NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Mary O'Brien, Utah Environmental Congress (UEC), Western Watersheds Project, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Wild Utah Project appeal pursuant to 36 CFR § 215.7 to the Supervisor of the Manti-La Sal National Forest (the Appeal Deciding Officer[1]) from the Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record Of Decision (ROD) signed by District Rangers Mesia Nyman and Tom Shore on September 28, 2005. This decision was noticed in the Sanpete Messenger (newspaper of record) on September 28, 2005.

Appellant Mary O'Brien is a Ph.D. botanist, resident of Oregon, part-time resident in Utah, and member of the Utah Environmental Congress. Dr. O'Brien claims standing to participate in the public lands decisionmaking process on the basis that the Manti-La Sal National Forest is national public lands in which Dr. O'Brien hikes, camps, photographs, and observes natural processes and native plants and animals. The drinking water she draws upon for her Castle Valley, Utah residence originates on the Manti-La Sal NF. The direct and indirect impacts associated with this livestock management decision detract from the Manti-La Sal NF's heritage of native biodiversity, natural productivity, and beauty; and this National Forest's stewardship of this national forest on behalf of future generations of Manti-La Sal NF native species and human visitors and users.

Appellant Utah Environmental Congress (UEC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to maintaining, protecting, and restoring the native ecosystems of Utah. The UEC has an organizational interest in the proper and lawful management of National Forests in Utah, including the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The UEC's members, staff, and board of directors participate in a wide range of recreational activities on the Manti-La Sal National Forest, including the area in and surrounding the action approved on the Wasatch Plateau.

The UEC represents 250 individual members, 18 organizations, and 73 businesses representing approximately 30,000 people, many of whom frequently use, recreate, hunt, fish, visit and otherwise enjoy this project area on the Manti-La Sal National Forest, and have a direct interest in its management.

The UEC claims standing to participate in the public land decision-making process on the grounds that it has been involved in forest management issues since its founding. Our members have hiked, fished, hunted deer and elk, recreated, enjoyed, and photographed the Manti-La Sal National Forest, including the project area. Our collective membership includes professional photography businesses and freelance photographers who make their living in part by photographing Utah's National Forests, including the Wasatch Plateau portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The direct and indirect impacts associated with this decision detract from the rugged, natural splendor, biodiversity, fishing/hunting values and wilderness values in the affected watersheds that make these lands appealing to both professional photographers and our members who find enjoyment from and recreate in this project area.

In addition, the UEC's members are taxpayers that are required to pay for the activities approved. The irretrievable commitments of financial resources associated with this project are also borne by the American people as a whole. The UEC claims partial ownership of the public lands covered by this decision and consequently has legal standing to participate in the process and challenge those decisions it finds legally unacceptable.

Appellant Western Watersheds Project (WWP) is a non-profit 501 (c) (3) regional, membership conservation organization with over 1,000 members based in Hailey, Idaho with offices in Idaho and Utah and Staff Representatives in Montana and Wyoming. We have provided comments on the scoping and draft document for this project. We have a long standing in National Forest issues throughout Utah, including the Manti-LaSal National Forest. WWP's members use this Forest for a variety of activities, including fishing, hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, spiritual renewal, biological, and botanical research, photography, and for other forms of recreation. They will be adversely affected by the proposed decision.

Appellant Wild Utah Project is a non-profit 501(c)(3) conservation organization that promotes the principles of conservation biology in making ecosystem use decisions. Having more than 30 years of history in a variety of activities on National Forests, we advocate livestock grazing that is managed in deference to ecological needs of the land. Restoring the health and productivity of our Forests is essential not only for wildlife but also for those communities that depend on these watersheds.

Appellant Great Old Broads for Wilderness, a 501 (c) (3) national wilderness advocacy organization, was formed 16 years ago in Utah by a group of women who spent a lot of time in Utah's deserts and forests. Today Great Old Broads has many members from Utah and around the country who use the national forests of Utah, including the Manti-La Sal, for hiking, camping, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, botanizing, photography and more. The proposed decision is very likely to adversely impact their uses of the Forest.

The appellants are appealing the September Record of Decision ("ROD") and Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") on the grounds that the decision and environmental documentation are legally indefensible. The appellants argue that the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLSNF) has violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

The appellants desire and will request relief in the form of a remand of the decision made in the ROD signed by District Rangers Nyman and Shore on September 28, 2005.

Statement of Facts

The action proposed and approved is described as follows:

The decision is to issue Term Grazing Permits and/or Temporary Term Grazing Permits to 38 sheep operators within 175,861 acres across the top Wasatch Plateau that is a high generally flat plateau with benches dissected by many deep canyons with elevations from over 10,000 feet down to approximately 7,000 feet. As the 38 sheep operators have been issued Term Grazing Permits authorizing grazing of a specified number of ewes with lambs in specific acres (allotments) for a specific period, the decision is to continue authorization of this sheep grazing (ROD at 3 and 4).

"Adaptive management practices" will be used to implement this decision, including "administrative decisions" such as increasing or decreasing stocking rate, changing the grazing season dates, making allotment boundary changes, removing an area from grazing use, etc." (see II. The Decision. ROD 3 of 17)

The appellants have participated in the public involvement and comment process at all points in this process. All of the issues raised in this appeal were raised in comments. All comments submitted in scoping, DEIS and FEIS comment periods by and on behalf of appellants are hereby incorporated by reference. The Forest Plan and its associated ROD and FEIS are incorporated into this appeal by reference.

Arguments

The ensuing arguments will demonstrate the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLSNF) has violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Plan, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

I. The Manti-La Sal NF violated NEPA by failing to describe the grazing that will be permitted on the allotments.

The FEIS (at 1-4) describes what this document will provide: "This document will provide the responsible officers with the basis upon which to make an informed decision for each allotment in the analysis area." Decisions on each allotment include issuing "term grazing permits" that will authorize livestock grazing. These permits will include the permitted number of livestock and the season of use and be recorded in a grazing permit.

The FEIS (see 3-1) does not describe how much grazing will be allowed on each allotment or when (period of the season) that grazing use will occur. Thus this document proposes to renew grazing permits without describing what these permits will allow. NEPA requires that federal actions be described (NEPA 1502.4). The FEIS does not describe the manner, location, or degree of the decision proposed in the preferred alternative. For this reason, this FEIS is inadequate and fails to meet federal legal requirements. Regulations require that the EIS describe the amount of grazing being proposed, how this will differ from past grazing, and justification for this change. This information is missing from this EIS yet will appear on grazing permits when these permits are issued. We argue that hiding this key decision violates a fundamental requirement of the Forest Service to make decisions in an open manner. The FEIS fails to meet one of our standards of democracy, as expressed in NEPA, that significant federal actions be described to the public adequately in a decision process.

Environmental analysis of any proposed actions cannot be conducted without knowing the location and degree of livestock and human impacts that this grazing decision poses. Since the FEIS lacks information on what impacts have resulted from an undisclosed past history of livestock grazing, it is impossible to analyze the impacts of an unspecified decision. For this reason, the environmental analysis fails to meet EIS regulations that call for analyzing the impacts of the proposed action.

Multiple use is described legally in a manner that requires that the combination of uses must be managed in a manner that prevents the impairment of the productivity of Forest wildlife, water, recreation, forest range forage, and more.

