they did it anway. It makes no sense.”
The San Pedro River is at the heart of this conflict over cows. It flows north from Sonora, Mexico into Arizona for 140 miles where it eventually ends at its confluence with the Gila River. It’s the last major free flowing river in the Southwest. Some have called it the “last wild river in the West.”
Its unassuming at first glance, just a small streak of green contrasting against the various shades of brown in the surrounding desert. But its a vital corridor for life in the desert. Riparian Ecosystems like the San Pedro only make up about three percent of Arizona’s landscape, but over 90% of all wildlife in the state interact with them in some way.
Today, the SPRNCA protects roughly 40 miles of the San Pedro River stretching north from the U.S. Mexican border in Cochise County and nearly 57,000 acres of public land surrounding the river. Because of its protected status, it has become one of the most studies riparian habitats in the Southwest.
The SPRNCA was designated by Congress as the Nation’s first Riparian National Conservation Area in 1988 and placed under the management of the BLM. While an explicit grazing moratorium proved politically impossible to get through Congress in the 1980s, the preserve’s founders believed that its enabling legislation included an implied grazing moratorium. But the area has never been completely free from grazing.
In 2019, the BLM released its most recent Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the SPRNCA. This reignited the debate over the legality of grazing in the preserve. In 2020, the BLM found itself defending its decision to continue authorizing grazing on four ranches within the preserve in two different lawsuits. Some environmental advocates are now calling for management of the SPRNCA to be transfered to either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Parks System.
“Based on 20 years of activism in the SPRNCA, ultimately I think the BLM was absolutely the wrong agency to have been given charge of it based on what the BLM does and what is has for a charter,” said Tricia Georodette, former President of the Huachuca Audobon Society. “It should have been given to the Fish and Wildlife Service in my opinion.”
Before its designation as a Riparian National Conservation Area, the land around the San Pedro River was owned by a private real estate developer, Tenneco. They leased the area out to local ranchers. John Ladd, who grew up ranching next to San Pedro River, said that in the early 80s there were more than 3,500 cows on the river.
When the BLM acquired the land from Tenneco in 1986, they put an end to leasing the land out for grazing. But after the preserve was designated in 1988, some state land was added to the SPRNCA to make it more continuous and the state lands came with four outstanding grazing leases. These four leases are still active today, and hundreds of cattle are legally allowed to graze on them within the preserve’s boundaries.
When these state grazing leases were brought into the SPRNCA, the BLM intended to allow them to expire and then be retired at the end of their 10 year terms. But for some unexplained reason, in the early 1990s, all four grazing leases were renewed instead and were most recently renewed on April 7th of this year.
“We determined in the first plan that we would not permit grazing,” said Dean Bibles, Arizona State Director for the BLM from 1982-1989. “We acquired some state trust lands that had grazing permits on them. And our commitment then was exactly the same. We would only honor the existing 10 year permits until they expired. But then for some reason, the BLM started recognizing grazing in portions of the San Pedro, and that has been very destructive to the purposes [of the conservation area].”
The BLM has never given a public explanation for why they chose to renew the four state grazing leases instead of retiring them as planned. They refused to comment for this story because of the active litigation over their management of the SPRNCA. But many have speculated that they renewed the leases because of local politics, and were playing favorites with local ranchers.
“They’re making political decisions on how much of a pissing match to get into with cowboys,” Said Robin Silver, Co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Today, the three groups suing the BLM over their most recent reauthorization of grazing in the SPRNCA still feel like local ranching politics are influencing the BLM’s decision. Their accusations aren’t baseless. There’s a strong legal argument to be made that authorizing grazing within the SPRNCA is illegal because its been scientifically proven that cows are destroying the fragile riparian ecosystem and threatening endangered species.
“If you look at the proclamation that created the SPRNCA, it says you can only allow livestock grazing if you can show that it conserves, protects and enhances the area,” said Tuell. “And there’s no way to show that because it doesn’t.”
Tuell thinks that something is “fishy” with the BLM’s management decisions in the SPRNCA and Silver claims that the local BLM does nothing without the approval of the Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District. Two supervisors on the NRCD’s board, Lance Clawson and Jim Lindsey, are grazing allotment holders in the SPRNCA. In some circles, the BLM has even earned itself the nickname of “Bureau of Livestock and Mining.”
