Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2):272–283, Fall 2018 • digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi Case Study The Three Creeks Allotment Consolidation: changing western federal grazing paradigms
Taylor Payne, Grazing Improvement Program, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, 350 Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84113, USA [email protected]
Abstract: The federal government owns approximately 47% of all land in the western United States. In the state of Utah, about 64% of the land base is managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The government has historically issued permits to owners of private lands to allow the owners to graze their livestock on public lands. The permits (allotments) are generally of 10-year duration and allow for an annual season of use. In some cases, continued and repeated historical annual grazing practices may not be ideal for permit holders and their communities, nor for the semi-arid western rangelands, wildlife, and livestock. In 2010, a group of ranchers holding federal permits with help from employees of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food’s Grazing Improvement Program, along with the BLM and the USFS, reexamined longstanding cultural and management paradigms. They engaged in a watershed-scale planning effort that encompassed grazing, wildlife, water quality, habitat, recreation, legal, and policy issues. Most notably, the planning process addressed the social dynamics of working with 36 different grazing permittees representing 10 different grazing allotments, and multiple government agencies. The process and its results, both referred to hereafter as the Three Creeks Allotment Consolidation (TCAC), consolidated the allotments of the permittees, providing for a new company to be the permittee and to manage the lands. The TCAC process, in conjunction with private lands, seeks to improve rangeland, enhance ecosystem services, and provide for increased economic sustainability. In this paper, I describe a dynamic process that may have implications for changing how federal grazing allotments are managed in the future. Specifically, I emphasize the role and importance of managing human dimensions when implementing grazing policies that blend public and private resources.
Key words: ecosystem services, grazing allotment, livestock grazing, management, permittee, private lands, public lands, rangelands, Utah, watershed planning, wildlife
The U.S. government owns 47 % of all land (Centrocercus urophasianus; Connelly et al. 2004, in the West. Jakus et al. (2017) reported that 64% Danvir et al. 2005, Dahlgren et al. 2015). of the Utah land base is managed by the Bureau The federal government established a system of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest of allotments across the public lands to allow for Service (USFS). However, the most productive grazing of livestock. The federal land agencies lands in Utah in terms of forage production lease land through permits that presently are and agriculture value, along with the associated typically structured to last 10 years (BLM 2015). water rights, are owned by private individuals The ranchers who operate on public allotments are (Banner et al. 2009). Much of the public land called permittees. The allotment system evolved is managed under the multiple-use doctrine. as a tool to regulate grazing and ameliorate The complex mosaic of land ownership in the practices that caused major issues across the western United States and competing resource landscape when no firm rules or structure were uses complicates the administration of public in place (Cawley and Freemuth 1997, Banner lands (Cawley and Freemuth 1997, Banner et et al. 2009, Holechek et al. 2010, Payne 2011). al. 2009, Havstad et al. 2009, Jakus et al. 2017). The allotment system determined the dates to The integrated management of this mosaic of graze and the numbers of animals that would be public and private lands in Utah and the western allowed to graze (Banner et al. 2009). United States is crucial to the success of livestock Many of the pre-allotment problems resulted production for ranchers, local communities, and from ranchers’ perceptions that they were in wildlife species such as the greater sage-grouse competition with other operators for the same Livestock grazing management • Payne 273
Figure 1. The Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch and the proposed Three Creeks Public Grazing Land Consolidation are located in northeastern Utah, USA. forage resource (Abruzzi 1995). Because of this the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) competition, the forage resources on public requirements that do not allow permittees the lands may not have been allowed to complete simple flexibility to make seasonal adjustments their life cycle (Holechek et al. 2010). This to the timing of grazing (BLM 2008, Stuebner resulted in reduced ground vegetation cover 2011). Permittees are required to graze forage the that contributed to increased erosion and the same way year after year without major ability subsequent degradation of the rangelands and to alter the season of use, thus causing stress to riparian systems (Banner et al. 2009). Although plants (Banner et al. 2009, Payne 2011). the federal grazing allotment permit system Most allotment management plans are helped to mitigate these issues, the management updated using traditional ranges of grazing of public rangelands for multiple-uses remains a dates and not using the creativity of rangeland formidable public land management challenge planning (Holechek et al. 2010). Thus, permittees (Cawley and Freemuth 1997, Havstad et al. 2009). who face challenges on their allotment, such Many of these challenges have been attributed as impaired riparian areas and water quality to the structure of grazing permit regulations and degradation caused by intensity and length 274 Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2) of