"Multiple use" means: The management of all the various
renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they
are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of
the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for
some or all of these resources or related services over areas large
enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in
use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land
will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and
coordinated management of the various resources, each with the
other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with
consideration being given to the relative values of the various
resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will
give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.
(b) "Sustained yield of the several products and services" means
the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land. 16 USC 531 (a) (Emphasis added)

The law continues to require that the Forest is managed in an ecological sense that requires managing uses in "coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness ..." 17 USC Sec 1604 (e) Rangeland health, watershed health, and ecological health share in common goals that relate to vegetation communities that have a diversity of species producing annual plant biomass at or near its natural potential (although watershed and ecological health, as opposed to livestock, specifically require native species)

If we pull just one component of productivity for discussion here, we find that the FEIS fails to adequately describe the impacts that the proposed action poses. As one measure of productivity, the desired condition of plant community productivity is often described in terms of annual plant production unique to a habitat type defined by soil map unit. The FEIS describes degraded plant community productivity it attributes to past grazing use and other factors. Similar analysis is also needed for wildlife, water, recreation and other

Since this FEIS does not reveal the grazing use to which the allotments will be put, it also does not analyze livestock carrying capacity or stocking levels consistent with current forage productivity. Likewise, the FEIS does not address the issue of diminished range forage production upon which watershed health, wildlife, and ecological processes, as well as livestock, are having to depend.

While not stated, this EIS is likely to allocate livestock grazing that will result in utilization of 50% or more of the forage produced in a growing season. We argue that this number is unsupported by range science. We submit as comments this document http://rangenet.org/directory/jonesa/sulrprec/index.html and ask that you review Appendix B which describes the utilization rate issue and presents the best science now known.

This EIS does not describe the productivity of these forest rangelands today or indicate whether its grazing decisions will be consistent with its mandate to manage grazing in a manner that prevents the impairment of the productivity of range forage. For this reason, the grazing decisions being proposed are arbitrary and not based on any rational fact-based criteria.

II. The Manti-La Sal NF violated NEPA by failing to do site-specific NEPA analysis on Allotment Management Plans (AMPs).

The FEIS (at 3-18) reveals that the 31-allotments area as a whole is "at risk of erosion" with an average 54.3% bare soil [see Section III.B ("Soils") and Appendix A: Disturbed, Eroding, and/or Bare Soils: Field Notes and Photos.Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments]. Major downward trends and degraded conditions from sheep grazing are being experienced on many allotments and sites and for many native species (e.g., Brewer's sparrow, broad-tailed hummingbird) but the FEIS (a) proposes to continue current sheep grazing for the next ten years with Term Grazing Permits and (b) defers allotment-specific analysis, management and monitoring of sheep grazing to non-NEPA allotment management plans which are neither scheduled nor promised and may be prepared only as "funding allows."

Current AMPs are 14-32 years old. The oldest of the 31 sheep allotment management plans on the Wasatch Plateau is 32 years old (1973): the most recent was completed 14 years ago (1991); three allotments apparently have none.

Age of current Wasatch Plateau Sheep Allotment Management Plans	Number of Wasatch Plateau Sheep Allotment Management Plans
0-13 years old	0
14-20 years old	14
21-30 years old	13
32 years old	1
Apparently no AMP [2]	3

An "amendment" has been made to a few AMPs, but only to state changes in Forest-wide grazing utilization rules, not because of site-specific problems or allotment analysis

New AMPs are neither scheduled nor likely

The FEIS states (S-viii)"A new or amended AMP maybe be [sic] developed for each allotment and implemented as funding allows."
"A new or amended AMP would be developed for each allotment and implemented as funding allows." (FEIS 2-1; emphasis added)

Any new AMPs that perhaps would be developed would make major sheep-management decisions outside NEPA.

The goals, grazing system, fencing, diverting of natural springs and seeps; seeding of exotic species; and monitoring frequency, locations and methods would all be in an AMP if it were developed to address downward trends and at-risk conditions as described in the FEIS:

"The AMP, that becomes part of the Term Grazing Permit, would include:

1. Goals and Objectives.

2. Grazing System.

3. Structural and non-structural improvement needs.

4. Monitoring locations and methods." (FEIS 1-2)

Thus, decisions about the direct and indirect adverse impacts of sheep grazing on native resources would all be made absent public review; environmental analysis; consideration of reasonable alternatives; and input.

John Healy, FEIS Team Leader, has indicated that any allotment management plans that "may" be developed would be developed "administratively," under the interpretation that 36 CFR 221.1(b)(2) does not require NEPA analysis. [3] Of course all decisions the Forest makes are "administrative" decisions, so this makes little sense.

The degree to which the Forest is believing that it can make decisions of major import without NEPA or any public scrutiny is exemplified by the Joes Valley Allotment. When Mary O'Brien of Grand Canyon Trust observed on site that cattle are being grazed with sheep in the Joes Valley Allotment (a fact which is not mentioned in the FEIS), John Healy wrote to Mary O'Brien that this is the second year of such grazing on a "trial basis" via an "administrative decision" in response to the permittee's request to convert the Joes Valley allotment to cattle. Mr. Healy indicated that a separate analysis would be needed to determine whether to convert the sheep allotment to cattle. In response to Dr. O'Brien's question as to whether this separate analysis would be done as an EIS (i.e., under NEPA), Mr. Healy responded, "This hasn't been discussed." (Email exchanges, August 22, 2005).

An example of the FEIS acknowledging the need for livestock management changes without committing to any changes is provided in Table 3-17 in which five reservoirs are declared to be at risk of moderate adverse effects from livestock grazing until "management changes are made" (FEIS 3-38). The allotments responsible for these adverse effects are not identified; no AMPs are promised; and the nature of the unscheduled "management changes" that will supposedly reverse the current moderate adverse impacts is not indicated.

If an AMP happens to be developed that happens to require monitoring, any violation of forage utilization limits would not trigger any changes in grazing management unless they were monitored and recorded repeatedly (i.e., on a "consistent basis"), but no monitoring methods or frequency are described or promised in the FEIS.

"The proper use level would have to be exceeded on a consistent basis to actually trigger a change, since one year of excessive use does not affect vegetative condition" (ROD at 5; emphasis added)

Which plant species might be monitored would supposedly be defined in an AMP, although 20 of 29 current AMPs lack identification of key species to be monitored. Twenty-one of 31 allotments (68%) lack any systematic quantitative monitoring of utilization during the past five years that would be sufficient to detect trends that should trigger management change.

"Key species are not defined in the Forest Plan amendment. Since plant species differ, depending on elevation and geographic area, they (key species) will be defined in each Allotment Management Plan." (ROD p. 3). Currently only nine of 31 (29% of) AMPs identify key species to be monitored for forage utilization. Two allotments lack AMPs.

