The collaborative group on sustainable grazing for three national forests in southern Utah was convened to address concerns about the sustainability of livestock grazing. The group aimed to develop consensus on grazing principles and practices that provide ecological sustainability, social acceptability, and economic viability. Participants included ranchers, environmental groups, agencies, universities, and the U.S. Forest Service. The group identified ecological, social, and economic indicators to measure sustainability and suggested grazing management practices based on principles of time, timing, and intensity of grazing. The final report outlines the group's recommendations and indicators to help improve grazing management.

1. Collaborative Group on Sustainable
Grazing
For Three National Forests in Southern Utah

2. PURPOSE and PARTICIANTS
Convened by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
and the Utah Department of Natural Resources
p

3. Why a Collaborative Effort?

Need
Concerns about the sustainability of livestock
grazing on three National Forests in southern Utah




Dixie National Forest
Fishlake National Forest
Manti – La S l National Forest
i
Sal
i
l
Goal
Develop consensus agreement on grazing
management principles and practices for Forest
Service lands in Southern Utah that:



provide for ecological sustainability
are socially acceptable
are economically viable

4. Participants

Ranching and Local Government





Environmental/Conservation








Brigham Young University
Utah State University
Advisory:



Utah Dept. of Agriculture and Food
p
g
Department of Natural Resources
Natural Resources Conservation Service
University


Grand Canyon Trust
The Nature Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
Local private conservation landowner
Agencies and Government


Farm Bureau
Utah Cattlemen’s Association
Utah Wool G
U h W l Growers A
Association
i i
County Commissioner
U.S. Forest Service
Headwaters Economics
Facilitation: Univ. f Utah Utah State U i
F ilit ti U i of Ut h & Ut h St t Univ.

5. Indicators
Ecological, Social, and Economic

6. Thinking about Indicators

An indicator: something to measure
that helps us understand a system
Indicators give us data to help answer the question:
“Is th
“I the system ecologically, economically, and
t
l i ll
i ll
d
socially sustainable?”

We asked: will the indicator change with grazing management changes?



Short-term or long term?
Small-scale or large-scale?
Important:



We did not judge if change would be good or bad, just whether it could happen
Other things (rainfall, national beef prices, etc.) may influence indicators, so…
Must look at indicators together to see if grazing management is sustainable
g
g
g
g

7. Ecological Indicators

Indicators


Two focus areas



Upland
Riparian
Example indicators






What to measure to understand the
health (sustainability) of the system
Many different ages of aspen trees
Evidence of seed head maturation
Evidence of erosion
Grasses hanging over stream banks
Stream bank trampling/hoof prints
p g
p
Simple Methods


Reference document is part of report
Shows how to measure indicators
Healthy aspe o th
Health aspen growth
(many different ages present)

8. Ecological Indicators


Upland
Riparian



Many potential indicators to
choose from
Should be used together to
really understand conditions
Forest Service, ranchers, or
anyone else could use them

9. Social and Economic Indicators


Recommendations for
grazing management
needed to be socially
acceptable and
bl
d
economically viable.
What should we measure to better understand the
relationships between grazing on the National Forests
and the economic and social issues related to it?

10. Economic and Social Indicators

Grazing matters at different scales:




We suggest measuring these ideas:





Individual ranchers and operations
p
Local communities
Broader public
Investment in grazing practices
g
gp
Opportunities to participate in livestock grazing on USFS lands
Diversity of grazing arrangements and public involvement
Community/County-level
Community/County level economic impact of public lands grazing
Using these specific measurements…
g
p

11. Selected Economic/Social Indicators

Dollar value of time, capital and investment related to grazing management
changes on Forest Service land


Number of permitted AUMs
p


by month, by USFS district
Number and acreage of diverse grazing arrangements


by permittees, by the USFS, and by others
by district, by year
Average expenditures per cow unit by ranchers who use public land

by county

And others…

12. Indicators



All indicators were
evaluated to make
sure they were
reasonable
Ecological indicators
have a potential
“simple
“ i l method”
h d”
included
Social/Economic indicators do not include suggested
methods, but some data is already available