grazing, are stuck with the inherent federal gets permission to proceed with new grazing land management inflexibility. The inflexibility infrastructure, many permittees lack the caused by the lengthy process to modify financial and technical resources to complete the regulations and government procedures is a necessary improvements given the uncertainty stronger force than the good intentions and surrounding the process (Stuebner 2011, Straube valuable learned skills of the federal employees 2017). who are tasked to manage the land (Stuebner In Rich County, located in northeastern Utah, 2011). Permittees and agencies with progressive the rangeland landscape is managed largely intentions and who want to help feel boxed in by the BLM and USFS with some private lands (Boies 2017, Straube 2017). interspersed that are managed as part of public Inflexibility results in permittees having to grazing allotments (Figure 1). As with most deal with controversial strategies associated federal grazing permits, the rangelands are with allotment management. For example, generally grazed May through September as a common administrative response to over- large open pastures with little rest during the utilization of areas within an allotment is growing period of the vegetation (Rich County to decrease the number of head of livestock Resource Management 2002). The allotments allowed to graze in an area within the allotment are stocked at 0.20–0.40 animal unit months (Banner et al. 2009, Stuebner 2011, Boies 2017, (AUM)/ha (Dahlgren et al. 2015). Straube 2017). Other more creative solutions Adjacent to these public rangelands is the may exist. Negative personal accounts from Deseret Land and Livestock (DLL) ranch. Since permittees demonstrate the frustration they 1983, DLL has used a prescriptive grazing experience from inflexibility of grazing strategy of rest-rotation grazing, utilizing management agencies and the inability to several large herds of domestic cattle (Bos solve problems with agencies. These reactive taurus). The herds are rotated through pastures administrative steps may be harmful to the to graze for 1- to 2-week periods from April sustainability of the rancher as well as to the to September under the rest-rotation grazing rural community where the economy is based system. Up to 20% of DLL pastures receive a on the grazing industry (Banner et al. 2009, full year of rest after grazing and pastures are Stuebner 2011, Boies 2017). not grazed during the same growing period The best time for permittees to ask the federal in subsequent years. The stocking rate on DLL land management agencies for change is during is nearly double that of other Rich County their permit renewal process when a new NEPA allotments (0.63–0.83 AUM/ha), generating study is initiated (BLM 2008, Payne 2011). increased economic and rangeland health For example, during the renewal process, the benefits (DLL 2011). The DLL also provides permittees may ask for cross fencing to create a habitat benefits to the greater sage-grouse greater number of pastures, for water pipelines and other wildlife species (Danvir et al. 2005, to fill new troughs with water for livestock, or Dahlgren et al. 2015). even to be allowed to drill new wells or develop The DLL has been touted as an example of new water sources. These practices help with what could be possible in Rich County and as distributing grazing, protecting and managing a template for a proposed grazing management important wildlife habitat, improving riparian plan that could be replicated throughout the health and water quality, and protecting forage West (Rich County Resource Management resources in the long-term, making grazing more 2002). However, to implement the DLL process, sustainable (Holechek et al. 2010, Boies 2017). the ranchers and agencies would have to look However, because the federal agencies are past longstanding cultural and management required by law to do a new NEPA study for traditions and other human dimensions and each grazing permit renewal, and because engage in a watershed-scale planning effort. the BLM and USFS are behind schedule by The effort would encompass grazing, wildlife, multiple years to accomplish the NEPA process water quality, habitat, recreation, legal and for these allotments, many permittees find policy issues, financial risk, and multiple land themselves at a disadvantage. Even when the ownerships (Moote and McClaran 1997). allotments are renewed and the permittee In this case study, I describe the process Livestock grazing management • Payne 275 and community involvement in the Three grazing their livestock on the allotments for Creeks Allotment Consolidation (TCAC). The multiple generations (Payne 2011). The TCAC process has implications for changing how project consists of 10 allotments: 5 allotments some western rangelands may be managed managed by the BLM and 5 allotments managed in the future under the federal multiple-use by USFS. The private lands that are owned by doctrine. The process dealt with changes to the the permittees are grazed in conjunction with local dynamic and human involvement while the rules in place in the management plans addressing and focusing on important changes on the federal allotments. State-owned lands for long-term management success. are also managed under the guidance of the grazing plans that the federal agencies put Study area in place. In total, the TCAC area involves 36 Deseret Land and Livestock is a privately different permittees who graze their livestock operated ranch 870 km2 in size with in a newly managed way. approximately 8% constituting of BLM Topographically, the areas are similar, inholdings. The TCAC area is a 569-km2 characterized by steep canyons and wide ridges collection of BLM (47%) and USFS (26%) grazing at higher elevations in the west and transitioning allotments intermixed with private (20%) and to open valleys along the eastern boundaries. state (<7%) lands. The DLL and TCAC