RANGELANDS14(4), August 1992 233 The Rangeland User Committee Larry S. Allen The challenging social and political Arizona. Each Forest committee has a environment of the 1990's will require chairman and a representative from increased communications among pub- each Ranger District. Issues involving lic land managers, resource users, and more than one Forest are referred to a environmentally concerned citizens. committee consisting of the chairper- Livestock producers and other public sons of each local committee. land users, who derive all or part oftheir livelihood from public rangelands, as CoronadoNational Forest Selected for well as many from the general public Trial are seekingmore effective ways to par- ACGA had previously appointed a ticipate in land allocationand manage- representative to serve as liaison with ment decisions. Expiration ofthe Forest the CoronadoNational Forest. He had Service's authority to charter grazing workedclosely with Forest Serviceper- advisory boards has promptedseveral sonnelto facilitatecommunications and new approaches to improved communi- had been involved in a number of public cations. involvementsituations. This Cattlegrow- The Forest Servicehas held periodic ers representative and the Coronado's Staff Officer meetings with grazing permittees, Range had discussed var- usually at the Ranger District level. ious options for improvedcommunica- Issues and concerns of the users and tions for some time. Because of this theagency have been openlydiscussed, smoothlyfunctioning cooperation, Ariz- RonSearle, CoronadoNational Forest Range- ona elected establish and representatives of environmental landUsers Committee Cattlegrowers to the first Rangeland Use's Committeeon organizationsand otherconcerned citi- users is a User's Committee zenshave been invited to In Rangeland the Coronado. Afive-person committee participate. which is appointed by Arizona Cattle- the Southwest a known as Inte- was selected. process grower's for each National Forest in grated Resource Management is used toassure adequate environmental review and public participation in resource man- agement decisions. The livestock industry has perceived a need for a more organizedapproach to providing input to these processes. The Arizona Memorandum of Under- standing In response to this perception, Arizona Cattle Grower's Association (ACGA) and the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) atthe Association's August, 1990 meeting. This MOU statesthe intention of providing for "careful and consider- ed consultation, cooperation, and coor- dination between these two parties in all matters relating to rangeland man- agement The primary vehicle for accomplish- ing this cooperation and coordination between the agency and the resource Forester Forrest The author is with the USDA-ForestService, 300 Deputy Regional Carpenter; Rancher Joe Lockett, Arizona Cattlegrowers WestCongress. Tucson, Arizona 85701. Association; and RancherBud Webb, Prescott National Forest Rangeland Users Committee 234 RANGELANDS 14(4), August 1992 Help and Adviceto Grazing Permittees Many livestockoperators feel increas- ingly isolated as the agency involves members of the public with highly var- ied viewpoints in the planningprocess. The committeeprovides an opportunity for a permittee to involve other repre- sentatives of the livestock industry in the discussions. Committee members and Forest Sevicepersonnel immediate- ly beganto inform permittees aboutthe existenceof this committee.Ranchers were told that the services of the com- mittee are available to al permittees, regardless of ACGA affiliation. Those receivingassistance will beexpected to join ACGA. Grazing permittees frequently may wish to consult with their peers, when asked for input to an Allotment Man- agement Plan. This allows a sharing of experiences and cautions concern- ing different range management practices. Incases where misunderstand- ings or differences of opinion arise between the operator and agency per- sonnel, the committee can often med- Forest SupervisorsCoy Jemmet(Prescott) and JimAbbott (Coronado) iate. Although both the agencyand the Cattlegrowers wish to emphasize posi- tive aspects of the agreement, it can also be used as a vehicle for advice about appeal, procedures, documenta- tion, etc., when differences cannot be resolved locally. Help and Advice to ForestService Forest Supervisors will rely heavily on the committees to provide a sound- ing board for opinions within the live- stock industry, and to tryout new ideas, a function previouslyfilled by Grazing Advisory Boards. Such sharing of per- spectives has been more difficult in re- cent yearsbecause of the need to select representative permittees for each individual issue. Now the committee chair