13. Indicators
No one indicator
alone is sufficient
to reach a
conclusion about
l i
b
sustainability

14. Grazing Management
Key Principles and Suggested Practices

15. Key Principles of Grazing Management

Time


Timing


Duration (length of time) of
grazing use in an area
When – what season an
area gets grazed
t
d
Intensity

How much gets eaten by
livestock while they are in
an area

Using these principles
together provides the
foundation for making
grazing more sustainable

16. Key Principles in Practice

An example change in TIME:



An example change in TIMING



Before: Grazing a single pasture for 4 weeks
After: Grazing a single pasture for 10 days
Before: Grazing a pasture during June each year
After: Grazing a pasture in June (year 1), Aug (year 2), Oct (y
g p
J
(y
) g (y
)
(year 3)
)
An example change in INTENSITY


Before: Animals remove 80% of the forage
After: Animals remove 50% of the forage

17. Grazing management practices

Menu of possibilities
 24 suggested practices
 Not everything works for every situation

Several kinds of suggestions




To directly influence time, timing, and intensity of grazing
To change grazing management decisions
To improve conditions for both livestock and ecology
To improve monitoring so we understand how to graze most sustainably
T i
i i
d
dh
i bl

18. Selected Grazing Practice Suggestions







Move water and salt to help manage where livestock go
Consider
C id combining allotments or pastures t i
bi i
ll t
t
t
to increase
flexibility
Use riders to actively move livestock
y
Consider multi-season rest for some areas
Use reference areas to improve understanding of the
ecological potential of an area
l
l
l f
Forest Service should consider using a broader suite of
ecological indicators to make decisions about grazing
management
And many more…

19. Suggestions for how to make it happen






Find permittees interested in piloting innovations
Share what is possible to achieve with grazing management
Find incentives to motivate permittees
Explore ways to have more flexible stocking rates
Involve diverse parties in monitoring
p
g
Ensure that Forest Service staff understand the flexibility
they have to help improve grazing

The F rest Ser ice sh ld respond to and/or create
Forest Service should res nd t and/ r
opportunities for multi‐party engagement in grazing
management in ways that may lead to changes in:




National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisions on grazing
systems
Allotment Management Plan (AMP) revisions
(Timely) Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) development
Annual allotment monitoring (data collection and reporting,
sharing and discussion of results)

20. Other recommendations

The collaborative made these and other suggestions:

State ildlif
St t wildlife managers and th F
d the Forest S i could
t Service
ld
improve coordination and communication regarding
wildlife use of grazed areas

When an operation’s bottom line is at stake, making a
change can mean taking a risk. Appropriate incentives
encourage livestock producers to change.

Educational workshops for all stakeholders could help
improve knowledge, cooperation, and better decision
making.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
could coordinate to jointly increase opportunities to
improve grazing management

21. Final Products
Making Use of the Collaborative Group’s Work

22. Report Elements

Everything is transparent
y
g
p

Appendices
pp




Executive Summary
Main R
M Report



Grazing Principles
Grazing Practices
Indicators




Ecological
Economic and Social
Recommendations
Lessons Learned
Process:



Background Information




Participants
Guiding Document
Operating Protocol & Process
Key Issues
Allotment Information
Challenges and Barriers
Final products


Indicator evaluation tables
Simple methods for ecological
indicators

23. How will these ideas be useful?

The Forest Service



Ranchers/Grazing operators



Monitoring ideas
M it i id
Process recommendations
Grazing management ideas
Involvement in monitoring
Conservation Community


Opportunities for
collaborative i l
ll b ti involvement
t
Monitoring ideas

Others

Opportunities f
O
t iti for
collaborative involvement
in monitoring, learning,
and grazing improvement

24. Where do we go from here?

Spread the word

Tools



Ideas




Monitoring ideas
Simple methods
Grazing management principles
Grazing management practices
g
g
p
U.S. Forest Service process suggestions
Relationships


Increased trust leads to increased communication
I
d
l d
i
d
i i
Involve others in learning and planning, no matter who you are

25. THANK YOU!
Full report available at: http://tinyurl com/grazingreport
http://tinyurl.com/grazingreport
OR: http://www.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sustainable-Grazing-So-UT-FS-Final-Report.123112.pdf