areas Elevations ranged from 1,800–2,700 m. Soil are approximately 13 km apart (Payne 2011). orders are primarily Mollisols, Inceptisols, Livestock grazing by domestic cattle is the Aridisols, and Alfisols. Annual precipitation dominant land use across both areas. from 1981–2010 at the Cooperative Observer The DLL has approximately100 different Program (COOP) stations in Randolph, Utah pastures to utilize when developing its annual and Woodruff, Utah averaged 34.8 cm and grazing plan (DLL 2011). About 75% of the 25.5 cm, respectively. These COOP weather pastures are upland dry range pastures that stations are the closest to the TCAC project area specifically grow during the early spring (1.5 km) and DLL (13 km; Western Regional and late fall time periods. The other 25% of Climate Center 2016). Average temperatures DLL pastures are irrigated meadows. The are similar at both COOP weather stations and DLL usually has about 6 different herds of ranged from -12°C to 3.5°C between November cattle that rotate among these pastures. One and May and 1.5°C to 22.5°C between May and key factor of the DLL grazing plan is to rest October. approximately 20% of its pastures every year Lower elevations in both areas are dominated during the growing season (Danvir et al. 2005, by Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Payne 2011). In the spring, the ranch only turns wyomingensis) intermixed with rabbitbrush cattle out onto a pasture that was totally rested (Chrysothamnus spp. and Ericameria nauseosa) and the year before. This protects the forage from spineless horsebrush (Tetradymia canescens). repeated grazing during the rapid growth Higher elevations were characterized by period. Another key to its grazing plan is that mountain big sagebrush (A. t. vaseyana) and it will graze a pasture at a different time than it other common shrubs including black sagebrush was grazed the year before so that the different (A. nova), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), and forage species present will have a chance to antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). grow and complete their life cycle without the Grasses common to both areas include competition of cyclic grazing pressure. All of bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegeneria spicata), these principles are the foundation to grazing western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), needle- management of time, timing, and intensity and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), and Sandberg (Holechek et al. 2010). bluegrass (Poa secunda). Mountain sagebrush The TCAC project is within a geographical mixed with stands of aspen (Populus tremuloides) area 13 km north of DLL. The area is a mosaic and conifers is found at high elevations (Danvir of different land ownerships, including et al. 2005). Basin big sagebrush (A. t. tridentata) federal grazing allotments and the associated patches are common in draws and valley bottoms permittees, state allotments, and private lands. across both study areas. The permittees are ranchers that have been Almost all of the TCAC permittees are 276 Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2)
Table 1. The Three Creek Allotment Consolidation Timeline (adapted from Payne 2011). Dates 2001–2018 Action/Strategy 2001 Permits to graze on all but 3 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) allotments in Rich, Box Elder, and Tooele Counties were protested. The protest included a stay to prevent livestock grazing. An appeal committee was formed to overturn the protest. 2002 The Rich County Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) Group was organized. Fall 2002 Kevin Conway, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources director, challenged permit- tees to consider a new management style. Legal representation was hired by permittees to fight the protest. Spring 2003 The Department of the Interior Board of Legal Appeals lifted the stay, allowing permittees to graze their livestock on the protested allotments across Rich, Box Elder, and Tooele Counties. Spring 2007 Bill Hopkin and Troy Forrest created project ideas and plans leading up to the TCAC project through the Utah Grazing Improvement Program. Winter 2008 Meetings were held with range conservationists and key permittees to refine the TCAC project. January 2009 An Operating Agreement was drafted for the new TCAC association. Spring 2009 A resource inventory was initiated to evaluate water availability along with fence placement and conditions across the TCAC project area. April 2009 A vote was held among permittees resulting in a 93.7% positive vote to proceed with the consolidation plan. Nominations for a chairman and board members were conducted. Fall 2009 A resources inventory was completed. Winter 2009 An informal plan was drafted to involve allotments, and budgets were developed for TCAC capital and maintenance requirements. Spring 2010 Meetings were held to allow sheep permittees to address concerns about the dis- tribution of animal unit month (AUM) assessment, fees which are different from cattle AUM assessments. June 2010 Plans were developed for completing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), permitting the process required for changing management and infra- structure on public lands. A scoping outline for the NEPA document was created for a plan of work. An environmental contractor was awarded the bid to com- plete NEPA. Fall 2010 A legal review of the TCAC Operating Agreement and bylaws was conducted. A range consultant visited with the TCAC permittees regarding the proposed changes. A final TCAC vote formally initiated NEPA. 2010–2017 The NEPA preparation and review occurred. The permittees and other agencies are frustrated at the slow pace and inability to complete this project as it was originally planned. April 2018 The signed NEPA decision is announced from the BLM and USFS as joint decision makers. A Finding of No Significant Impact was suggested.