Example 1: Black Canyon Allotment (1975 Allotment Management Plan finally signed by Forest Supervisor in 1981). The AMP does not identify key forage species and the allotment folder contains no quantitative utilization measurements during the five years (2000-2004) for which such data were requested. The 1974 AMP noted that "Almost 42 percent of the suitable range on the allotment is in poor or very poor condition....Tarweed (Madia glomerata) has invaded some of the depleted areas" (p.2).
Example 2: Clay Banks Allotment (1988 Allotment Management Plan). The AMP does not identify key forage species to be monitored and the allotment folder contains no quantitative utilization measurements during the five years (2000-2004) for which such data were requested.. A July 31, 2002 handwritten inspection note by a Forest Service employee (presumably) whose signature is not readable writes "Units 2 and 3 have been heavily grazed. Grass height ranges from ½" to 2" in open areas and 4" to 6" in shaded or dense foliage and wooded areas."
Example 3: Peavine Allotment (1983 Allotment Management Plan) does not identify key forage species. The AMP notes "Aspen regeneration is lacking throughout the allotment and some of these forage producing sites are being replaced by conifers." An undated handwritten note added to this notes "Aspen are reproducing. Conifers present problem." [Note that the note does not indicate any aspen are being recruited above browse height.] The allotment folder contains no quantitative monitoring of either forage utilization or aspen reproduction during the five years (2000-2004) for which such data were requested. Three handwritten notes include one 2002 note that cattle (!?!) have used open meadows with 1" stubble remaining; and one 2004 short paragraph describes riding through Blue Lake, Peavine, and Heliotrope allotments.

The FEIS fails to conduct a site-specific analysis. Not analyzing or committing to the AMPs, or even disclosing key components and concerns regarding each existing AMP/allotment within this EIS results in a violation of NEPA due to a fundamental lack of site-specific disclosure and effects analysis. "Where there are large-scale plans for regional development, NEPA requires both a programmatic and a site-specific EIS.... Although the agency does have discretion to define the scope of its actions, ... such discretion does not allow the agency to determine the specificity required by NEPA." City of Tenakee Springs v. Block, 788 F.2d 1402, 1407 (9th Cir. 1985).

The FEIS does indicate some site-specific problems under various headings (e.g., high or moderate level of concern for soil failure within 11 allotments (FEIS 3-30; no analysis of risk exists for 12 additional allotments); moderate to heavy impacts from livestock grazing adjacent to Bennetts Canyon stream, without indicating what allotment it is in (FEIS 3-7) but the FEIS does not attempt an analysis of which allotments are of high or moderate concern due to a combination of stream, soil, slope, vegetation and wildlife conditions and/or trends. Likewise, the FEIS does not identify a range of alternatives for addressing the adverse impacts of sheep grazing on specific allotments or sites.

A single EIS on multiple projects does not reduce the agency's obligation to fully disclose the environmental consequences of the individual projects. "The preparation of an area-wide or overview EIS may be particularly useful when similar actions, viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, share common timing or geography.... This impact statement would be followed by site-specific or project-specific EISs." CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18033 (March 23, 1981). (Emphasis added.)

In the case at hand the failure to include site-specific disclosure and analysis of the AMPs required in this EIS combined with failure to commit to any timeline for future AMP development with NEPA analysis violates NEPA due to a basic failure to conduct site-specific NEPA analysis.

III. The Manti-La Sal National Forest violated NEPA by failing to analyze significant impacts on specific cultural and natural resources and Forest species.

A. CULTURAL RESOURCES

No monitoring or management is provided in the FEIS to protect seven cultural sites within the 31 allotments that were judged ten years ago to be "susceptible to grazing impacts" ("List of Term Grazing Permits Reviewed for Effects to Cultural Resources Utah National Forests FY95 to March 1, 1996").

At the same time, the FEIS provides no analysis of grazing impacts that are likely to have occurred during the past ten years or likely will in the future (see FEIS at 3-49), despite scoping comments (Three Forests Coalition scoping at page 12) that provided a Forest Service description of the types of impacts that should be considered in the EIS:

In their DEIS comments, the Three Forests Coalition cited a Wallowa-Whitman NF EIS informed discussion of the range of impacts that sheep and other livestock can have on cultural resources (U.S. Forest Service. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker City, OR). None of these were considered in the Manti-La Sal FEIS:

"Domestic livestock...can and do affect both historic and prehistoric heritage resources." (U.S. Forest Service. 2003 at 3-218)

Sheep grazing can:

· Remove and/or destroy surface vegetation, resulting in deflation of archaeological deposits

· Compact or compress archaeological deposits,

· Trail or cut through archaeological deposits exposing cultural materials

· Chemically alter archaeological deposits by urine and feces,

· Break historic and prehistoric artifacts from trampling. (USFS 2003 at 3-218 and 3-219)

Tribal governments of the Hopi, Paiute, Ute Mountain Ute, White Mesa Ute, Ute Tribe (Fort Duchesne), and Navajo in June of 2001identified disturbance of springs by livestock as a concern in part because of the high potential for archaeological remains around springs (FEIS 1-6). However, the Forest fails to recognize springs as potentially impacted by sheep: "Springs and seeps were not evaluated as no impacts have been recognized from sheep grazing" (ROD at 35; emphasis added).

In a February 4, 2004 email to Project Leader John Healy, William Bruce Ellis (Heritage Program Manger, Manti-La Sal NF) seems to indicate that the Forest has essentially done nothing about monitoring for livestock impacts on cultural resources in recent years. He writes that a national Programmatic Agreement in 1994-95 about how cultural resources and section 106 (of the National Historic Preservation Act) compliance would be handled expired in 2001. Mr. Ellis recently polled Forests, the State Historic Protection Officer and the regional program manager who suggested that an MOU that was once drafted by then District Archaeologist for Moab-Monticello be "re-tooled" in the form of a Programmatic Agreement as the earlier national Programmatic Agreement "made us legal, less likely to suffer a successful appeal (regarding cultural resources anyway), and generally did the 'right thing' by the resource" (emphases added). Mr. Ellis indicates in the email that he will be coming up with a proposed Programmatic Agreement (an undated Draft grazing MOU is included in the Project Record).

Mr. Ellis notes in his February 4, 2004 email, "I have concerns [about sheep impacts on historic sites]. I have seen several sites on the Price-Ferron District, and through anecdotal evidence from some of my colleagues on other Forests, that have been thoroughly hammered by sheep."

The FEIS (at 3-49) states that the Forest has developed a monitoring plan for an unspecified number of "select sites" in unspecified allotments that "will be" submitted at some unspecified time to the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer and interested Tribal governments for review and comment. The FEIS does not state whether any of the "select sites" will be in the 31 sheep allotments. The Project Record (i.e., "List of Term Grazing Permits Reviewed for Effects to Cultural Resources Utah National Forests FY95 to March 1, 1996") lists eight sites that will be monitored for grazing-related impacts on the Sanpete, Ferron-Price Ranger Districts, but none of these are within the 31 sheep allotments.

The FEIS (at 3-48) states that 100,967 acres (i.e., approximately 60% of the analysis area) have been inventoried for cultural resources "within or immediately adjacent to" the 31 allotments.. However, the Project Record only indicates acres surveyed as of 1995-96. Within the 31 allotments, the Project Record lists only 10,687 acres as having been surveyed (i.e., 12% of the allotments area). ("List of Term Grazing Permits Reviewed for Effects to Cultural Resources Utah National Forests FY95 to March 1, 1996"). No acres at all in Island Lake or South Skyline Allotments are listed as having been surveyed. None of the 31 allotments are listed as having been surveyed within the past ten years.

Thus, according to the FEIS or the EIS Project Record,

· 12% of the 31 allotments area has been surveyed for cultural resources

· Seven cultural sites in the allotments area were judged ten years ago (1995) to be susceptible to grazing impacts

· No monitoring or protection for these seven sites is described for the past ten years or future.