26. Additional Detail:
Participants

Ranching and Local Government





Environmental/Conservation





Mary O’Brien Grand Canyon Trust
O Brien,
Joel Tuhy, The Nature Conservancy
Casey Snider, Trout Unlimited
Dennis Bramble, Local landowner
Agencies and Government




John Keeler, Utah Farm Bureau
Dave Eliason,
Da e Elias n Utah Cattlemen s Association
Cattlemen’s
Matt Mickel, Utah Wool Growers Association
Tom Jeffery, Wayne County Commissioner
Bill Hopkin, Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food
Rory Reynolds, Dept. of Natural Resources
Shane Green, Natural Resources Conservation
Service
University


Val Jo Anderson, Brigham Young University
Chuck Gay, Utah State University

Advisory:



Allen Rowley, U.S. Forest Service
Julie Haggerty Headwaters Economics
Haggerty,
Facilitation:


Michele Straube, University of Utah
Lorien Belton, Utah State University

27. Additional Detail:
Complete list – Upland Ecological Indicators

Gross visual indicators of sustainable upland grazing



Soil stability




Percent soil cover
Evidence of erosion
Soil surface susceptibility to erosion
Plant species composition (compared to rested or reference areas)






Positive indicators – at extremes (e.g., a diversity of native flowers and grasses; aspen
stands with diverse heights of trees)
Negative indicators – at extremes (e.g., a moist meadow with extensive bare soil; evidence
of severe erosion)
Simplified
Si lifi d measure of plant di
f l
diversity (
i (count; species richness)
i
i h
)
Significant presence of plant species associated with poor grazing management (e.g.
stickseed, tarweed, pepperweed, any noxious species, etc.)
Full range of size classes of woody species present
Evidence of d i bl plant recruitment, i new (li l ) and medium size plants
E id
f desirable l
i
i.e.
(little) d
di
i
l
(bunchgrasses/forbs)
Evidence of seed-head maturation
Landscape composition and structure

Change in relative coverage of vegetation types

28. Additional Detail:
Complete list – Riparian Ecological Indicators

Gross visual indicators of sustainable riparian grazing




Percent bare soil (exclusive of rock)
Plant species composition (comparison to rested or reference areas)








Percentage of streambank with overhanging vegetation (with channel type as context)
Abundance of deep-rooted vegetation (sedges, rushes, and woody species)
Trampling/shearing associated with hoofprints (depending on channel type and grazing method for restoration)
In-stream conditions
I
di i



Simplified measure of plant diversity (count) (species richness) – accounting for patch diversity
Significant resence f lant s ecies ass ciated ith
Si nificant presence of plant species associated with poor grazing management (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass, redtop,
r ra in mana ement (e Kent ck bl e rass redt
noxious)
Evidence of seed-head (including willow catkins) maturation
Full range of size classes of woody species present (site dependent)
Evidence of desirable plant recruitment, i.e. new little, medium, etc. plants
Riparian area structure and function


Positive indicators (e.g., stream banks with grasses overhanging and shading the creek; dense willow of multiple
sizes)
Negative indicators (e.g., scattered old cottonwood and willow, with heavy browse of sprouts)
Pool depths
Sedimentation
In-stream water quality


Water quality
Macroinvertebrates

29. Additional Detail:
Complete list – Social/Economic Indicators (p.1)
(p 1)

Investment in Grazing Practices

Dollar value of time, capital and other investments (e.g., short and long-term
infrastructure, monitoring, land improvement projects) related to grazing management
changes on F
h
Forest S i l d / allotment by
Service land ll
b





Permittees,
Forest Service, and
Other entities
Total
T t l pounds of meat production / acre / allotment (5-10 year average)
d f
t
d ti
ll t
t (5 10
)
Opportunities to participate in livestock grazing programs on Forest Service lands

For Permittees




Number of individual permits and Animal Unit Months (AUMs) per permit by district
Permitted AUMS by month by district
Grazing use reported by district by month
For Other Entities

Identification of programs and partners engaged in grazing management arrangements by district,
e.g.:




Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)
Conservation organizations
Utah Dept. of Agriculture’s Grazing Improvement Program (GIP)
p
g
g p
g
(
)
Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI)

30. Additional Detail:
Complete list – Social/Economic Indicators (p.2)
(p 2)

Diversity of grazing management arrangements and public involvement that reflects a broad range of
societal values