residents of the very small rural towns found the permittees. The major difference under the close to the TCAC project and have had to TCAC plan is that a new company made up of learn to live near each other and get along all 36 original permittees will be the permittee of for their entire lives. Many of the allotments the consolidated allotment and will manage the involved in the TCAC project have been grazing instead of having multiple individual operated as common allotments, meaning that grazing permittees. many permittees operated together and have experience learning each other’s personalities Methods and styles (Payne 2011). The collaborative This paper is a qualitative assessment of the style of management is not entirely new to history and the human dimensions processes Livestock grazing management • Payne 277 used to address the public/private rangeland quality because of the burden of completing management issues in the TCAC area. I evaluated the NEPA process. Under past management, the TCAC process relative to the following the allotments had no options for incorporating factors: 1) ability to address emerging problems, rest for proper regrowth of multiple species. 2) emphasis on cross-scale networks, 3) self- Also, the individual allotments could not organization and governance arrangements afford to complete a large management change capable of supporting cycles of learning-from- because of minimal capital improvement funds action (adaptive management), 4) decision- (Payne 2011). making through communication and negotiation, 5) the formation and deployment of social and Emphasis on cross-scale networks human capital, and 6) learning-by-doing (Berkes The Rich CRM group ultimately created 2004, Olsson et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2005, Stringer a forum to build the network that led to the et al. 2006). TCAC consolidation (Payne 2011). Although many people were involved, 1 member stood Results and discussion out in the beginning of the discussions: Kevin Ability to address emerging issues Conway. Conway was the director of the Utah The TCAC planning process was validated Division of Wildlife Resources. He had spent with a joint BLM and USFS signed record-of- considerable time on DLL and understood the decision in late April 2018 (Table 1). The TCAC benefits its higher level of grazing management planning began in 2001 when the federal grazing had to the wildlife and overall health of the permit renewals across northern Utah were range. After his observations, he compared appealed by groups who opposed domestic DLL to the lands west of Randolph, Utah and livestock on public lands (Rich County Resource realized what wasn’t happening on the public- Management 2002, Wilmot and Brunson 2007, owned lands and the wildlife found there. He Payne 2011). A federal judge granted a stay that subsequently challenged the Rich CRM group temporarily restricted livestock from grazing saying, “I want to know why the same form of on public lands. This stay was lifted later that management can’t be done on public ground.” year, allowing the livestock to continue grazing During that particular meeting, questions as usual on public lands (Payne 2011). and concerns were raised by members of the In response to the litigation, the Rich County audience and especially by the apprehensive public land permittees organized a Coordinated grazing permittees. The biggest response Resource Management (CRM) group that not was that there was no way the DLL style of only worked to get the appeal lifted but asked management could work where they operate. the permittees to look differently at their past “It’s not possible, we can’t do that,” the management efforts (https://utahcbcp.org/ permittees said. Director Conway responded localworkinggroups/RichCounty/richcounty). by saying, “That’s not good enough! We own The permittees had to identify and implement that public land, and we ought to be able to changes that would not only address the make that happen” (Payne 2011). concerns raised by the litigants, but also ensure Conway and the other group leaders economic and environmental sustainability challenged the CRM to think about what they of the local communities, the watershed, and would like to see if there were no restrictions wildlife (Rich County Resource Management and no federal agency mandates. Basically, 2002, Payne 2011). what would be their wish to make good grazing The CRM also addressed several needed management happen? From that meeting, management changes on the allotments and the idea for consolidating public and private identified hurdles within the regulatory and lands and the permittees’ livestock herds like NEPA processes that resulted in the inability to DLL was addressed. The CRM developed a make needed changes. The needed management concept to use 8–10 different current public changes included improving the distribution of land allotments west of Randolph as part animals over the grazing area. Also described by of the overall grazing system among which the CRM was the inability to manage differently they could rotate cattle and sheep. One of the to address impaired riparian areas and water most important things that happened was that 278 Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2) permittees were starting to catch the vision of have committed their support