· The FEIS fails to meet NEPA requirements to disclose potential or observed impacts of the proposed sheep grazing on cultural sites and defers any consideration of mitigation measures (e.g., monitoring, protection or non- protection of cultural sites) to some unspecified time in the future. This violates at least NEPA regulations 1502.16 "Environmental consequences", including 1502.16(h) "Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts"; 1503.4 "Response to comments".

B. SOILS

The most noticeable impact of current sheep grazing on the Wasatch Plateau is the ubiquitous bare soil pockmarked by sheep hooves and dotted with sheep scat. Even a site that may look "green" when viewed horizontally (see, e.g., Appendix A, IMG 1812 ) generally exhibits compacted, hoof-pitted, bare ground when looked at vertically.

· The 31-allotment analysis area averages 54.3% bare ground. The FEIS (at 3-18) admits that throughout the 31 allotments area, "Bare soil ranges from 0.7 to 93.3% and averages 54.3%. Sites that have less than 50-60% ground cover [i.e., more than 40% to 50% bare soil]are considered to be at risk for erosion." In other words, the FEIS admits that the entire allotments area is at risk for erosion (See Attachment A. "Disturbed, Eroding, and/or Bare Soils: Field Notes and Photos. Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments")

· The FEIS cites 35% bare soil as the minimum necessary to protect soils. The only place the FEIS or ROD cites any reference about the amount of ground cover necessary to protect soils is the ROD (at 30), citing "Stoddard (1975)" that 65% ground cover [i.e., less than 35% bare soil] is necessary in "Northern Utah" to protect soils. The 31 allotments area averages 19% more bare soil than the 35% maximum necessary to protect soils.

· The FEIS fails to estimate the spatial extent or severity of soil disturbance. The FEIS (p. 3-31) says that the M-LS Forest Plan sets a maximum allowable soil disturbance varying by slope and that the Regional soil quality guidelines suggest an upper limit for detrimental soil disturbance of 15% in an activity area. However, the FEIS (at 3-131) says "No estimate of the spatial extent or severity of soil disturbance will be made in this analysis" (emphasis added), therefore, not addressing Forest Plan soil disturbance maximums and Regional soil quality guidelines.

· In the only three exclosure studies described in the FEIS, the sheep-grazed area has dramatically reduced ground cover.The only exclosure studies (the FEIS refers to them as "enclosures") cited in the FEIS indicate:

o 70% bare ground in the sheep-grazed area outside Toms Ridge Enclosure (36% bare ground inside; FEIS 3-16)

o 62% bare ground in the sheep-grazed area outside Horseshoe Flat Enclosure (3% inside; FEIS 3-17)

o 55% bare ground in the sheep-grazed area outside Littles Creek Enclosure (31.3% inside) with ground cover outside on a downward trend between 1993 and 2003 (FEIS 3-15). The FEIS notes that sheep grazing around the exclosure is "generally light," resulting in 55% bare ground cumulative with wild ungulate use.

· The FEIS indicates that in 85 trend studies within the 31 allotments, 61% of the studies document downward or unstated (i.e., "stable") status. What is cited as "stable" by the FEIS means "no change" over time and the FEIS admits that "...stability is not desirable if the site is in deteriorated conditions" (FEIS 3-18). The condition in which the "no change" sites are "stable" is not described. Further, "upward" is not defined as to whether the minority of "upward" sites are still in an "at risk" or otherwise deteriorated condition. The FEIS does not indicate whether the upward trends in on these sites are negligible or significant.

· The FEIS devises de novo an estimate of low, moderate and high-concern allotments and finds only 14% (7 of 31 allotments) to be of low concern. The Forest combeines an "erosion index rating" (a combination of bare ground and "visible" erosion), with "percent bare ground,"(which is already in the erosion index rating)[4] to estimate which allotments are of low, moderate, or high concern for soil erosion. Over a third (13) of the 31 allotments have no analysis of their erosion index rating and/or percent bare ground. Eleven allotments are estimated to be of "moderate" or "high" concern (FEIS 3-29 through 3-32).

· The FEIS proposes no mitigation (e.g., changes in sheep numbers or grazing management) to address their admission that the entire 31 allotments area is at "at risk" of soil erosion (because it averages 54.3% bare ground) and 76% of the allotments are of moderate or high concern or of unanalyzed status for soil concern..

o The FEIS (at 3-31) states, "Based on limited data, these allotments [i.e., Black Canyon, Eccles, Island Lake, Jordan-Staker, Order Mountain, Ridley Ridge, and Spring Lake] may not meet the Forest Plan and/or Regional guidelines for soil management. These are a high priority for changes in management direction High Priority Allotments."

The FEIS (at 3-32) notes "trends in erosion index ratings or percent bare ground are of concern" in the following allotments: Beaver Dams-Boulger; Crandall Ridge, Heliotrope, Horse Creek, Little Pete's Hole, Monument Peak (which apparently has no AMP), Mountain Lion, Olsen Bench, Peavine Flat, Potter Canyon, Reeder Ridge, Seeley Canyon, and Willow Lake.

The FEIS proposes no mitigation to bring bare ground, erosion risk, and erosion into line with the Forest Plan, regional guidelines, or sustainability of soil production. The FEIS apparently leaves any potential management changes to potential AMPs "as funding allows." The Forest proposes to prepare these AMPs apart from NEPA (i.e., apart from public review, consideration of alternatives, or NEPA-sufficient environmental analysis). Thus the Forest fails to indicate management that will sustain natural productivity of the Forest, as soil losses at the rates potential with 54.3% bare soil may be irreversible.

· The FEIS soils analysis contradicts the FEIS conclusion that the allotments area is moving toward proper functioning condition. The FEIS (at 3-12) states, "The FEIS analysis displays that current range management is moving rangelands toward proper functioning condition." FEIS findings (see above SOILS discussion) reveal the opposite. Many sites and allotments are failing to move soil conditions toward desired conditions for bare ground. This should trigger an adjustment in management (FEIS at 3), however the FEIS indicates that such changes will be made.

· The FEIS provides no means by which allotment areas judged incapable due to potential for continued damage to soil will not be grazed. Map 2 in FEIS Appendix A reveals incapable rangelands interfingered throughout the 31-allotment area. The FEIS does not reveal whether sheep grazing is or is not occurring within these incapable areas, nor how the incapable areas will be avoided.

· The FEIS treatment of soils violates at least NEPA regulations 1502.16(h) "Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts"; 1502.22 "Incomplete or unavailable information"; 1502.24 "Methodology and scientific accuracy" regarding conclusions that the allotments area is moving toward proper functioning condition.

C. SPRINGS

Springs and seeps are a type of wetlands distinct from (although often linked to) streams, creeks, and ponds. Springs have biota that are unique and distinct from ponds, streams, other wetlands. The FEIS fails to provide any information on the condition of seeps, springs, or small ponds in the analysis area, despite the importance of seeps, springs, and small ponds for native wildlife, seep/spring-dependent wildlife and plants, season-long flows in creeks and swales, storage of water on the Forest, and aesthetics to non-commercial users of the Forest.

