Can we manage public rangelands for producers and the environment?: Using grazing-duration to balance livelihoods, clean water, sage-grouse habitat, and sustainable forage

Obj 1: The goal for this objective is to determine how grazing-duration (no grazing, 2-3 weeks, 1.5 months) employed historically across rangelands affects: (a) stream-side vegetation recovery from grazing, (b) sage-grouse habitat quality, and (c) water quality. Our plan was to collect a single year of data for this objective in 2019 before the new Three Creeks Grazing system that shortened the 1.5 month grazing duration across our study area was implemented. Due to slower than expected addition of needed infrastructure to facilitate changes in grazing durations across our study site, grazing changes did not occur until 2022. Becuse of this, we used three years of data to address our goals for Obj. We found the following:

Forage-recovery: Summary - We found that grazing duration can be used to manage forage height, bare ground and the recovery of both in riparian areas. Shorter grazing durations (2-3 weeks) led to significantly taller vegetation and less bare ground than areas grazed for 1.5 months. Notably, the height of the vegetation and amount of bare ground in areas grazed for shorter durations was similar to that found in grazing exclosures. This implies that pastures allowed significant rest can sustain some grazing each year with little loss of productive capability. The start and cessation times of grazing each year affected the ability for vegetation and bare ground to recover post-grazing. When pressure was removed in both short- and longer-duration grazing systems, vegetation and bare ground recovered. When re-exposed to grazing, either via cattle being run back through a pasture to get to home ranches in the 1.5 month grazing durations (Sept) or via re-grazing later in the season, forage stubble height declined and bare ground increased. This highlights that along with duration, the timing of a disturbance is an important factor controlling rangeland recovery. Overall, this could also mean that once the Three Creeks Grazing LLC implements their new watershed scale time controlled grazing system that uses short durations, they may improve range conditions in their riparian areas and if mangers consider the timing of grazing may use this factor to manage recovery as well.

Stubble Height: We expected grazing duration to affect forage height throughout the grazing season. We expected shorter grazing-durations to result in more forage recovery than longer durations due to less continuous disturbance by cattle during the grazing season.

In 2019, we found this to be the case (Repeated measures ANOVA P<0.001 (within subjects)), with stubble height in the short-duration (2-3 week) grazing pastures reaching 30 cm by June and ~50 cm by July. In contrast, stubble height at the longer duration (1.5 month) grazing sites remained short (~10 cm) through the entire grazing season (Fig 1a). We also expected that no-grazing controls would have taller forage than either of the two grazed treatments. While this was true for the comparison between the longer (1.5 month) grazing duration compared with the no-grazing treatment for the entire grazing season, it was not true for the short-duration grazing system. Rather heights were only slightly shorter in the short-duration system than the no-grazed system throughout the year (Fig 1a). This result surprised us, because while grazing duration lasted only 2-3 weeks in these short-duration systems, these areas still were being grazed, creating a disturbance that we would expect to reduce vegetation height. We hypothesized that it was possible that the grazing rotation in the short-duration grazing systems in 2019 resulted in stubble height recovery, despite cattle disturbance, and were curious if we would find a similar pattern among grazing systems in 2020, or if perhaps this pattern might change due to ranchers imposing the short duration grazing at a different time in the season than was used in 2019. 

In 2020, we again found grazing duration to affect stubble height and stubble height recovery throughout the grazing season (Repeated measures ANOVA P=0.001 (within subjects)). We found that the timing of the short duration grazing again had a significant effect on stubble height (Fig 1b). We found that early in the season (June), stubble height across all grazing duration systems differed, with stubble height tallest in no-grazing exclosures (~55 cm), followed by short-duration areas (20 cm), and then the longer duration areas (10 cm). Later in the season (July), after the cattle were moved from short-duration grazing areas the stubble height in these areas increased to match that found in the no-grazed exclosures, while the stubble height in the longer grazed durations showed little recovery, despite cattle being removed by those pastures. In 2020, some exclosures were breached by cattle, which is indicated by a decrease in stubble height in those areas in August and September.