for cost-share the new idea. incentives to ensure a successful project The TCAC group proposed a new manage- outcome, which have helped the permittees ment style that would require the grazing accept the change to a new management style. permit process to be renewed under NEPA (BLM 2008). Because the ability to accomplish Adaptive management NEPA through the federal agency offices can The TCAC grazing management plan was be cumbersome (Stuebner 2011, Straube 2017), based on principals learned from Deseret the agencies contracted with a private firm to Land and Livestock (DLL 2011). The plan is complete the necessary environmental analysis. a science-based plan developed from pre- The analysis was under the direction and project monitoring conducted to evaluate the guidance of the BLM and USFS. production of the range. It coordinates that In the beginning of the TCAC planning with an outlined 5-year grazing plan that process, the permittees were apprehensive about incorporates rest for regrowth in the overall the cost of changing to something new. They system. The monitoring also documents the also worried about the private property within conditions on the range, such as cover by the project area and what might happen with lifeforms and evaluated basic habitat needs in the control over it. Many of the permittees asked, connection with calculated AUM available for “How do we manage this much more work?” harvest by livestock and wildlife. To help answer questions and resolve The TCAC plan proposed that the cattle permittees’ concerns, the Utah Department of would be divided into 2 herds of about 1,600 Agriculture’s Grazing Improvement Program head each. It is also planned to facilitate running (GIP) stepped up to assist in finding cost-share 3 bands of sheep (Ovis spp.) during the summer assistance to complete the project (http://www. time in the high, rocky, steep elevations where ag.utah.gov/animals.html?id=273:grazing- cattle are difficult to herd. Winter time bands improvement&catid=64). The GIP assisted the of sheep will continue to graze as they always permittees in planning the project, answered have. In all, the livestock for this project budget questions, and reviewed the proposed account for a proposed total of 17,218 AUM as cost. The GIP championed the solicitation of planned through current stocking rates. The funds to be used for the project and assisted TCAC plan included other aspects, which are from the start with project management to keep different from some longstanding traditions. the momentum moving forward. One of the The range will incorporate growing season most important GIP contributions to the project rest on approximately 20% of the area. This is was to identify and provide a key individual in something that has not been done since the time the local community for the permittees to work the pioneers arrived in the valley with their with and demonstrate a long-term commitment livestock (Rich County Resource Management to the project and nurture the newly established 2002). network. The TCAC process identified new solutions Another important accomplishment to note to address old problems. The intent of the during the TCAC process was the increased TCAC plan is to demonstrate good land amount of maintenance being performed in stewardship by switching to a rest-rotational preparation for the grazing system change. grazing system across 55,037 ha similar to the The maintenance projects consist of replacing rest-rotational grazing system used by DLL. It old nonfunctional or deteriorated pipeline and will involve better planning efforts by the BLM, trough systems, rebuilding old nonfunctional USFS, the Utah School and Institutional Trust fences, maintaining ponds, and paying for Lands (SITLA), and its private land owners. It hired fence maintenance and herding (Table will involve 36 different permittees and their 1). All of these projects had been completed 3,200 head of cattle and 5 bands of sheep. The without needing a new NEPA process and pasture system will incorporate all previous greatly improved the current management allotment fences with a nominal amount of of the allotments, even with the consistent new cross-fencing to make a planned total of 31 annual problems that occur. Many partners pastures among which livestock will be rotated, Livestock grazing management • Payne 279 something that has never been done before on After the vote was cast, the permittees asked the public lands. Rich County commissioners to use their authority No other projects are known that offer a mix to petition the BLM and USFS to initiate the of so many different types of land ownership NEPA process to change grazing management matched with as many different individuals for the TCAC area. The commissioners followed involved in a grazing management plan on through with this, and NEPA was initiated in public lands. There are projects that are large 2011 with an accompanying Memorandum of in size, have multiple pastures, or that have a Understanding (MOU) that spelled out how common management plan with the BLM and the BLM and USFS would work as co-leads on USFS, but none involved the complexities of the NEPA process in creating an environmental the TCAC collaborative process with so many analysis (EA) together. The NEPA process people and all the different factors. The TCAC was followed to