Numerous entities have repeatedly requested during the past four years that the Forest address the direct (e.g., trampling) and indirect (e.g., diversion for water) impacts of sheep grazing on springs and seeps within the 31 allotments:

· Three Forests Coalition scoping comments (March 27, 2004)

o The importance of springs to sage grouse for late brood-rearing (p. 21)

o The importance of springs to blue grouse feeding and brood-rearing habitat (p. 22)

o A request that a map of springs and water developments and analysis of the impacts of these developments on springs be included in the DEIS (p. 12)

· Three Forests Coalition DEIS comments (November 8, 2004)

o A repeat of the request for a map of springs and water developments[5] (p. 29).

o An example of another Utah Forest (Fishlake) describing impacts of springs development on sage grouse (p. 22)

· Three Forests Coalition FEIS comments (September 6, 2005)

o Requests that a SFEIS address the conditions and trends of springs and seeps, which are brood-rearing habitat for sage grouse (p. 3 )

o Notes that given the projct goal of undertaking range improvements, the EIS needs to discuss the costs and environmental impacts of springs development (p. 4)

o Notes the FEIS fails to analyze soil disturbance, loss of vegetative cover, and sedimentation of creeks/springs (p. 4)

o Notes that given the project goal of healthy watersheds, the FEIS fails to discuss the condition of springs and seeps in the allotments area (p. 4)

· U.S. Department of Interior scoping comments (August 9, 2001)

o Requests analysis of potential for grazing impacts to riparian and wetland habitats (p. 2)

· U.S. Department of Interior scoping comments (March 29, 2004)

o Requests the DEIS include maps of all water bodies ("e.g., natural lakes, reservoirs, streams, wetlands, peatlands, springs, and seeps...") (p. 2)

o Requests the DEIS discuss projected direct and indirect impacts to these water bodies (e.g., springs) (p. 2)

· U.S. Department of Interior DIS comments (November 4, 2004)

o Concern is raised about impacts on spring systems. "Springs provide important habitat to a myriad of wildlife...[and] are frequently sites of endemism in invertebrates"

· U.S. Department of Interior FEIS comments (September 16, 2005)

o "There remains no discussion...of spring systems or macroinvertebrate monitoring which would provide insight into the effects of sheep grazing on these sensitive and important ecosystems."

· Forest conversations with the tribal governments of the Hopi, Paiute, Ute Mountain Ute,White Mesa Ute, Ute Tribe (Fort Duchesne), and Navajo (June 2001)

o "...disturbance of natural springs was identified as a concern; for the water quality and flow; the high potential for archaeological remains around springs; and, the occurrence of traditionally used plants around springs" (FEIS 1-6).

· The FEIS indicates that Soil and Water Conservation Handbook Practice 11.05, Wetlands Analysis and Evaluation, applies to the "Tomaintain wetlands function and avoid adverse soiland water resource impacts associated wit thedestruction of modification of wetlands" (FEIS 3-42). Springs are a wetlands resource upon which native wildlife and plants, creek and stream stability, human communities, and livestock depend. These springs are used directly by and modified for diversion to sheep. However when Grand Canyon Trust submitted a FOIA request (October 11, 2004) for data on water quality and flow at natural springs within the 31 allotments, the Forest responded to this "Itme 13" (on an undated page) as follows:

The Forest does not monitor the quality or flow of springs unless they have been developed to provide water to developed sites such as campgrounds or administrative sites. Our inventory of range facilities does not include water quality or quantity information .

· The Forest concludes, contrary to commonsense, science, and observable conditions, that grazing has no direct or indirect impacts on springs (ROD, response to Three Forests Coalition FEIS comments, at 35): "Springs and seeps were not evaluated as no impacts have been recognized from sheep grazing. Riparian area Level II inventories described many streams and their source and did not identify areas of concern specific to spring sources" (emphasis added).

In this response, the Forest:

· Ignores indirect impacts to springs (e.g., piping to divert water from the natural flow of springs, fencing which inhibits use of springs by certain wildlife species) to springs as well as direct impacts (e.g., trampling of spring-influenced vegetation, defecation).

· Shows the Forest has not monitored springs at all, as Level II riparian surveys (all of which were done 6-15 years ago) do not include springs surveys in their protocol.

· Reveals that the Forest has not attempted to obtain information relevant to significant impacts, although this information has been specifically sought by Tribes, a federal agency and a coalition of conservation organizations for four years.

· Inexplicably ignores the fact that spring "developments" (e.g., ROD at 35) profoundly alter natural springs.

· This violates NEPA 1502.22 "Incomplete or unavailable information;" 1503.4 "Response to comments"; 1502.24 "Methodology and scientific accuracy" and 1502.16 "Environmental consequences"

D. AMPHIBIANS

Western toad (Bufo boreas) is a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources species of concern because of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. As the UDWR notes, "Timber harvest, livestock grazing, and recreational use have degraded many important wetland and upland western toad habitats and may directly cause toad mortality" (Emphasis added; Appendix A, Rationale for Wildlife Species of Concern Designations; Utah Sensitive Species List, February 8, 2005). The Western toadis currently warranted for listing as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, but precluded due to higher priorities. Western toad can be found in a variety of habitats, including slow moving streams, wetlands, desert springs, ponds, lakes, meadows, and woodlands (UDWR fact sheet accessed November 9, 2005 at http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Display.asp?FlNm=bufobobo)

The Three Forests Coalition repeatedly requested that the EIS address impacts to Western (boreal) toad.

In scoping comments (p. 11), maps of potential habitat and population condition of the Western toad were requested for the 31 allotments, citing evidence that sheep have been observed to trample Western toads and the potential for spreading chytrid fungus to the toads.[6]

In its DEIS comments (p.25), the Coalition noted:

The DEIS indicates that "western toads probably inhabit the project area" (DEIS 3-53). In the midst of dramatic losses of amphibians worldwide, the potential of domestic sheep grazing to reduce amphibians on the Manti-La Sal is a significant issue, and the DEIS failed to respond to our [scoping] comment. In addition, the DEIS notes that tiger salamanders and spadefoot toads may be present (DEIS 3-53).

In its FEIS comments (p. 12) , the Coalition noted:

The FEIS does not discuss whether sheep grazing will contribute to the ongoing decline of western toad (Three Forests Coalition scoping comments, pp. 11 and 20-21). The FEIS does note (FEIS 3-66) that "western toads probably inhabit the project area" but refuses to analyze the impacts of sheep grazing on this declining amphibian, though the Three Forests Coalition provided scientific evidence that sheep grazing could detrimentally impact the western toad.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noted in its November 12, 2004 DEIS comments that the DEIS provided no information on the health of amphibians and no information on the effects to amphibians of the alternatives.

The FEIS admits in its one paragraph on "Aquatic Amphibians" (FEIS 3-66) that "western toads probably inhabit the project area" but provides zero analysis of potential grazing impacts to either the western toad or any other aquatic amphibian (e.g., tiger salamander, spadefoot toad, or, as requested by the U.S. Department of Interior in its August 9, 2001 scoping comments, the spotted frog.)

The ROD (p. 34) responds to the Three Forests Coalition's FEIS comment that the FEIS fails to discuss whether sheep grazing will contribute to the ongoing decline of western toad by saying the western toad's "only known habitat" is outside the 31 allotments. This statement is meaningless, given that the Wasatch Plateau and the 31-allotment area provide a sizeable portion of western toad's southernmost potential habitat in Utah (see map, below) and the fact that western toad habitat includes slow moving streams, wetlands, desert springs, ponds, lakes, meadows, and woodlands, some of which are within the 31-allotment area. By adding the word "known," in their phrase "only known habitat," the Forest is simply saying the Forest has looked for neither potential western toad habitat or populations of their Forest's native western toads.

