Utah Department of Agriculture & Food Grazing Improvement Program

Transcription

1

2 Utah Department of Agriculture & Food Grazing Improvement Program

3 37

4 UGIP Projects FY06-11 Fiscal Year Total Projects Total Cost UGIP Cost Acres Affected Leverage Ratio $1,081,903 $148,934 50, : $1,042,294 $371, , : $4,079,489 $1,645, , : $3,213,705 $1,043, , : $2,901,114 $1,379, , : $2,878,402 $1,173, , :1 Total 300 $15,196,907 $5,763,509 1,642, :1 4

5 Pond Rebuild - Uintah County USFS Spring Development

6 Grazing Improvement Program Healthy Land Clean, Abundant Water Diverse Wildlife Populations Sustainable Livestock Industry Thriving Rural Communities Management

7 Watershed Restoration Managed Livestock Grazing The Under-Rated Tool 2

8 Management is the key Healthy watersheds are the common denominator for clean abundant water, diversity and abundance of wildlife and sustainable grazing opportunity for livestock. Well managed livestock grazing is the most effective landscape scale tool to maintain and improve watershed health and the wild land values Utahan s care about.

9 Grazed Range Acres in Utah Rangeland Resources of Utah, 1989 USU Extension Federal Grazing Land Million Ac. Private Grazing Land Million Ac. State Grazing Land Million Ac. *Total Utah Grazed Land Million Ac.

10 Change in Permitted Federal livestock AUMs 1940 to 2008 Year BLM USFS Total ,749,000 2,754,586 5,503, ,361,000 1,920,574 4,281, ,760,000 1,606,539 3,366, ,272,532 1,280,179 2,552, , ,773 1,541, , ,104 1,397, , ,031 1,383, , ,267 1,289,789 10

11 Change in Utah Federally Permitted AUMs Sheep & Goats Cattle & Horses Source: USU Rangeland Resources and Forest Service Region IV

12 1940 Livestock AUMs 26% Cattle & Horses Sheep & Goats 74% Source: USU Rangeland Resources and Forest Service Region IV

13 1960 Livestock AUMs 36% Cattle & Horses Sheep & Goats 64% Source: USU Rangeland Resources and Forest Service Region IV

14 1988 Livestock AUMs 59% 41% Cattle & Horses Sheep & Goats Source: USU Rangeland Resources and Forest Service Region IV

15 2005 Livestock AUMs 21% Cattle & Horses Sheep & Goats 79% Source: USU Rangeland Resources and Forest Service Region IV

16 U G I P (Utah Grazing Improvement Program) UGIP Technical Advisory Committee Dr. Roger Banner, USU Ext. Ron Torgerson, SITLA Rick Forsman, USFS Larry Lichthardt, BLM Shane Green, NRCS Dr. Jim Bowns, SUU 9

17 UGIP Technical Committee Key Principles of Grazing Management Most rangeland isn t overstocked, but grazing is often under-managed. Grazing impacts are managed by controlling the time (duration), timing (season), frequency, and intensity of grazing. Managing plant succession through grazing, mechanical, fire, chemical, and other means can enhance diversity and production (diversity = sustainability). You can t manage what you can t measure (adaptivemanagement). 17

18 1 pasture system 11

19 3 pasture system 12

20 20 pasture system 2013

21 Cattle Grazing Management Provide rest for recovery Reduce re-biting of individual plants Decrease selectivity, increase diet breadth May 2000 Maintain or increase diversity of plant growth forms (grass, forb, shrub) Increase opportunities for seed production Increase herbaceous plant density, cover, and production; improve water infiltration and riparian health Allow greater management flexibility (i.e. treat and rest pastures, varied season of use) Sept 2000 Increase wildlife abundance and diversity May 2000

22 2223

23 Increased edge 23 24

24 24 26

25 Management There is a powerful positive relationship between well managed livestock grazing, healthy watersheds and diverse/abundant wildlife populations.

