Orme Ranch Strategic Team, Collaboration or HRM Propaganda?

V-Bar Grazing Allotment, Verde Ranger District, Prescott National Forest

November 6, 2001

Mr. Mike King, Supervisor
Prescott National Forest
344 South Cortez Street
Prescott, Arizona 86303

Dear Mr. King,

I recently received your forest's most recent quarterly schedule of proposed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions and was disappointed to discover that it did not include the re-issuance of the livestock grazing permit for the 20,649 acre V-Bar grazing allotment, which is held by the Orme Ranch.

I understand that the Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19, Section 504) eliminated the legal requirement that an adequate, site-specific NEPA analysis be completed before the re-issuance of an existing grazing permit. But this legislation did not remove the requirement that an adequate NEPA analysis must be completed for every Forest Service grazing allotment as soon as practically possible.

I also understand an environmental assessment (EA) of the V-Bar allotment's existing livestock management scheme was completed by the Verde Ranger District in 1985. But I believe that it was inadequate for NEPA compliance, and that the allotment management plan (AMP) subsequently implemented is fatally flawed.

For example, that EA only analyzed two management alternatives. One was the time-controlled grazing system (also known as short-duration grazing or Holistic Resource Management) that was implemented and is still in use on the allotment today. The other was the previously existing situation, which was described in the EA simply as a "six pasture rotation with 300 cattle."

In the AMP that accompanied the EA, however, there was a more extensive description of the V-Bar allotment's existing situation. The AMP explained that a range analysis was completed for the allotment in 1979, and that production utilization studies were conducted in 1979 and 1980. They determined that the allotment's grazing capacity was only about 181 head, or about a third less than was permitted.

The AMP went on to explain that the existing situation described in the EA wasn't really the existing situation at all. In 1981, it said, a new management plan had been informally implemented on the allotment. Permitted cattle numbers weren't cut to 181 head, as called for by the studies. Instead, a new grazing system was implemented whereby the pastures east of I-17 were grazed during the summer and the pastures west of the freeway were grazed only during the dormant season. And two pastures received rest each year. The AMP said that under this strategy, "the recovery of the adversely impacted areas was effected by the end of 1984." The EA contained a similar statement that, "Range conditions on Orme Ranch have been improving since 1981 as a result of present management." It added that, "The supposition used is that progress in attaining some goals is being made and will continue under present management."

Despite the fact that the 1981 grazing management plan was apparently improving natural resource conditions, the purpose of the 1985 EA was to analyze a new proposal from the operators of the Orme Ranch, Alan and Diana Kessler, to implement a, "time controlled grazing program by applying the principles of Holistic Resource Management (HRM)." The EA explained that the Kesslers wanted to go to an HRM grazing scheme because of, "Concerns that opportunities to increase forage production, grazing distribution and livestock production are not being realized under existing management." Also, a May 22, 1985, letter to the public from Verde District Ranger, Thomas Bonomo, soliciting comments on the project stated, "The basis of this proposal is Orme Ranch's desire to increase livestock production through better grazing efficiency." The November 7, 1985, decision of then Prescott National Forest Supervisor, Donald Bolander, to allow the implementation of the proposed HRM grazing system included raising the permitted number of cattle to 400 head, or more than twice the number indicated by the range analysis. His decision also included provisions for at least three more increases in the number of livestock permitted as the HRM system was phased in. Obviously, a desire by the grazing permittees to increase livestock numbers was a primary objective of the management system that was implemented in 1985.

There are a lot of legal problems with the process that was used to implement the V-Bar's HRM grazing system in 1985. For instance, Forest Service regulation 36 C.F.R. § 219.12(f) requires planning teams to "formulate a broad range of reasonable alternatives" to be included in EA's in order to "provide an adequate basis for identifying the alternative that comes nearest to maximizing net public benefit." Specifically, subsection (7) of these regulations state that: "At least one alternative shall reflect the current level of goods and services provided by the unit and the most likely amount of goods and services expected to be provided in the future if current management direction continues. Pursuant to NEPA procedures, this alternative shall be deemed the 'no action' alternative."

This is supported by the Forest Service Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15). Chapter 14 of this handbook discusses the development of management alternatives in EA's. Section 14.1 explains that the no action alternative is needed to provide the "baseline" from which the effects of other alternatives are estimated.

As I explained above, the 1985 V-Bar EA did not really include a "no action" alternative, as the proposed action was compared to a "present management" alternative that had not existed on the allotment since the implementation of the existing management scheme in 1981.

Furthermore, the 1985 V-Bar EA failed to include an analysis of a "no grazing" alternative, as is required by the Forest Service Grazing Permit Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13, Chapter 90).

This lack of an appropriate range of alternatives in the EA prevented the identification of the management alternative that maximized the net public benefit. The absence of an accurate no action alternative, for instance, prevented the comparison of the proposed HRM scheme against the existing management system. Since the existing management system was showing results, the EA should have analyzed whether or not the expected results of the proposed HRM system would be better or worse. Furthermore, the absence of a no grazing alternative meant that the resource conditions that could be expected to develop on the allotment in the absence of livestock were not compared to the conditions that could be expected under the grazing alternatives. These are real issues, not just paperwork errors.