get an EA but it was not done project was a leap of faith for the permittees without frustration and enormous challenges to who hoped for the best outcome. Although the permittees (Payne 2011). The promise from patterned after the neighboring DLL ranch, the BLM and USFS of a finished EA within a DLL has only 1 owner and is mostly private year to 18 months took 8 years (Table 1). land (Payne 2011). Since the process started, there have been a number of personnel changes at the BLM and Shared decision-making USFS management levels. New staff employees Many variations of plans were made in at the agencies have had to be familiarized with developing the grazing system and how it the TCAC process. These changes contributed benefits multiple resources across a watershed to delaying the NEPA process. The TCAC scale, but one also must ask: What about the process was also changing agency internal project’s livestock producers? What do they organization and management paradigms. In think about the plan? How does this affect hindsight, the project proponents suggested it them? Are they willing to make the change? may have been better for the federal agencies How would other range managers organize to have acted separately in creating the EA something like this at this scale? because they each have their own processes to During draft stages of the TCAC process, follow (BLM 2008). other proposals were also considered to fix the In the past, the most challenging factors that recurring problems. Eventually, votes were faced the individual allotments that had multiple taken from the permittees to see about moving operating permittees generally were the social ahead with the project as it is now approved. issues. Those social issues arose when individual At the start, the BLM and USFS asked for at permittees completed the majority share of the least a 75% positive vote to move ahead with work and other permittees didn’t follow through the project, and TCAC participants responded with their share of the responsibility (Payne with an approximate vote of 92% go ahead 2011). An example might be the maintenance of with the project (Table 1). The permittees voted a fence or water system. The result was that the with apprehension, but they didn’t have many shared or “common” allotment got in trouble as a other options (Payne 2011). With the positive group, and everyone felt the repercussions of the vote, additional plans were developed and inactions of the permittees who didn’t complete more time was spent writing in-depth planning their share of the work. It was difficult socially documents. Subsequently, additional meetings in a small town to address those situations when were held with the permittees to reaffirm their permittees did not want to ruin their relationship commitment to change management and or their family’s relationship with a neighbor or accomplishing the TCAC project (Table 1). the neighbor’s family (Payne 2011). Another vote was taken with the understanding The cultural changes planned for the TCAC that the permittees were deciding to initiate the allotments include hiring full-time herders NEPA process to renew their grazing permits. for cattle, fence contractors to take care of all The vote was held again according to the AUM annual maintenance on the entire management of each permittee, and it resulted in a 95% unit, and hired water maintenance personnel positive vote (Payne 2011). to make sure that the annual and day-to-day 280 Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2) responsibilities are completed. The hired that they previously contributed $2 million to labor will know their responsibilities and can Rich County (Ward et al. 2012). Multiplier effects be replaced with other contractors if their increased this contribution to $3.2 million or performance is sub-par. about 6% of the entire rural county’s economy. Another issue addressed was the governance Production agriculture contributes about $24.3 of the consolidated allotment. The group created million or 50% of gross regional product to a business structure with a board responsible the local economy. Federal, state, and local tax for overall management. The board will revenue total just over $1.4 million, which is direct contracted labor to ensure the success a powerful argument for continued grazing. of the project. The board is composed of cattle Increased revenues through improved grazing permittees, a sheep producer, and 1 member management can have a great effect on a representing the Randolph Land and Livestock rural county’s economy (Ward et al. 2012). It Company and Holdings, LLC (Limited Liability is expected that Rich County will realize an Corporation), which owns most of the private economic benefit because of the project. lands and almost all of the water rights to be One of the most important aspects of the used for this grazing project. project was the continuity achieved by the designation of a project champion that followed Formation and deployment of social the project from planning to implementation. and human capital The TCAC champion is among the few The permittees have created the Three members of the original group that helped Creeks Grazing, LLC that will hold the federal plan the project. The champion relocated to grazing permits. Each former permittee is now the small community of Randolph and is