I asked John Ladd, the Chairman of the Hereford NRCD, if he worked with the BLM on its management decisions for the SPRNCA. He thought the idea that he could somehow control the BLM was a bit ridiculous, but it wasn’t the first time he’d heard these accusations. He said that some environmental groups had previosuly tried to FOIA the NRDC for any records of them talking about the BLM.
Ladd said that the NRCD did not work with the BLM at all until Scott Feldhausen became the Gila District Manager a few years ago. He said that Feldhausen was the first BLM guy they’d had down there who recognized the value of cows.
Feldhausen is at the center of the controversy over the BLM’s management decisions for the SPRNCA. One thing that everyone seemed to agree on was that the BLM was not doing its job to protect the area or support the ranchers it leased land to.
During his tenure as the Gila District Manager, Feldhausen has refused to round-up and impound trespass cattle in the river, something the environmentalists are begging him to do. In 2021, he admitted at a public meeting that he wasn’t doing this because he was scared of ranchers potentially threatening him and his staff with violence. Many have speculated that he was working for the BLM in Southern Nevada in 2014 when Cliven Bundy infamously raised an armed militia against the BLM to take back his cattle.
Despite Feldhausens admitted fear of rancher violence, every rancher I spoke with like him. They said he was the first fair BLM employee they’d worked with in decades. Many of them also expressed a desire to work with everyone and find common ground to preserve the SPRNCA.
“We are very conscious of nature, of the land and the river,” said Lance Clawson, the Lucky Hills allotment holder in the SPRNCA. “And so my key is instead of working against each other, working with each other. Because a lot of times we have the same vision, we may have different ideas of how to get there, but we have the same vision. We want to see the river flourish, we want to see the wildlife flourish.”
Clawson also expressed concern over the bias against the four allotments in the SPRNCA. He claimed that he and his neighbor, Jim Lindsey, were responsible allotment holders who took care of the land and that most of the trespass cattle in the river were coming from allotments outside of the preserve.
He wasn’t the only one to express concern. Matt Ford who leases the Bobacomari allotment in the SPRNCA from the BLM, wished that people would quit picking on his livelihood.
“I just wonder when enough is gonna be enough for these people,” said Ford. “You know, they don’t care that they’re ruining somebody’s livelihood, you know? I’m not trying to say anything bad. But they got all the money in the world backing them and two dummied like him and I go in debt ranching the first year and they’re trying to jerk our leases out of there.”
So is there a way for the ranchers and environmentalists to work together to preserve the SPRNCA going forward?
The outcome of this seems dubious. Both lawsuits from 2020 ended in settlements which required the BLM to reevaluate grazing within the SPRCA. The BLM has reevaluated and renewed all four leases. That decision is currently being appealed, and two more lawsuits against the BLM have been initiated by the Center for Biological Diversity in the last month.
Everyone agrees that the BLM is absent in its management of the SPRNCA and the agency has admitted it does not have to staff to complete work in the area right now. It also seems unlikely, based on its previous behaviors, that the agency will prohibit grazing in the preserve unless ordered by a court to do so, and the current litigation could take years to get a final ruling from a judge.
Timeline
1985: Governor Babbitt and Dean Bibles sign MOU for land exchanges between the state and BLM
1986: The BLM acquires the land around the San Pedro from Tenneco
1988: Congress established the SPRNCA in the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act
1988: former state lands are added to the SPRNCA
1989: The San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan is Released
1992: The Safford District RMP is released
1996: All four former state grazing leases are renewed for another 10 years
2018: The BLM releases its draft RMP for the SPRNCA
2019: The BLM releases its final RMP for the SPRNCA
2020: Western Watersheds, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club sue the BLM
August 2022: All three lawsuits are settled
Dec. 21st 2022: The BLM releases its proposed reauthorization for all four grazing leases in the SPRNCA
March 21st 2023: The Center for Biological Diversity sends NOI to the BLM and begins negotiations
April 7th 2023: The BLM finalizes its lease reauthorizations for all four grazing allotments in the SPRNCA
April 10th 2023: The Center for Biological Diversity releases a new study showing cows have damaged more than 90% of the riparian habitat in the SPRNCA
April 25th 2023: The Center for Biological Diversity sends NOI to the BLM over its reauthorization of grazing leases in the SPRNCA