can assign input on various proj- ects to any or all members. ForestService Range Conservation- ists have varying amounts of back- ground and understanding of animal science and agricultural economics. They will rely on the committees for input in these importantareas. At times Forest Administratorsmay wish to call on the committees for conflict resolu- Regional Forester Dave Jolly and Rancher Bud Webb, Prescott National Forest Rangeland tion. Users Committee 235 RANGELANDS14(4), August 1992 IntegratedResource Management product that both the permittee and the ested in obtaining the grazing permit. The Forest Service's Integrated Re- Forest Service are comfortable with. Management alternatives and selec- source Managementmodel utilizes inter- The result ofthis effort will be improved tion criteria are currently being devel- disciplinary input from Forest Service productivity ofthe range, a morestable oped by representatives of the Range- specialists, sisteragencies, universities, watershed, and improved wildlife habi- land User's Committee, Arizona Game and local experts,coupled with public tat. This will alsofurnish an opportunity and Fish Department, Quail Unlimited, commentfrom avariety of viewpoints to to demonstate responsible range stew- the SierraClub, several neighbors, and arrive at both planningand projectdeci- ardship to the many concerned mem- a Forest Serviceinterdisciplinary team. sions. It is essential that forest users, bers of the public who provided input. The experience and expertise of the including grazing permittees, have an AnAllotment Management Plan—No- committeeis proving invaluablein dev- effectivevoice in the process. gales Ranger District. Squaw ising a way to harvest the forage re- Permittees and other representatives Gulch Allotment has had a manage- source, without adversely impacting of agricultural interests will be asked to ment plan for a numberof years, and it other important values of this new par- participatein the development of issues, was scheduled for a rewrite in 1990. cel of National Forest. concerns, and opportunities;develop- Issues andconcerns developed through ment and selection of alter- the IRM includeda concern for Outlook for Rangeland User's CommIt- management process tees In Arizona natives; and of result- watershed condition due to a less than implementation The Coronado National Forest ex- Users are being optimum litter cover on the soil, and ing plans. Rangeland to date would that to involve themselves in all concernthat riparian areas were being perience indicate encouraged User's as de- processes, not those damaged by current grazing practices. Rangeland Committees, integrated just fined in the Arizona dealing directly with grazing issues or When the ranch foreman reported Cattlegrowers- to his an out Forest ServiceMemorandum of Under- allotment management plans. these concerns employer, in of state corporation,they perceived a standing, haveabrightfuture Arizona. Some Examples serious and calledon the Range- The Forest Service, the grazingpermit- problem and the The Coronado National Forest Range- land Users Committee for help. The tees, general public stand to from communications. land User's Committee hit the ground committeechairman suggested an on- gain improved running with three reviews in the first the-ground inspection and discussion month of their existence. A brief dis- of management by the committee, the cussion of each will serve to illustrate foreman, and Forest Service RangeCon- the value of the committee. servationists. AnAllotment Management Plan-Doug- After a thorough inspection of the las Ranger District. The grazing per- allotment, a management strategy in- mittee and Douglas Ranger District per- volving rotation grazing with emphasis sonnel had been discussing the need on riparian and watershed conditions 3717 Vera Cruz Ave for a new Allotment Management Plan was agreed upon. The resultingAMP is Minneapolis, MN 55422 on the PriceCanyon Allotment for sev- expected to meet the resource needs as Phone 61? 5376639 eral years. Planning was scheduled for well asthe ranch goals, while providing Native 1990 and a great deal of preliminary another opportunity to demonstrate Crass Drill work was accomplishedby the rancher proper management,without significant- and the District Conservation- ACCURATELY PLANTS Range ly impacting the economics ofthe ranch ALL TYPES OF SEED ists. operation. • Fluffly native grasses A cordial environmentexists between Greaterville Land A Acquisition. • Tiny legumes the rancher and present Douglas Dis- land was 3,057-acre parcel of recently • Methum sized wheat grasses trict personnel, but this permittee has acquired by the Forest Service been aroundfor a long time andthis has through land exchange. The area is