The potential wetlands habitat destruction and trampling by Wasatch Plateau sheep grazing of a native amphibian that is a UDWR Species of Concern whose habitat and populations are declining is a potentially significant impact, and the Forest has refused to respond to specific requests to consider this native of the Forest. This violates at least NEPA regulations 1503.4 "Response to comments;" 1502.24 "Methodology and scientific accuracy"; and 1502.16 "Environmental consequences"

E. ASPEN

Aspen is one of the four at-risk communities admitted by the FEIS to be most utilized and/or impacted by domestic sheep (FEIS 3-13). Aspen acres constitute 16% of the 31 allotment area (FEIS 3-11)

The FEIS fails to analyze the impacts of sheep grazing on aspen recruitment.

Despite aspen representing 16% of the allotments analysis area by acreage, out of the total 85 transects in the 31 allotments for which the Forest has quantitative trend analysis, one is for aspen, and it shows a downward trend for both soil and vegetation (FEIS 3-18).

The FEIS includes five random aspen photos (FEIS Appendix J photos 1-4 and 8) that provide no documentation or discussion of amount of sheep grazing or whether these photos are representative on the 31 allotments

Photo 1 (Wagon Road Ridge) shows remarkably little aspen generation after 86 years). No information is given regarding the reason for selecting this site to photograph.
Photo 2 (same Wagon Road Ridge site) is not clear regarding the comparative degree of aspen regeneration after 86 years.
Photo 3 is "Aspen sprouting in sagebrush"

The FEIS (at 2-7) says "See Appendix Photographs 1-3 as examples ofsprouting taking place."
The FEIS (at 3-12) mentions insect outbreaks in Engelmann spruce and says "Some aspen is regenerating naturally but sporadically. (See Appendix Photographs 1,2,3,4,8) At 3-20, the FEIS states In some aspen stands sproutinghas been so profuse that herbivory has not been detrimental to the sprouts (See Appendix Photograph 1)"

Photo 4 is "Aspen sprouting fallowing [sic] stimulation by beaver". Nowhere in the FEIS is there a discussion of the relationship of beaver to aspen, or the relationship of sheep grazing to presence of beaver. The purpose for inclusion of this photo is rather unclear.
Photo 8 is a ten-year old photo labeled "Much more aspen [in 1995 near Cox Knoll than 47 years earlier].."

Photos supplied by the Three Forests Coalition in Appendix B ("Aspen Stands: Field Notes and Photos. Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments") of this Appeal demonstrate what is seen again and again in sheep allotments on the Wasatch Plateau: Aspen stands with little understory, compacted and bare soils, and browsed ramets. No such photos are included in the DEIS or FEIS. The last appeal photo in Appendix B (IMG 1844) shows an aspen stand on a steep slope above Becks Creek which is difficult for sheep to access; its understory in dense and diverse.

The FEIS claims that "Conifer encroachment is viewed as the greatest threat to the maintenance of aspen" (ROD Response to Comments at 5), but fails to acknowledge scientific information supplied by the Three Forests Coalition that sheep browsing of aspen clones may facilitate "conifer encroachment." Such facilitation could be caused by preferential browsing of young aspen ramets in the absence of browsing adjacent conifers (Appendix B, IMG 1656); removal of understory that competes with conifer sprouting (Appendix B, IMG 1682) ; or other sheep impacts.

Example 1: During scoping comments, the Three Forests Coalition mentioned and then supplied to John Healy a study by Kay (2001)[7]. . In the 40 aspen exclosures Kay has measured or otherwise evaluated in western U.S. and Canada, "...in all cases where aspen has been protected, it successfully regenerated and formed multi-aged stands without fire or other disturbance." (p. 134). He notes that "If only burned aspen stands were capable of producing new stems greater than 6 feet tall, then aspen inside fenced plots or aspen protected by fallen trees, should not be able to successfully regenerate." (p. 132). Regeneration was found to be occurring wherever cattle were excluded, wherever aspen happened to be protected from livestock by interlocking branches of fallen trees, and when livestock numbers were temporarily reduced or cattle grazing had been changed from season-long to only early-season use. (p. 133)Aspen was in better condition on steep slopes or farther from water, showing a relation to livestock grazing patterns. (p. 133).

The ROD responds that The Forest "has pictures of conifer encroachment into aspen in areas grazed by cattle, sheep, and many areas not grazed by livestock." (ROD Response to Comments at 86) This is of course nonresponsive to the issue of sheep contributions to aspen recruitment failures, as any heavy ungulate browsing may be contributing to aspen recruitment difficulties. The FEIS describes burning as the only treatment it recommends for regenerating aspen.

· Example 2. During scoping comments, the Three Forests Coalition referenced and then supplied by hard copy to John Healy a paper by Belsky and Blumethnal (1997) [8] The paper documents the densification of Interior West forests by livestock grazing.The FEIS neither acknowledges this nor the potential contribution of sheep grazing to invasion of conifers into aspen (see the rather incomprehensible response at ROD Response to Comments at 81)

The FEIS does admit at one point that "Where sprouting is taking place light forage use by sheep and/or wildlife can hinder growth..." adding "...but to distinguish between the two is very difficult." (FEIS at 3-22). In fact it is not difficult to distinguish when the scat in the aspen clone is of domestic sheep and not elk or deer, and the Forest admits that "The extent of aspen regeneration in the analysis area has not been mapped" (FEIS 2-7).

The FEIS has failed to address a significant impact of the proposed sheep grazing: retardation or elimination of aspen recruitment.

F. NATIVE FORBS

The importance of knowing whether native forbs are being lost from the 31-allotments area is shown by the FEIS:

Uplands forbs are consumed by sheep. "Sheep, by their grazing nature, prefer to graze in uplands (Windward, 1994)."(FEIS 3-9).
Forbs growing at higher elevations (i.e., with short growing seasons) are consumed by sheep. "It is preferred not to move the ewes and lambs to lower elevations in late summer once the forage has cured. As sheep prefer to be on green forage, when taken to lower elevations most herds become very difficult to control." (FEIS 3-1)

Sheep prefer to consume forbs. "Sheep prefer eating forbs and shrubs to grass (Stoddard et al. 1975)." (FEIS 3-19)
Forb communities provide much forage used by sheep: "Within the analysis area sagebrush, grasslands, forbs, and aspen plant communities, provide much of the forage used by sheep. These are also sites where sheep prefer to graze. ... the entire plant of more palatable forbs and some grasses are readily taken." (FEIS 3-19)
Forb communities are at risk. "Four plant communities that make the majority of the suitable range for sheep grazing are at risk: quaking aspen, sagebrush, tall forb and riparian." (FEIS 3-13)
Forb presence and cover is poor in the project area. "All of the plant species that are expected to be in the analysis area are represented in the area but theretends to be a poor distribution of forb species" (FEIS 3-13).
Sheep may be preventing recovery of high elevation forbs. The FEIS (at 3-14) reports that Prevedal and Johnson recently concluded, following analysis of historical photographs on Wagon Road Ridge (in the allotments area) from 1913 to 2004, that sheet erosion and sheep grazing are preventing recovery of high elevation grasslands and forb plant communities (Prevedal and Johnson. 2005).
Forb understory on big sagebrush stands in Region 4 is diminishing "because of grazing in combination with the increase in overstory sagebrush (>15 percent)[9]. As a result of this loss in understory vegetation, soil stability and productivity may also be seriously affected" (USFS 1996)
"Four plant communities that make the majority of the suitable range for sheep

grazing are at risk: quaking aspen, sagebrush, tall forb and riparian" (FEIS 3-13).