Another major inadequacy of the 1985 V-Bar allotment EA was the lack of analysis regarding the impact of the proposed HRM grazing scheme upon local wildlife populations. This was in spite of the fact there was research showing that the high forage utilization levels typical of HRM grazing systems negatively impact wildlife species like pronghorn antelope (Neff 1979) and quail (Brown 1982) that need abundant standing ground cover to thrive. The EA did include a discussion about the effects of the proposed action upon the local pronghorn population. And it also included the forest biologist's recommendation that grazing should be deferred in critical pronghorn fawning areas in order to give the newborns cover from predators. But this provision was not included in the AMP. And the effect of the proposed action upon pronghorns was the only wildlife issue analyzed in the EA. There was no inventory of the other wildlife species found on the allotment, or of their habitat needs. Nor was there any mention of the potential presence of any federally listed wildlife species on the allotment, or of the Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that would have been required if there were any.

There are also problems, I believe, with the content of the AMP that was implemented in 1985. It incorporated a list of management goals that were developed by the Orme Ranch Strategic Team, an HRM planning group facilitated by the Kesslers. These goals were divided between "production" and "landscape" objectives.

Unfortunately, they included a landscape goal for the allotment's riparian areas that is not compatible with healthy riparian habitat. This goal, labeled #8, was to, "Increase riparian area stability with rounded banks and increased grass cover." Southwestern riparian areas with streambanks rounded by cattle hoof action and streamside vegetation dominated by exotic Bermuda grass, however, are considered to be in poor condition according to ecologists.

This means the riparian habitat objective in the 1985 V-Bar AMP conflicts with the Prescott National Forest land management plan, which requires that site specific management plans bring the forest's riparian areas into good condition. This is a violation of Forest Service regulation 36 C.F.R. § 222.2(c) wherein it states "allotment management plans will be prepared consistent with land management plans." It also violates the Forest Service Manual, wherein the chapter on rangeland management planning (FSM 2212) it states that a grazing allotment management plan "is the primary document which guides implementation of forest plan direction for rangeland resources and, as such, must conform to, and be consistent with, the management direction contained in the Forest Plan."

Another problem with the V-Bar AMP is that it virtually handed over livestock management on these public lands to a private entity. Instead of identifying management parameters essential to any livestock management plan, like the maximum allowable upland forage use rate, riparian specific grazing prescriptions, and setting the maximum number of cattle permitted, the AMP explained that, "An ongoing review process is used in time control grazing implementation." This, in effect, meant that livestock management on these public lands was put in the hands of the Kessler's Orme Ranch Strategic Team. While I'm not against local collaborative planning groups, per se, they need to operate within the law in order to protect the interests of the general public.

For example, the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act requires states "the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved." Furthermore, it says the establishment of advisory committees must be announced in the Federal Register and that they shall not "meet or take any action" until a charter is filed for them with the appropriate agency. More importantly, the act requires prior public notice of advisory committee meetings to "insure that all interested persons are notified." In the case of the Orme Ranch Strategic Team, I do not believe any of these requirements have been met. Instead, the Kesslers host the team's meetings and manage the mailing list, and anyone inclined to attend is expected to exhibit a collaborative attitude, despite the ongoing controversy about the scientific validity of the ecological theories incorporated into the HRM grazing system that they insist on using (Holechek 2000).

Concerns about the effectiveness of time controlled grazing systems are reflected in some of the provisions of regional supplement #2200-91-1 to the Forest Service Manual. This supplement includes "Criteria for Time Control Grazing Area Guidelines" which require a backup plan that "will be applied when necessary" to all time controlled grazing schemes. The backup plan must include rest periods of at least 90 days for pastures under a conventional multi-pasture deferred rotation system. The V-Bar AMP included such a backup plan and explained that, "This reversion will be applied if the needed improvements, to initiate a time control grazing program, are not installed." According to the AMP, these "improvements" included 77.75 miles of fence and several livestock watering sites. However, it also explained that the improvements would be installed in four phases, and that only the first phase, consisting of 12.5 miles of fence and two livestock water developments, was certain to implemented. There was no mention in the EA of the cost of these improvements or where the money would come from. Nor did the EA include any sort of cost/benefit analysis from the perspective of the taxpayer.

Furthermore, the AMP stated that after all the necessary improvements were installed, the backup plan would still be implemented if, "the operation is not meeting management objectives and changes cannot be agreed to by the permittee." In the "Followup Action" section of the AMP it stated, "Monitoring is an integral part of time control grazing and is essential to determining if management objectives are being met." It even listed the required monitoring.