2021 data continued to support our results from 2019-20, with grazing duration affecting stubble height throughout the grazing season, and the timing of  grazing affecting stubble height and potential for stubble recovery. Grazing duration controlled total height (Repeated measures ANOVA P=0.018 (within subjects)), with short-duration treatments (2-3 weeks) having taller forage than longer duration treatments (Repeated measures ANOVA post hoc P=0.046). As in other years, the stubble height in short duration pastures didn't differ from exclosures (Repeated measures ANOVA post hoc P=1). Stubble height in exclosures was taller than longer duration grazing (Repeated measures ANOVA post hoc P=0.028). As in 2020, in 2021 some exclostures were breached by cattle, which is indicated by a decrease in stubble height in those areas in August and Septemeber.

Figure 1. Stubble height across areas grazed with different grazing durations, 2019-2021.

2019 was a wetter year than both 2020 and 2021. This difference in precipitation did appear to reduce overall stubble height in no-grazed and short-duration areas (by ~5-10 cm), although it didn't appear to affect areas that were grazed for longer duration. As such, it that weather can affect the ability of grazed areas to recover after grazing when these areas are lightly grazed (ie shorter duration), but weather appears to have less of an effect in areas receiving more significant grazing pressure through longer duration grazing, as evidenced by stubble height remaining similarly short (~10 cm) in both wet and dry years in those areas.

We also examined stubble height across these sites in grazing exclusion cages, which we used to determine whether sites had similar growth potential. We found that in 2019 stubble in no-grazing exclusion areas and short-duration areas was similar, but that found in grazing exclusion cages in the longer duration areas was shorter (Fig 2a). If we had found this pattern in 2020 as well, we might have been concerned that the stubble height in the longer grazed areas might be being affected by conditions other than in-season grazing. However, in 2020 we found a different pattern, this time with stubble height in the longer duration grazed areas being similar to that in the no-grazing exclosures and the stubble in the shorter-duration systems being shorter (Fig 2b). We will continue to monitor this throughout our study, but believe that these data are indicating that background conditions across our study area are similar and that the main factor driving stubble height is cattle grazing.

Bare ground - We expected shorter grazing-durations to result in less bare ground due to shorter periods of disturbance. While we did find that this was true, we also learned that the timing of grazing can also play a role in recovery. Data from 2019 and 2020 highlight that areas grazed early in the season (e.g. May & June) can recover and reduce the amount of bare ground found at the end of the season (Sept) whether they are grazed using short- (3-4 weeks) or longer durations (1.5). In these years, areas with shorter-duration grazing ultimately had less bare ground than those with longer duration grazing. We also found that when grazing occurs late in the season (Aug and Sept), there is a possibility that areas won't recover before the growing season ends (as seen in 2021), regardless of grazing duration. 

In 2019, we found that grazing duration had a significant effect on bare ground (Repeated measures ANOVA P<0.001 (within subjects)), with short-duration grazing resulting in less bare ground compared to areas grazed for longer-durations. Bare ground in the short (2-3 week) duration grazing system less than that found in the longer-duration grazing system starting in July and extending through Sept (Fig 3a). Bare ground in short-duration and no-grazing treatments was similar across the entire season.

In 2020, we found that grazing duration again had asignificant effect on bare ground (Repeated measures ANOVA P=0.025 (within subjects)), but this was mainly in June, when the longer-duration treatment had more bare ground than other treatments (Fig 3b). We are not sure why the longer-duration treatments appeared to recover in 2020, especially because this year was drier than 2019.

In 2021, we again found that grazing duration again had a significant effect on bare ground (Repeated measures ANOVA P<0.005 (within subjects)), again mainly in June (Fig 3c). We also found that short duration grazing at the end of the season (Aug & Sept) could result in more bare ground than was found in areas grazed earlier but for longer durations. This was different than 2019, when some short duration at the end of the season had litte effect on bare ground. Ultimately this highlights the importance of not only grazing duration, but also timing in the ability of bare ground to recover throughout the grazing season.