part a member of the LLC. The LLC is expected to of day-to-day life with all of the permittees and strengthen management with a common voice their families. He has been a consistent face that for change. Positive change should occur more the permittees can come to with questions and rapidly (Payne 2011). Time spent by federal concerns. He has done many projects over time agencies in administering the permits should with the permittees that created relationships be decreased by their having to work with only of trust and goodwill, helping the permittees one permittee instead of 36. feel comfortable in moving forward with this The LLC structure will require that each of project. He has a lot of common interest with the members lease to the LLC base property the permittees and is a good fit for the role that that corresponds to the livestock they are he has played. running as part of the grazing permits. Each The federal agency employees rarely have member owns a percentage share based on their the opportunity to feel that connection and that AUM compared to the total AUM the company kind of success because they are in distant cities controls. The LLC operates under an agreement about 2 hours away. They do not develop the that outlines how it will run and provides same type of relationships and frequently move provisions to ensure rules are followed. to other positions elsewhere. As stated above, a The operating agreement was adopted and good project champion is critical to the success approved by the members themselves and is of the project. That person can be the lead not a government document. permittee, a state employee in the right place This is 1 example of allowing local manage- and in the right program to lead as in the case ment to do the right thing with grazing resources of the TCAC, or even a private consultant who without undue imposition of one-size-fits- deeply understands all of the issues involved. all rules and multiple layers of bureaucratic involvement. It makes it possible for permittees Learning by doing to be able to work with each other to achieve The TCAC has been an iterative process best beneficial results and not always through an characterized by shared learning (Berkes 2004). office, which in this case is >2 hours awayin Since its inception in 2001, TCAC proponents Salt Lake City or Ogden, Utah. and stakeholders have learned together and An economic analysis of the previous adapted to new challenges (Table 1). The TCAC allotments that made up the TCAC area reported process evolved from a group of concerned Livestock grazing management • Payne 281 individual permittees into 1 large management effectively. Another large grazing area that was unit that will be led by a board of directors of a molded into a different and more progressive grazing company that will represent the voices style of grazing occurred on the Cumberland of all 36 of its members. Allotment located in southwest Wyoming, The Three Creeks Grazing, LLC members had across the border from Rich County, Utah a local example from which they gained insights (Payne 2011). The permittees that graze and learned lessons in making their management livestock on this allotment are almost all organization for the grazing company. Two individuals from Rich County, Utah. They prior allotments—a BLM allotment and a USFS were faced with management challenges and allotment—had a cooperative management plan were asked to fence their large grazing area in the past to operate both allotments and run into 4 pastures using 2 different cross-fences. their livestock together. The 2 permittees used They were asked to rotate their 10,000 head guidance from the GIP to learn the requirements of cattle among the pastures. Most of the and then used their imagination and skills to permittees on the allotment grumbled about create a small grazing LLC that satisfied the the fences and the extra work involved with the permitting requirements. No grazing AUM proposal. They were all at a meeting together were lost when the permits were transferred talking about implementing the changes when to the LLC. The members of this small group a lifelong seasoned rancher of Rich County eventually became members of the Three Creeks who was also a permittee stood up and said, Grazing, LLC. “Well boys, I’ve been out here a long time and The TCAC participants formed the Three I’ve seen this place with and without fences. Creeks Grazing, LLC and signed away their The fact is, I’m still here and I’m still grazing” permits to the LLC where they each are (Payne 2011). members. They will operate their same original When the patriarch of the group stood livestock numbers. The permittees will have a up and spoke openly and frankly about the strong and more unified voice and the ability to new fencing, he alone had the ability to alter formally work together as a legally recognized the opinions of the entire group with his 1 entity. The TCAC participants were able to learn comment. The fences were put in and people from the example of the 2 smaller allotments in the group have come to appreciate them and that formed an LLC and overcome their initial what they have done for the range. fears. They made improvements to the group Just like the case of the Cumberland allotment structure along the way. and the old patriarch rancher, the TCAC process A benefit to the