It included:

1. The grazing control chart including the actual use and overall grazing utilization within each paddock as prepared by the permittee each year.
2. The District will read two Range Trend transects annually, the transects are previously established and will provide continuity. Recommended transects are:
   • C-8 - this will provide information on access in the mimosa, species composition and ground cover on granitic soils.
   • C4 - this transect is located in the tobosa on heavy soils.
3. Paced transects will be used where specific information is desired.
4. Riparian transects will be established on Ash Creek and Dry Creek.
5. Antelope population estimates will be supplied annually by the Units 19A and 21 Game Managers.
6. The Arizona State Land Department's Prescott office will establish at least two 200 point pace transects on upland areas which will be read annually. Riparian areas will be monitored by the use of 100 foot line transects. Precipitation gauges will be placed in the cell centers and read by the leasee.

After I toured the V-Bar allotment with the Kesslers in 1996, I wrote Mr. Bonomo asking if the required monitoring had been done and, if so, what it had found. He responded with a letter dated July 22, in which he summarized the findings of the monitoring done by his office. They were troubling because they did not appear to follow the appropriate methods of evaluating natural resource conditions in relation to livestock grazing. He explained that they had used the Parker 3-Step method to assess conditions on the two transects they were monitoring. But instead of determining range condition and trend, the focus of their monitoring on transect C-8 seems to have been the density of brush. And the focus of their monitoring on transect C-4 seems to have been the proliferation of annuals in the tobosa grass. Both of these concerns relate to livestock production, as the reduction of woody vegetation along C-8 could increase edible forage and the increase in annuals along C-4 was the result of high livestock utilization levels on the tobosa grass.

The problem is, Parker 3-Step transects do no provide information on ecological status. Recognizing this, in 1997 your regional office issued the Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide in which the Parker 3-Step method of analysis was superseded by new methodology to "transition from assessing range condition based on resource value for livestock grazing to assessing ecosystem condition as a basis for resource management." This guide explained that these ecological assessments should be based upon canopy cover and plant frequency data collected using Daubenmire transects.

I realize that this method of assessing resource conditions was adopted several years after the V-Bar AMP was implemented. But the new method should have been used since 1997. My personal observation is that the V-Bar's uplands are suffering from high livestock forage utilization levels.

As for the allotment's riparian areas, Mr. Bonomo's July 22, 1996, letter explained that their conditions had been assessed as being "fair or good" using something called the Prescott Riparian Inventory and Monitoring Methods. But in 1996 the Chief of the Forest Service mandated that your agency would use the widely accepted proper functioning condition (PFC) method of assessing riparian habitat conditions. I believe that using the PFC assessment method, the allotment's riparian areas would be classified as not functional, or functional at risk, both of which are unsatisfactory conditions. (You may review my riparian habitat monitoring photos of the allotment's Dry Creek at: http://www.grazingactivist.org/hrm.html)

Regarding the status of the allotment's pronghorn antelope herd, Mr. Bonomo explained in his letter that it had decreased in size but attributed the decline to mountain lion predation upon adult antelope. There apparently has not been any consideration of the negative impact the additional fencing needed to implement the HRM grazing scheme may have had on the antelope.

I don't know if the Arizona State Land Department has completed the monitoring they were supposed to do, or if they did it, what they found. But the point I'm trying to make is that the efficacy of the livestock management scheme implemented on the V-Bar allotment in 1985 was questionable and I don't believe there has ever been an objective assessment of it, especially in comparison to a conventional livestock management system where the pasture rotations and the stocking rate are dictated by compliance with a conservative forage utilization level of 35% or less. The bottom line is that I don't believe the Verde Ranger District has complied with Forest Service regulation 36 C.F.R. § 219.22, which requires that, "The responsible official must ensure that the best possible science is considered in planning."

I understand that in 1998 the Sisk Laboratory of Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology at the Center for Environmental Studies and Education at Northern Arizona University initiated a grazing study on the V-Bar allotment. They are comparing the effects of the Orme Ranch's HRM livestock management, and HRM management with extremely high forage use levels, to no livestock grazing. The findings could be of some value but they would be even more valuable if comparisons were also being made with a conventionally grazed plot. It seems very odd that this wasn't included in the study. At any rate, I am not aware that any results from this study have been made available for public review.

Instead, the Orme Ranch Strategic Team appears to have been give free reign to privately manage public lands using questionable management practices that are tilted toward maximizing livestock production at the expense of overall ecosystem health. Who knows what kind of decisions have been implemented by the team since 1985? A member of the general public cannot know, unless they have the opportunity and inclination to attend the team's periodic meetings at the ranch, which they shouldn't have to do.

For example, by an accident I discovered that the Orme Ranch filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor in 1993 regarding their hiring of an alien goat herder to look after 600 Angora goats. Apparently, the goats were let loose on the allotment with the hope that they would consume woody vegetation, thereby increasing the amount of herbaceous vegetation for livestock consumption. This scheme, however, had been tried in the 1980's on the nearby Tonto National Forest and had failed and caused unforeseen resource problems (Severson 1991). I don't know what happened with the goats on the V-Bar allotment, but this is an example of a significant action that should have been subjected to NEPA analysis.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to move up the date for the initiation of an updated NEPA analysis of livestock grazing on the V-Bar allotment so that all of these important issues can be resolved as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Jeff Burgess