Fig 3: Bare ground across areas grazed with different grazing durations, 2019 - 2021.

We also examined the amount of bare ground found across these sites in grazing exclustion cages, which we used to determine whether sites had similar growth potential. We found that bare ground in the exclusion cages was similar across all grazing treatments after the initial vegetation growth in May both in 2019 (Fig 4a) and 2020 (Fig 4b) indicating that background conditions across our study area are similar and that the main factor driving stubble height is cattle grazing.

Sage-grouse habitat quality: Summary: Overall, we are finding that grazing duration has mixed effects on sage-grouse habitat parameters. It appears that shorter duration grazing favors height requirements. Grazing's effect on cover is less clear, with longer grazing durations appearing to slightly disfavor grass cover, while favoring forb cover. One reason for this result may be that by grazing and trampling riparian grasses and sedges, cattle disturbance opens space and frees resources for perennial forbs to establish and grow. Importantly, an alternative explanation could be that our team’s sampling methodology affected outcomes. We assessed cover using foliar cover of vegetation along point intercept transects. In sites with low grazing pressure, our team might not have seen and thus not recorded the presence of forbs that were shorter than the tall grasses often found in these areas. 

Based on these results, we found evidence that managers could use grazing duration as a tool to balance tradeoffs between sage-grouse habitat quality and grazing. This may be either by shortening the duration of disturbance, or by limiting disturbance to periods during the grazing season that reduce the impact of grazing on critical ecological processes.

According to sage-grouse habitat guidelines, taller grass/perennial forbs and more grass/perennial forb cover

correlate with better sage-grouse habitat. We draw guidelines for sage-grouse habitat quality from the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) (Stiver et al. 2015) and from Utah State University researchers whose work focuses more specifically on the regional habitat needs of sage-grouse in Rich County (Dahlgren et al. 2019) (Table 3). In both sets of guidelines, management targets are comprised of several metrics, such as perennial grass and forb height, perennial grass and forb cover, and shrub cover. Taller stubble can provide sage-grouse and chicks with cover for hiding from predators, while forbs serve both as food for chicks and are host plants to the insects chicks eat (Dahlgren et al. 2015). We examine all herbaceous metrics in our study.

 We expect no-grazing controls and 2-3 week grazing-durations will have taller vegetation than 1.5-month grazing-durations due to less grazing disturbance. It is possible, however, that no-grazing controls will have less perennial forb cover than grazed sites due to dominance of grasses. If so, sites with short grazing-durations could provide the habitat most favorable to sage-grouse – i.e., taller vegetation, more forbs. We have not analyzed the sage-grouse data collected from this past summer yet.

Vegetation Height

Combined Perennial grass & forb height is noted by both BLM and the HAF as a metric of Breeding and early brood rearing and Late brood rearing habitat quality (Table 3). In our analysis we include sedge height in this metric as well since sedge is common along streams. Grazing duration affected combined perennial grass & forb height (Fig 5).

• During Breeding and early brood rearing (April-June) vegetation height surpassed the 10.2 cm BLM standard and the 18 cm HAF standard more often in short duration grazing pastures than longer duration pastures (2 of 3 years vs 0 of 3). Vegetation height in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
• During Late brood rearing (July-Aug) vegetation height surpassed the 10.2 cm BLM standard (during grazing) in areas grazed with all durations, although vegetation was shorter in areas grazed using longer durations. In July, which is a critical time for brood-rearing, vegetation in short duration treatments was 4-5x taller than longer-duration treatments (ANOVA, post hoc P<0.001). Vegetation height in exclosures always met habitat criteria. The HAF notes that vegetation height is variable during this time, so we don't analyze it further.

Perennial grass height is noted in Dahlgren et al. 2018 as a metric of Breeding and early brood rearing and Late brood rearing habitat quality (Table 3). In our analysis we include sedge height in this metric as well since sedge is common along streams. Grazing duration affected perennial grass height (Fig 6).