unified group is that they will has moved along with supportive comments be able to pool their resources and have a more from respected leaders in the group, who have robust capital structure to complete projects. an uncanny ability to sway the opinion of many The group will also be able to make simple people. Those same leaders have also been management adjustments within their group valuable silent examples to other members. instead of always being tasked with receiving The formation of the LLC has marshalled and permission from the BLM or USFS. An example leveraged the organizational skills and business of this would be that two members of the acumen of its members. It has provided company can swap grazing numbers as long as the effective organizational management to the total amount does not exceed the permitted accomplish more for the greater good of its total. For example, if 1 permittee wants to members. The TCAC project and formation of graze another member’s amount of the overall the LLC has made a huge difference for certain permit, it is possible to do so without asking individuals who have now taken advantage of for permission from the BLM and without the the opportunities of extra project funding for cumbersome amount of paperwork to follow maintenance activities. behind it. They would just receive quick permission through the board of directors. Management implications Other projects that are similar to the Three Since the 1940s, livestock AUM permitted on Creeks Allotment Consolidation offer insights federally managed land in Utah has decreased into the value of the ability to communicate by almost 77%. Livestock numbers at the 282 Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2) start may not have been at optimum levels Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Fact for sustainable use, but the federal agencies’ sheet on the BLM’s management of livestock preferred tool to manage the range was to grazing. U.S. Department of the Interior, Wash- reduce AUM numbers. This has had economic ington, D.C., USA. consequences for many rural communities. The Cawley, R. M., and J. Freemuth. 1997. A critique TCAC project has changed the management of the multiple use framework in public lands paradigm for federal agencies and challenged decision making. Western public lands and en- permittees and local government leaders to find vironmental politics. Westview Press, Boulder, better ways to manage grazing on public land Colorado, USA. to preserve and promote the economic viability Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and of grazing to rural economies. The TCAC S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of participants know their process can provide greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. an example to guide federal agencies and Unpublished report, Western Association of permittees in changing past traditional rules, Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyo- attitudes, and practices to accomplish what ming, USA. needs to be done on the land. The TCAC model Dahlgren, D. K., R. T. Larsen, R. Danvir, G. provides private and public land managers Wilson, E. T. Thacker, T. A. Black, D. E. Nau- with a new innovative framework to address gle, J. W. Connelly, and T. A. Messmer. 2015. similar land issues in the Intermountain West. Greater sage-grouse and range management: Implementation of the watershed scale plan insights from a 25-year case study in Utah and developed through the TCAC process will Wyoming. Rangeland Ecology and Manage- improve the rangeland and water quality and ment 68:375–382. benefit wildlife, recreation, livestock grazing, Danvir, R. E., W. J. Hopkin, G. E. Simonds, B. and other uses of the land. Teichert, S. L. Kearl, J. F. Kimball, R. M. Welch, A. Aoude, and J. Haskell. 2005. Sagebrush, Acknowledgments sage-grouse and ranching: a holistic approach. I thank T. Messmer, HWI editor-in-chief, J. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Mawdsley, HWI associate editor, and several Natural Resources Conference 70:188–205. anonymous reviewers who provided valuable Deseret Land and Livestock (DLL). 2011. De- feedback that improved earlier drafts of the seret land and livestock. Deseret Land and manuscript. Livestock, Woodruff, Utah, USA,
Jersey. USA. Taylor Payne is a grazing and rangeland Moote, M., and M. McClaran. 1997. Implications of coordinator for the Utah Grazing Improvement Pro- gram in northern Utah. He participatory democracy for public land planning. has extensive knowledge in Journal of Range Management 50:473–481. public lands grazing issues where he spends most of Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social- his time assisting livestock ecological transformation for ecosystem man- owners with management agement: the development of adaptive co- improvements. He enjoys his young family very much management of a wetland landscape in south- and appreciates working ern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9:2. with ranchers who share the same interest as he Payne, T. M. 2011. The 3 Creeks Grazing Allot- does. ment: a study of livestock grazing management across public and privately owned land. The- sis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Rich County Resource Management. 2002. His- tory. Rich County, Utah, USA,
Associate Editor: Jonathan Mawdsley