26 Management requires both art and science the Intuitive mind is a sacred gift; the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. - Albert Einstein

27 Deseret Land and Livestock 27

28 20

29 90% of cattle on 10% of land area at one time during rapid growth season Pastures with livestock (May 20) 21

30 Stocking Rate Change 1983 to 2009 Species Mother Cows 2,600 4,800 Yearling Cattle 3,000 3,500 Elk 1,500 2,400 Mule Deer 4,500 3,000 Antelope Moose Bird Species? 276 Sage Grouse

31 Surveys Surveys Deseret Land & Livestock Deseret Land & Livestock Remaining Rich County Remaining Rich County TOTAL TOTAL

32 Meters Open Range Consulting 28 Legend Potential Riparian Areá

33 Acres Potential Riparian Area Riparian Vegetation Riparian Vegetation 34 Open Range Consulting

34 Dollars Total Operating Income

35

36

37

38

39 Public Land Management Three Creeks Allotment A Watershed Scale Plan

40 40 32

41 41 33

42 North (Sage Cr. SE. 5/15 to 5/27) South (Spring Cr to 6/4) 4235

43 North (Sage Cr. W. 5/28 to 6/10) South (Dry Canyon 6/4 to 7/4) 43 36

44 North (N. Otter Cr. 6/11 to 7/10) South (South Middle 7/5 to 7/20) 4437

45 North (North Middle 7/10 to 8/9) South (South Upper 7/21 to 8/20) 45 38

46 North (Upper North 8/10 to 9/9) 4639

47 North (Hawk Springs 9/10 to 9/15) South (USFS 8/21 to 9/15) 4740

48 Pastures Completely Rested Year

49 Draft Capital Budget Pipeline 419,541 ft. $3.25/ft $1,363,508 Troughs 75 $2,500/ea $187,500 Spr Dev 5 $10,000/ea $50,000 Storage tks 250,000/gal $1.00/gal $250,000 Pump stations 5 $15,000/ea $75,000 Subtotal Water Development $1,926,008 4 wire fence 65,000 ft $2.00/ft $130,000 Let dwn fence 41,978 ft $2.75/ft $115,440 Subtotal New Fence $245,440 Grand total Capital Cost $2,171,448 $2,171,448 = $18.10/ac $2,171,448 = $166.20/AUM 120,000 Ac 13,065 AUMs 49

50 Capital Budget Financing Projected Capital Budget $2,171, % paid by grants ($1,900,017) Paid by Permittees $271,431 Finance option: 12 yr note through ARDL---annual payment $28,359 or $1.77/AUM/yr for 12 years 50

51 Draft Annual Maintenance Fence Maintenance 189 miles at $35/mi $6,615 Fence Replacement (depreciation) Replace 8 miles of fence/yr on average at $10,000/mi $80,000 Total Annualized Fence cost $86,616 Water system/pipeline maintenance 135 troughs and 84 miles of pipeline (annual maintenance) $12,000 Pumping costs for fuel/service/etc. (annual cost) $8,000 Water system replacement (depreciation) Replace average of 2.8 miles/yr at $3/foot $44,352 Replace 7 troughs/yr at $1, $10,500 Replace 4 pumps and generators (every 5 yrs) at $54, $10,800 Total Annualized Water System Cost $85,652 Riders/Livestock Managers (Includes labor, truck, trailers, horses) 2 riders at $3,000/mo each, for four months $24,000 Total Annualized livestock labor/management $24,000 Monitoring (non-binding bid) Set up 100 monitoring sites at $700/ea------$70,000 Read 50 sites every other year at $ $7,500 Store data, prepare annual report, meet with stake holders $2,500 Total Annualized cost for monitoring and replanning $10,000 Grand Total Annualized cost for maintenance $206,267 51

52 Maintenance Cost Financing $206,267 annual cost $15.79/aum 13,065 Public land AUMs Permittee Capital budget share (12 yrs) $1.77/aum Annual AUM fee $1.34/aum Total permittee cost $18.90/aum The goal is to get those who benefit from clean water, good fisheries, and improved wildlife opportunity to do a 50/50 cost share on the infrastructure maintenance. $206, (paid buy other beneficaries)------$103,134/annually 2 $103, (paid by permittees $7.89/aum/annually 13,065 Public land AUMs 52

53 DLL Randolph

54

55 Perverse Triangle of Incentives Means and Motivation

56 Perverse Triangle of Incentives Means and Motivation

57 Issues Permit renewal/litigation Allotment/Resource Management Plans (NEPA) Environmental mandates/restrictions Special designations - political allocations Agency/permittee conflicts Wildlife/livestock conflicts Recreation/grazing conflicts Monitoring - lack of data for decisions Allotment size/scale - $/acre of management Federal agency personnel turnover

58 Sustainability Considerations Social, Economic, and Ecologic Emphasize grazing management principles (the tool for restoration) Replace scarcity mentality and political allocations with an abundance mentality and multiple use (increase the size of the resource pie) Support science based management State/local leadership in management (those closest to the resource can have the most positive impact) Provide political cover for agencies to make the right resource management decisions

59