Number and acreage by district and year of diverse grazing management arrangements, including but not limited to:


Changing kind and class of livestock

Rest-rotation systems

Deferred rotation systems

On-off systems

Non-use

Closed areas


Range improvements


Multiple allotments combined into a single system
Grass banks
Basis of (NEPA) / administrative appeals / formal objections of Forest Service grazing management decisions
Number of Forest Service decisions made annually that have participation from multiple stakeholder interests
(Forest Service, permittee and others). Count by Ranger District, broken down by these four decision types:


Allotment Management Plan (AMP) revisions

Annual Operation Instruction (AOI) review


National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis leading to decisions on grazing systems
Annual monitoring (collection of data, report out of the findings, and discussions about the results and implications for future management)
Community/County-level economic impact of public lands grazing

Average expenditures per “cow unit” (1 cow/year or 5 sheep/year) per county by ranchers who use public land
cow unit
land.
[This indicator would likely respond only to large-scale changes in grazing management on the National Forests.]

31. Additional Detail:
All Grazing Management Recommendations (p.1)

Ways of changing grazing management decisions







Consider combining allotments or pastures to provide more flexibility for livestock grazing decisions.
g
p
p
y
g
g
This could be done by one operator or by many different operators, depending on the scale of the
landscape and the degree of interest in working together.
Consider multi-season rest in some areas.
Consider managing riparian areas/pastures differently than upland pastures to ensure that the
y g
g
pp p
sustainability of grazing in each area is appropriate to the resources found there.
Consider ways to have more flexible stocking rates so that grazing can more effectively adapt to the
resource conditions. This might involve individual permittees organizing operations to have more
flexibility, policy decisions by the Forest Service, or groups of operators working together to provide
more flexibility across a larger area.
Consider changing what kind of livestock grazes each allotment. Not every area is suitable for every
g g
g
y
y
type of livestock, due to topography and the type of vegetation needed for browsers or grazers.
Managing the kinds of grazers can affect the diversity of vegetation in an area. Evaluating how the
different kinds of grazers affect the sustainability of grazing in a given area may help clarify problems and
provide innovative opportunities for solutions.
Consider developing a grass bank or other forage reserve system. This could provide emergency forage
in times of hardship, or opportunities to rest other areas following treatments thus increasing the
hardship
treatments,
sustainability of grazing in the area long-term. This would also involve developing a system to administer
it.
Consider how to strategically use supplements (protein, for example, not hay) for livestock on the
forest. Done right, this could help increase the benefit that livestock get from forage, especially when
forage is dormant.

32. Additional Detail:
All Grazing Management Recommendations (p.2)

Ways to influence the duration, timing, and intensity of grazing




Use riders to actively manage livestock. This provides an active way to move livestock to
areas where they can graze more sustainably, and keep them out of areas where/when their
presence i l
is less sustainable.
i bl
Move key resources (like water and salt) that livestock need as a way to help manage where
livestock spend time, and how long they are there.
Add or remove fencing to provide opportunities for more flexible, resource-conditionbased grazing management decisions
decisions.
Ways to directly improve conditions for the benefit of both livestock and ecology


Utilize native plant seed whenever possible on range improvement projects. Having native
plants in an area improves the sustainability of the system since they are better adapted to
local conditions.
Actively manage vegetation for a healthy mix of successional stages (a range of ages in plant
communities). This might include many different techniques with the goal of having a variety
of different plant communities that provide resilience for the whole system.
Importantly, no one group is exclusively responsible for making positive changes. Most of these
recommendations involve communication and shared decision-making between permittees,
the Forest Service,, and p
potentially other p
y
parties as well.