• During Breeding and early brood rearing (April-June) grass height surpassed the 15 cm standard more often in short duration grazing pastures than longer duration pastures (2 of 3 years vs 0 of 3). As with forbs, active cattle grazing appeared to affect whether short-duration grazed pastures met the criteria. For example in 2019 and 2020, cattle grazed in May, reducing grass height. Grass height in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
• During Late brood rearing (July-Aug) grass height surpassed the 20 cm standard in short duration but not longer duration areas. In July, which is a critical time for brood-rearing, grass in short duration treatments was 4-5x taller than longer-duration treatments (ANOVA, post hoc P<0.001). Grass height in exclosures always met habitat criteria.

Perennial forb height is noted in Dahlgren et al. 2018 as a metric of Breeding and early brood rearing and Late brood rearing habitat quality (Table 3). Grazing duration affected perennial forb height across the grazing season. Grazing duration affected perennial forb height (Fig 7).

• During Breeding and early brood rearing (April-June) forb height surpassed the 6cm standard more often in short duration grazing pastures than longer duration pastures (2 of 3 years vs 1 of 3). A factor that likely affected forb height in short duration pastures was whether cattle were actively grazing. For example in 2020, cattle grazed in May, reducing forb height. Forb height in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
• During Late brood rearing (July-Aug) forb height surpassed the 8cm standard in areas grazed with all durations, although forbs were shorter in areas grazed using longer durations. In short duration pastures it again appeared that active cattle grazing reduced forb height. For example in 2021, cattle grazed in Aug, reducing forb height. In July, forbs in short-duration treatments were 3-5x taller than medium-duration treatments (ANOVA, post hoc: P=0.004). Forb height in exclosures always met habitat criteria. 

Vegetation Cover

Combined Perennial grass & forb cover is noted by the HAF as a metric of Breeding and early brood rearing and Late brood rearing habitat quality (Table 3). In our analysis we include sedge height in this metric as well since sedge is common along streams. Grazing duration affected combined perennial grass & forb height (Fig 8).

• During Breeding and early brood rearing (April-June) vegetation cover surpassed the 25% standard in areas grazed with all durations. Cover was similar in both durations in 2019. Vegetation cover was greater in short duration than longer duration treatments in 2021 (ANOVA, P>0.05). Grass cover in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
• During Late brood rearing (July-Aug) vegetation cover surpassed the 15% standard in areas grazed with all durations. While grass cover was greater in short duration than longer duration treatments in 2019 (ANOVA, P<0.05). Grass cover was similar across treatments in 2021. Grass cover in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
•  

Perennial grass cover is noted in Dahlgren et al. 2018 as a metric of Breeding and early brood rearing and Late brood rearing habitat quality (Table 3). In our analysis we include sedge height in this metric as well since sedge is common along streams. Grazing duration did not affect perennial grass height (Fig 9).

• During Breeding and early brood rearing (April-June) grass cover surpassed the 5% standard in areas grazed with all durations. Grass cover was greater in short duration than longer duration treatments (ANOVA, P>0.05). Grass cover in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
• During Late brood rearing (July-Aug) grass cover surpassed the 5% standard in areas grazed with all durations. While grass cover was greater in short duration than longer duration treatments in 2019 (ANOVA, P<0.05). Grass cover was similar across treatments in 2021. Grass cover in exclosures always met habitat criteria.

Perennial forb cover is noted in Dahlgren et al. 2018 as a metric of Breeding and early brood rearing and Late brood rearing habitat quality (Table 3). Grazing duration affected perennial forb cover across the grazing season in 2019 (P<0.001) but not in 2021 (P>0.05)(Fig 10). Despite this, all grazing duration treatments met forb cover requirements in all years.