Despite FEIS acknowledgment that forbs may be at risk from current sheep grazing on the 31 allotments, the FEIS does not indicate whether native forbs are in fact losing out in the project area.

The FEIS doesn't distinguish between native forbs from exotic forbs. The FEIS almost never makes a distinction between native and exotic species, so the trends information is uninformative (see, e.g., FEIS 3-13 through 3-19). The following examples illustrate how trend cannot be determined absent a clarification of whether the FEIS is talking about native or exotic species:

Increase in "species" or even "desirable species" is meaningless for understanding environmental impacts.

The FEIS (at 3-13) writes, "Trend studies indicate a slow increase in the number of forb species overthe past 30 years. A mix of desirable, intermediate desirable and least desirable plants are appearing." (3-13). The FEIS use of the terms "desirable," and "intermediate desirable" provide zero environmental impact information. For instance, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), an exotic grass widely seeded on the Manti-La Sal NF is considered "desirable," (see "Plant Species Manti-LaSal National Forest") even though it is a rhizomatous grass that competitively excludes native forbs and grasses, thereby reducing and suppressing the native biodiversity on the Forest.

Likewise, yellow pea or mountain goldenpea (Thermopsis montanum) is considered "intermediate desirable," even though it is an exotic weed described thus in the Forest Service's 1988 reprint of the 1933 Range Plant Handbook (New York: Dover Publications, Inc.) , p. 538: "...mountain goldenpea is worthless as range forage...This species tends to be rather aggressive; when once established, mountain goldenpea is apparently very resistant to drought and its deep-set, extensive root system enables it to withstand considerable trampling. In addition to spreading by perennial underground parts, it usually succeeds (being so little grazed) in producing an annual seed crop. Consequently it often increases on ranges where overgrazing has somewhat depleted the more platable vegetation." In the 2002 edition of Weeds of the West (Whitson, et al. 2002), T. montanum is described as "poisonous to livestock."

Yellow and white sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis and M. alba respectively) are exotic weeds introduced from Europe and Asia listed by the Manti-La Sal NF as "desirable." Weeds of the West indicates "Sweetclover is often one of the first plants to appear on disturbed sites."

Essentially zero information can be gained regarding impacts of sheep grazing by lumping "desirable" and "intermediate desirable" into "upward trends" when "intermediate desirable" and "desirable" exotic weeds may be displacing native species.

The FEIS states that "When sampling 28 of the 85 transects monitoring vegetative changes in the analysis area, 4 (14%)do not show any gain in the number of species; 3 (11%) show a decline; and 21 (75%) display anincrease in the number of species." (FEIS 3-13)

Whether the increase in species is due to increase in exotic species is not indicated. Extremely weedy fields can have a large number of species, but that can simply be a sign of degradation. For example:

"At the Little Creek study (CB-102), Kentucky bluegrass has increased from 183 lbs/acre to 903 lbs/acre and is being [sic] to dominate the site. This will continue to be monitored to determine if the sod forming nature of this plant begins to exclude other species" [Note: Kentucky bluegrass is a rhizomatous, invasive grass, excludes native species and is easily visible on the Manti-La Sal NF]. "When study [sic] began (1969) there were 5 species of grass, 6 forbs and 1 shrub. In 1998 there were 3 species of grass, 9 species of forbs and 1 shrub. Total production changed from 724 lbs/acre to 2709 lbs/acre. (FEIS 3-14)"

The above paragraph is meaningless in terms of native biodiversity or ecology, as the forbs gained in 1998 could be exotic. In fact, when Mary O'Brien (a botanist) asked for specifics of species gains/losses in this and other studies cited by the FEIS, the list given to me for the Little Creek Study ( "CB-102") indicated the loss of "BRCA" (i.e., Bromus carinatus, a native mountain brome grass) and POAZ (unidentified Poa species)" and the gain of LALE (again, not listed in the plant species list), PERY (Penstemon rydbergii, a native forb), HEUN (listed as HUEN in the plant list, a native Helianthella), and ASTERZ (an unidentified Aster). No information was available on cover --- i.e., whether the native plants are scattered or considerable cover. It is remarkably difficult to determine conditions and trends in these 31 allotments!!

The FEIS refers to planned "vegetation treatments" (FEIS, Appendix C) without indicating whether they will result in maintenance or introduction of exotic species. John Healy, Team Leader for this FEIS indicated that in the past five years about 250 acres have been seeded on the Forest, and it was to exotic crested wheatgrass when earlier crested wheatgrass died due to drought. In another location, 1,000 pounds of crested wheatgrass mixed with sagebrush, grama grass, Indian rice grass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Poa secunda were seeded (Email from John Healy to Mary O'Brien November 9, 2005)

Out on Bald Ridge in the analysis area, sagebrush on some of the ridge has been "treated" and seeded some years ago; elsewhere on the ridge, there is dense, untreated sagebrush. The treated sagebrush is dominated by seeded exotic grasses, sagebrush, and Douglas rabbitbrush, with few forbs (Figure 1); while the untreated sagebrush contains a high diversity of native forbs (e.g., Berberis, Stipa, Penstemon, Castilleja, scarlet gilia, serviceberry, and bunchgrasses.) See Figures 2-3

Figure 1: Treated sagebrush, Bald Ridge, GPS UTM 0478921;4367447

Figure 2: Untreated sagebrush with forbs, Bald Ridge, GPS UTM 0478809; 4367195

Figure 3: Untreated sagebrush with serviceberry, Bald Ridge, GPS UTM 0478809; 4367195

The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would not allow seeding of non-native forage species (FEIS 2-8) , but the FEIS never analyzes the environmental impacts for native forbs and grasses of maintaining or introducing seedings of non-native forage species by the proposed alternative (FEIS Appendix C) , which does not preclude seeding exotic species.

The FEIS does not distinguish between "stuck in a degraded vegetative condition" and "maintaining in satisfactory vegetative condition." The table summarizing 85 vegetation and soil trend studies (FEIS Table 3-7, at 3-18) does not distinguish between "stable" poor-condition sites and "stable" satisfactory-condition sites. This is of particular concern because, as the FEIS notes (FEIS J-25): "Sites selected for monitoring are sites in unsatisfactory condition or represent the major forage producing plant community." Thus, the proportion of "unsatisfactory condition sites" that are "stable" in degraded condition is not discernible in Table 3-7. Downward trend and unidentified condition sites account for 61% of the soil trend studies and 71% of the vegetation trend studies within the 31 allotments area.

The FEIS fails to indicate the likely proportion of exotic to native seeds in forage seedings. The FEIS (at 2-8) says exotic species would be planted if native species not available, but the Forest does not actively collect seed and indicates that when they buy "native" seed (no indication of whether it is genetically local), it is from local seed stores at as much as $80 to $100/pound for forb seeds and they are limited to what the stores have (Email from John Healy to Mary O'Brien November 9, 2005). It would be expected that most forage seedings would be of exotic species that reduce the biodiversity of native species, but the FEIS does not discuss this.