33. Additional Detail:
All Monitoring Recommendations

Ways to improve monitoring for understanding how to graze most sustainably





Consider how to improve compliance monitoring (i.e. whether permittees and the Forest Service are
meeting their contractual obligations).
Develop monitoring (of ecological indicators, grazing implementation, livestock, etc) that helps improve
grazing practice. This means involving permittees and others in designing and interpreting the results of
monitoring, so that everyone understands how well different grazing management strategies work at
achieving various goals.
Use the results of monitoring as an opportunity to improve grazing management, whether that be
through permittee choices, Forest Service decisions, or other ways. Monitoring is how we understand
the changes in range condition created by different grazing management practices, so monitoring results
provide a great opportunity to understand how to graze more sustainably.
Consider using reference areas (ungrazed areas in otherwise similar conditions as grazed areas) to
understand the ecological potential of an area and provide an important reference point for
understanding which changes are related to livestock grazing and which may be due to other factors.
Involve a diversity of parties in monitoring. This can bring more expertise, more capacity, and more
funding to efforts to understand and increase the sustainability of grazing on Forest Service lands.
Involving multiple interests may help ensure that issues of interest to many different public lands users
are part of a larger monitoring strategy.
As with the other suggestions above, monitoring suggestions are simply a menu of possibilities. Some may
be greatly needed in one area, but impossible or irrelevant in another area. In addition, a wide array of
individuals and institutions could help implement monitoring suggestions. Nothing recommended here
should be considered exclusively the responsibility of any one party
party.

34. Additional Detail:
All Forest Service-Specific Strategies
Service Specific







The Forest Service should explore the extent of flexibility it currently has to adjust grazing time, timing and intensity to on-theground conditions, and educate its staff about the full extent and benefits of exercising such flexibility.
The Forest Service should build in flexibility when authorizing grazing to create opportunities to adjust grazing time, timing and
intensity in response to on-the-ground conditions. This may include authorizing the longest possible season or the maximum
on the ground
possible Animal Unit Months (AUMs). This would increase flexibility to adjust the very specific grazing season, or specific number
of livestock to meet resource objectives within a wide possible operating season. In creating this flexibility, the system must build
in accountability measures to ensure that flexibility does not undermine ecological sustainability.
The Forest Service should consider using new or different indicators to make decisions about grazing management. For example,
stubble height has been used as a key annual indicator for many years, but other indicators may be more useful in determining
whether Forest Service allotments are being sustainably grazed.
g
yg
Forest Plan Amendments may include default standards, with an option for permittees to develop an alternate (more flexible)
plan through multi-interest collaboration. Any alternate plan should include performance standards (an identification of specific
ecological goals that must be met), rather than imposing design standards (specific grazing management tools like utilization). The
use of performance standards can encourage flexibility and creativity in grazing management practices.
The Forest Service should encourage “early adopters” to pilot and experiment with new grazing management practices. This
would serve an educational purpose for those involved in the pilot as well as for others interested in improving grazing
pilot,
management on public lands. Pilots should be closely monitored to determine whether the new grazing management practices
are successful in promoting ecological sustainability, recognizing that it may take 3-5 years to see results. Pilot projects should
include annual accountability (e.g., monitoring and adaptive management).
Work to understand how other uses of Forest Service land, such as recreation, impact grazing sustainability, and how to address
any related issues (for example, recreationists leaving gates open between pastures).
The F
Th Forest Service should respond to and/or create opportunities for multi-party engagement in grazing management in ways
S i
h ld
d
d/
ii f
li
i
i
i
that may lead to changes in:




National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisions on grazing systems
Allotment Management Plan (AMP) revisions
(Timely) Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) development
Annual allotment monitoring (data collection and reporting sharing and discussion of results)
reporting,

35. Additional Detail:
Other recommendations (shortened version)










Ensure that discussions about grazing management include other parties whose decisions
influence the sustainability of grazing on Forest Service lands.
Livestock grazing and wildlife management decisions should not be made independently
independently.
Encourage operators to utilize existing programs and resources to identify ways to improve
flexibility and sustainability of their operations.
Encourage communication and collaborative work among all interested parties.
Forests should be open and flexible to a di
F
t h ld b
d fl ibl t
diversity of grazing arrangements on th th
it f
i
t
the three F
Forests
t
in southern Utah, with no particular percentage designated for any given type.
Change in grazing management practices needs to be encouraged and supported by all
stakeholders.
Look for incentives for permittees that will motivate grazing management that results in more
forage and improved land health.
Decisions improve with transparency and input from diverse interests. Dialogue – face-to-face
conversation in which the participants listen to diverse opinions with respect and an open mind
– is an important tool for building trust.
Studies quantifying the direct and indirect benefits of a range of grazing management practices
provide valuable information, especially at a large scale (100,000 acres or more).
Technical assistance to ranchers should be increased.