• During Breeding and early brood rearing (April-June) forb cover surpassed the 2% standard in areas grazed with all durations, although forb cover was larger in areas grazed using longer durations in 2019. Cover was similar in both durations in 2021. We believe that we may have detected less forb cover in short duration treatments and exclosures due to the way we monitored. By using foliar cover, we were only viewing forbs that could be seen looking down on the vegetation. We are uncertain why we didn't see this similar effect in 2021, when cover seemed to be more similar across all treatments. Forb cover in exclosures always met habitat criteria.
• During Late brood rearing (July-Aug) forb cover surpassed the 2% standard in areas grazed with all durations. Forb cover in exclosures always met habitat criteria.

Water quality: We expect water quality violations to occur when cattle are in-pasture, but not once cattle are removed. Thus, we expect shorter grazing-durations to result in fewer water quality violations. 

E. coli: We have strong evidence that grazing duration affects E. coli levels. Across years, streams in areas grazed for short durations were out of compliance less frequently than streams in areas grazed for longer durations (p < 0.001, mixed model with grazing duration and stream as fixed effects and year as a random effect) (Table 4). This idea is also supported when we used 2016-2018 to predict E. coli levels throughout a grazing season in areas grazed using short or longer durations (Fig 11, Hulvey et al. 2021). Through this analysis we found that: 

• Cattle presence directly affected coli levels in streams, with levels rising when cattle were present and declining when they were removed.
• Duration: Streams located in pastures grazed for longer durations were more likely to be over Utah’s regulatory coli limits (668 Most Probable Number (MPN)) more often than streams in pastures grazed for shorter durations.

In 2021, data presented in Table 4 appears to contradict our conclusions that shorter grazing duration results in fewer water quality violations. In 2021streams in areas grazed for short durations were out of compliance, on average, for more time than those grazed for longer durations. This result is due to one stream in the short duration system being grazed for multiple short periods of time throughout the grazing season. When cattle were in that pasture, stream E. coli levels spiked above regulatory thresholds. This was not the usual rotation for this pasture, and was a result of the extreme drought conditions across our sites. The drought led to less vegetation available for cattle per pasture than managers had planned. As a result, managers decided to move cattle back into a pasture that had been grazed earlier in the season. While this affected water quality in that pasture, it should also be noted that the short duration grazing allowed for enough recovery of plant biomass in pastures grazed early in the season, that they could be grazed a second time. This added flexibility in management decisions is a benefit of a short-duration system. Despite this, there are still tradeoffs -- in this case, while biomass production was high enough in previously grazed pastures to be grazed a second time during a drought, this lead to water quality that did not meet regulatory requirements during this drought year.

Temperature: We do not have strong evidence that grazing duration affects stream water temperature. We expected streams in pastures grazed for longer durations to have higher water temperatures, possibly due to more disturbance of streambank vegetation (which can shade streams) and/or less recovery of this vegetation when grazed for longer periods. For example, across our study sites, we found longer-duration cattle grazing had a cumulative negative effect on stream bank morphology (% bare ground) and vegetation cover (% herbaceous cover) leading to less vegetation along stream banks (See Figures 1 & 3). Less vegetation could result in higher water temperatures due to less shading of streams. However, we found streams in pastures grazed for short and longer-durations had temperatures that were similar across years (p_time = 0.32, p_{time*duration} = 0.79, p_duration = 0.31; repeated measures ANOVA). 

We also learned, however, that all short-duration streams included in the study are small, low-flow streams (average seasonal discharge range: 0.06 - 0.81 ft³/s), while longer-duration streams are higher-flow streams (average seasonal discharge range: 2.54 - 4.49 ft³/s). Like grazing, stream discharge also has the potential to affect stream temperature. Smaller volumes of water in low discharge streams might potentially heat up more readily than the larger, deeper streams, and we would thus expect these lower discharge streams to have significantly higher temperatures than higher discharge streams. One possibility is that both the grazing and the stream discharge are affecting stream temperature, but since these factors are conflated in our design, we can't determine the effects.  While we do not have the data from this grant to test our hypothesis that grazing can affect water temperature, we will use data collected via a different grant to compare water temperatures from streams with similar discharge levels. By keeping that factor consistent across our study we can isolate for the role of grazing duration on stream water temperature.

Dissolved oxygen (DO): We do not have strong evidence that grazing duration affects DO. We found all but one longer-duration stream maintained DO levels above 4.0 mg/L (June-October). Violations of the 8.0 mg/L early life stage minimum DO guideline spanned all grazing durations throughout the years of our study, and thus our current data do not support a strong relationship between duration and DO. Future analyses considering seasonal discharge in addition to grazing duration  may more accurately explain differences in DO among streams.

pH: Duration does not appear to affect pH levels. All streams maintained pH levels within Utah’s allowed limits (i.e., pH = 6.5-9), and there was little difference in pH levels among grazing treatments.

Obj 2: The goal for this objective is to determine how changing historically longer grazing-durations (1.5 months) to a shorter duration of 2-3 weeks affects: (a) stream-side vegetation recovery from grazing, (b) sage-grouse habitat quality, and (c) water quality. This Objective is different from Obj 1. In Obj 1 we collected data in pastures that historically implemented different grazing durations. For Obj 2 we shortened the grazing duration in areas that historically were grazed for 2 months down to 2-3 weeks. This change in grazing practices was planned to occur in 2020, and we originally planned to have one year of pre-grazing change data from 2019 and two years of post-grazing change data (2020 and 2021). The grazing durations were not shortned, however, until 2022 due to infrastructure delays. Thus we began collecting data for Obj 2 during the summer of 2022 and data collection was ongoing throughout Oct. We have not cleaned or analyzed these data yet to compare them to that collected before the shortening of the grazing duration. We will achieve this objective during a WSARE renewal grant (2022-2025). 

Obj 3: Due to the way economic data is recorded with the rancher LLC, all members must give consent for analysis of the company's economic data. The research team planned to gain this permission while conducting the first round of surveys during the spring of 2020 (see Obj 5 below). Due to the Covid outbreaks throughout 2020 and 2021, this process took longer than expected due to very few face-to-face opportunities to work with our ranching partners. In particular, gaining approval signatures required the PI to build trust with the 38 ranchers involved. This process was slower because the PI had less of an opportunity to interact in person with ranchers during the 2020-21 period. For example, starting in the spring of 2021, the ranchers began inviting the PI to LLC meetings and asking for short research reports. This allowed the PI to meet ranchers and allowed for them to become more comfortable with the idea of the research team looking at the LLC economic records. Currently, we have been able to gain signatures on consent forms for 35 of 36 ranchers. We anticipate being able to obtain all outstanding signatures throughout the fall & winter of 2022-23. Because of the delay in gaining permission, the achievement of this objective has been delayed, and will occur during the WSARE renewal grant (2022-2025). 

Obj 4: To complete this objective, the project team first needs to complete the research for Obj 1-3. We will achieve this objective during the WSARE renewal grant (2022-2025). 

Obj 5: The research team conducted Survey #1 to Three Creeks Grazing LLC members from March 9, 2020 through April 11, 2022. Covid delayed the ability of our team to complete the first survey by reducing opportunities to meet with ranchers in person throughout our study, which among this group of ranchers is the only effective way to get responses. The goal for Survey #1 was for it to be completed before the implementation of the new grazing system. Despite the delays in survey completion due to Covid, we were able to have most ranchers in the LLC complete the survey before implementation because implementation was delayed until the spring of 2022. We collected 27 completed surveys, 5 ranchers turned in blank surveys, and 4 ranchers did not complete the survey. Completion rate is 27 out 36 total potential respondents or 75%. The reduced ability to interact with ranchers throughout the grant period caused achievement of this objective to occur later than initially anticipated in the grant activity timeline. Responses from these surveys are included in a  include an preliminary summary of responses below. We plan to write up these results in a peer reviewed paper this year that builds on Taylor Payne's 2018 publication (Payne 2018. The Three Creeks Allotment Consolidation: Changing Western Federal Grazing Paradigms. Human-Wildlife Interactions vol 12, Iss 2. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi/vol12/iss2/12/). This initial publication explained the foundations of the Three Creeks Project. 

The goals of Survey #1 were to understand rancher expectations for the Three Creeks grazing project.

• Why are ranchers involved in the Three Creeks Project?: Of the 27 ranchers that completed the survey most (66%) provided reasons for being involved that included some improvement to their operation (cattle health, regulatory benefits, reduction in litigation risk, improved relations with other stakeholders, ability to pass on their operation to future generations, or benefits to the environment). A smaller, but not insignificant group of ranchers (33%) indicated that rather than being motivated by any of the above, they were involved in the project because they were part of the Three Creeks LLC and thus had no choice but to participate if they wanted to graze the area. Throughout the process of developing the Project, all members of the LLC participated in votes indicating their willingness to move ahead, so it was interesting to learn through the surveys that many members might not have participated in this type of project if it hadn't been for the ongoing structure of the project, and likely the group dynamics of meetings and votes. Our project team is looking forward to conducting Survey #2 after the new grazing system has been in place for several years to learn whether the ranchers who might not have participated feel like they have benefited from involvement.

• How do ranchers hope to benefit from the Project? Ranchers indicated a wide array of benefits they hope to gain from involvement in the Three Creeks project. These include:
  • Direct improvements to livestock production (44%) such as: larger calves (19%), improved pregnancy rates (15%), overall healthier cows (15%), improved forage for grazing (15%), and better utilization of the range (4%);
  • Improvement of rangeland condition (44%) including: general range improvement (37%), and improvement of habitat for wildlife (7%);
  • Changes to regulatory agreements with the federal agencies (26%) such as: increased grazing time per season (11%), and increased number of cows (7%);
  • Maintaining ability to graze on public lands (19%);
  • Improved relationships with other stakeholders (19%) including with: federal agencies (7%), neighbors (7%), and the public (4%); and
  • The ability to pass ranch to future generations (7%).
  • A small number of ranchers did not know what types of benefits to expect from the project (15%).

Ranchers in our study indicated that the two most important types of benefits they would like to see from the implementation of the Three Creeks Grazing Project are those that directly improve livestock production on their operations and those that improved the ecological conditions of the rangelands. As a research team, we believe this begins to tell an important story about the value ranchers place on serving as good stewards of these landscapes in addition to earning a living from their operations.

Ranchers in our study also strongly indicated that they would like to see a potential for changing the regulations that currently guide their grazing. Over the past 30 years in Rich County (and across the country) intensity of use of public rangelands has been reduced via reduction in AUMs either through shortening of grazing seasons, reduction in cattle numbers, or suspended AUM use. The reduction of intensity of use was intended to manage rangeland condition. The ranchers involved in the Three Creeks Project are hoping that by using other tools to manage condition including grazing duration, that range conditions will improve, and they will be able to increase intensity of use, which would presumably increase their profits.

• Will Implementation of the Three Creeks Project affect the risk of litigation from outside groups?  A main reason for the inception of the Three Creeks Project was to reduce the risk of litigation. Some partners such as Working Lands Conservation and at times Agency and State partners also believe risk may decrease. However, one reason that final approval of the NEPA allowing the changes in grazing practices took longer than expected was likely a hesitancy by agencies to commit to changing grazing practices because any change can attract the attention of groups that litigate grazing on public lands. Producers who responded to this survey also had a mixed response to the question of whether implementation will reduce the risk of litigation from outside groups. 44% believe risk will be reduced, 15% did not think risk would change, 22% thought that risk of litigation would increase, and 19% were uncertain of the outcome. Through webinars and discussions with ranchers across the west, our research team knows that many groups are watching the outcome of this project to know if trying to conduct a similar grazing project in thier area might be worth undertaking. 

• Will Implementation of the Three Creeks Project affect the overall expenses and time ranchers incur from managing their operation? While ranchers hope for many benefits to their livestock operations, our team wanted to also understand if ranchers felt that the project would increase operational costs including the time spent running their operation. The majority think that the project will increase expenses and increase the amount of time they spend managing their operation (81% and 70%, respectively). A minority think that expenses and the time they spend running their operations will decrease (7% and 0%, respectively). A few ranchers did not think expenses or the time spent managing their operation would change (4% and 19%, respectively).  7% were uncertain of the outcome.

Our research team believes that these results indicate that despite anticipated increases in operational costs, ranchers are still willing to participate in the Three Creeks project because of the benefits the project will bring. They may hope that some of the additional operating cost will be offset by increasing profits from larger calves, higher pregnancy rates, and increased forage production (leading to healthier cattle). Beyond this, it is also possible that ranchers are indicating they are willing to pay for the extra stability that reduced litigation, improved relationships with agency personnel, and secure grazing on public lands brings. It is also possible that ranchers are indicating they are willing to pay for better rangeland conditions, highlighting a stewardship ethic that is not always recognized by the broader public.

• Do ranchers think that implementation of the Three Creeks Project will affect overall health of rangland streams, the amount of forage near streams, stream water quality, and sage-grouse habiat near streams? Do ranchers think that any improvements be worth the cost? Many of the stakeholder involved in the Three Creeks Project, such as the BLM, Utah Grazing Improvement Program, and Working Lands Conservation want the project to balance economic security for ranchers with improvments to rangeland health, including rangeland streams. Our research team wanted to understand how important improvements to rangeland health were to the ranchers involved in the project. To do so, we wanted to gauge if ranchers had considered whether implementation of new grazing systems across the area would affect overall rangeland stream health, and different components of stream health including: the amount of forage produced near streams, stream water quality, and sage-grouse habitat near streams. We also wanted to understand whether ranchers believed that any improvements they might see were worth any increases in their operational costs.

We learned that ranchers commonly believed that implementation of the Three Creeks Project would improve rangeland stream conditions, including:

• • Overall stream health - the majority believe stream health will increase (81%), while 15% are uncertain of the outcome;
  • The amount of forage near streams - the majority also thought forage would increase (67%), fewer believed it would stay the same or decline (4% for each), and 19% were uncertain of the outcome;
  • Stream water quality - the majority also thought water quality would increase (78%), fewer believed it would stay the same or decline (4% for each), and 11% were uncertain of the outcome;
  • Sage-grouse habitat near streams - the majority also thought sage-grouse habitat would increase (44%), fewer believed it would stay the same (22%), or decline (4%), and 22% were uncertain of the outcome.

We also learned that ranchers were not strongly convinced that the improved stream conditions justified increased management costs (see below). This conflicts with earlier questions in the survey that asked what benefits ranchers hoped the project would provide. Ranchers most strongly supported increased costs of management for improved stream water quality (59% thought costs were justified). Less than half supported increased costs of management for improvement of forage near streams or sage-grouse habitat near streams. In all cases there were a large proportion of ranchers who were uncertain of whether improved stream conditions justified management costs (41% - forage near streams, 26% - stream water quality, 26% - sage-grouse habitat near streams). We are looking forward to learning how results from our continuing study's ecological and economic analysis affect rancher opintions of this cost-benefit analysis. We expect that if ranchers notice large improvements to these rangeland conditions, they will be more likely to note on Survey #2 that they believe that such improvements justify any increased costs incurred. 

• • • The amount of forage near streams - many ranchers thought improvements were worth costs (41%), fewer did not believe improvements would be worth the cost (11%), and many ranchers were uncertain if the cost would be justified (41%);
    • Stream water quality - many ranchers thought improvements were worth costs (59%), fewer did not believe improvements would be worth the cost (4%), a quarter of ranchers were uncertain if the cost would be justified (26%), and a few did not think the Three Creeks Project would affect water quality (4%);
    • Sage-grouse habitat near streams - many ranchers thought improvements were worth costs (44%), fewer did not believe improvements would be worth the cost (15%), a quarter of ranchers were uncertain if the cost would be justified (26%), and a few did not think the Three Creeks Project would affect water quality (4%);