G. MIGRATORY BIRDS

The Forest has failed to gather information on migratory birds that would be expected to be adversely impacted by sheep grazing. Two examples are Brewer's sparrow and broad-tailed hummingbird.

a. Brewer's sparrow Brewer's sparrows are sagebrush-steppe obligates and exist on the Manti division of the Forest (FEIS H-9). They are identified by the Forest as a "priority" migratory land bird (FEIS H-8).They utilize tall (over 5 foot tall) Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata; FEIS H-11) and potential suitable habitat is found in 26 of the 31 sheep allotments (FEIS H-60).

i. No Brewer's trend data is provided for the Forest or the 31 allotment area (FEIS H-33); the Forest has not collected data on Brewer's habitat (ROD Response to Comments at 56) despite its well-known need for tall big sagebrush.

ii. The FEIS (at H-33) says Brewer's sparrow is stable and possibly increasing in Utah (citing a UDWR summary published in 2002). However, Pautuxent (USGS) data through 2004 shows Utah Brewer's sparrow steadily headed down in Utah ( 1966-2004 and 1980-2004; see http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/specl04.html)

iii. The FEIS notes that "There could be some indirect impacts from sheep grazing on foraging habitat changing insect distribution" (H-74), butfails to consider any of the following direct and indirect impacts of sheep grazing on Brewer's sparrow:

1. Sheep eating grass or forbs can remove cover essential to screening the nests from predation, as Brewer's sparrows nest either in the ground under sagebrush, or in sagebrush.. Herbaceous cover provides both visual (avian predators) and scent (mammalian predators) screening.

2. Sheep eating desirable grasses and forbs may result in herbaceous species composition shifts to smaller-statured, sparse annual species or herbaceous species with other attributes that make them less suitable screening cover.

3. Movement of sheep through areas can break off sagebrush, altering shrub structure, exposing nests, eggs and nestlings to predation.

4. Sheep are vectors of weed seed spread = changes in plant community composition that may affect nesting birds.

5. Brewer's sparrows are sensitive to fragmentation of habitat, and size of patches of sagebrush/how much sagebrush is in the landscape. Forest treatments that remove sagebrush, facilities that intensify livestock impacts, maintenance of exotic seedings, and unspecified "watershed enhancements' (FEIS, Appendix C) may reduce the extent of tall big sagebrush.

iv. The FEIS does not indicate having any knowledge of the condition of potential Brewer's sparrow habitat, populations, or trends within the 31-allotment area or the Forest as a whole.

b. Broad-tailed hummingbird

i. The FEIS identifies the broad-tailed hummingbird as a "priority migratory bird species" and notes that it depends on streamside habitat adjacent to "open patches of meadows or grasses with good quantities of wild flowers available throughout the breeding season (FEIS at H-34). There are approximately 87,809 acres of non-riparian breeding and foraging habitat within the sheep allotments and 281 acres of riparian breeding habitat in the 31 allotments. This bird should be of particular interest to the Forest for this EIS, because the bird depends on forbs (wildflowers) and sheep prefer to eat forbs.

ii. The FEIS provides no broad-tailed hummingbird trend data for the Forest or the 31 allotments area; and yet this hummingbird is steadily declining in the state of Utah (Pautuxent data base: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/specl04.html )

iii. The FEIS claims "...the effects on broad tailed hummingbird densities from grazing are unknown" (FEIS H-61; emphasis added) and that there will be "little to no" direct impacts on hummingbird breeding habitat because sheep don't focus on riparian forbs (FEIS H-61), but elsewhere states that hummingbirds utilize tall forb meadows and aspen stands (which are grazed by sheep) (FEIS H-62).

iv. During scoping comments, the Three Forests Coalition mentioned and then supplied to John Healy a UDWR publication (Howe et al 1999)[10] which indicated declining trends of broad-tailed hummingbirds in Utah. The UDWR document noted that effects of livestock grazing in Utah on this species are largely unstudied, but grazing practices that reduce the availability of wildflowers or nesting habitat are likely detrimental . It cited Utah Partners in Flight recommendations[11] that 1) grazing practices in areas known to contain high densities of broadtails should be modified to provide maximum availability of forage and nesting habitat during breeding periods; 2) grazing in areas of high broad-tailed hummingbird concentration should not be allowed until after August 1; and 3) grazing allotments should be managed so as to not reduce density of wildflowers in areas used for nesting and foraging broadtails.

v. The FEIS fails to acknowledge the Howe Utah study showing declines of broad-tailed hummingbirds, or the above Utah Partners in Flight recommendations that were cited in the Three Forests Coalition scoping document.

vi. The FEIS does not indicate having any knowledge of the condition of potential broad-tailed hummingbird habitat, populations, or trends within the 31-allotment area or the Forest as a whole although sheep preference for forbs would be expected to adversely impact broad-tailed hummingbird habitat.

IV. The Manti-La Sal National Forest Violated NEPA By Failing To Reasonably Analyze the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative and Compare It With the Forest's Alternative 1.

The FEIS fails to provide an analysis of critical components of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative vis-à-vis the Forest's "Rangeland Restoration" Alternative (Alternative 1) by arbitrarily and capriciously interpreting the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (Alternative 2) in a simplistic manner, allowing the Forest to subsequently avoid comparing their alternative with the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative for critical management differences.

The Forest Service Handbook, chapter 20, section 23.2 states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to "ensure that the, range of alternatives does not foreclose prematurely any option that might protect, restore and enhance the environment." NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. 1502.14) require that agencies should "(r)igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives ... ".

"An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable." CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18027 (March 23, 1981).

"Q. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or other federal approvals must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant...? .... A. .... Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant." CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18027 (March 23, 1981) (emphasis in original).

"NEPA requires that federal agencies consider alternatives to recommended actions whenever those actions "involve[] unresolved conflicts among alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E) (1982')..... (C)onsideration of alternatives is critical to the goals of NEPA even where a proposed action does not trigger the EIS process. This is reflected in the structure of the statute: while an EIS must also include alternatives to the proposed action, 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C) (iii) (1982), the consideration of alternatives requirement is contained in a separate subsection of the statute and therefore constitutes an independent requirement. See id. 4332(2)(E). The language and effect of the two subsections also indicate that the consideration of alternatives requirement is of wider scope than the EIS requirement. The former applies whenever an action involves conflicts, while the latter does not come into play unless the action will have significant environmental effect. An EIS is required where there has been an irretrievable commitment of resources, but unresolved conflicts as to the proper use of available resources may exist well before that point. Thus the consideration of alternatives requirement is both independent of, and broader than, the EIS requirement." Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Three Forests Coalition submitted the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative for sheep grazing on the 31 Wasatch Plateau allotments on March 27, 2004, during the scoping period. The Forest refused to consider the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative in their September 2004 Draft EIS. Following Three Forests Coalition comments on this DEIS (November 8, 2004) the Forest agreed to consider the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative in the Final EIS (July 2005). However, the Forest took one minor element of more than 25 key elements (see FEIS, at 2-5 through 2-8) of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (namely unsuitability of "key" mule deer fawning habitat for sheep grazing) , and arbitrarily and capriciously made it the single major feature of the alternative. The Forest interpreted this single management proposal (of more than 25 key proposals) to mean zero livestock grazing on 76 percent of the allotments area.

This is an arbitrary action of major import, because the other 25 major elements of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative deal directly with increased care for the four at-risk habitats admitted by the FEIS to be most utilized and/or impacted by domestic sheep: Quaking aspen, native forbs, sagebrush and riparian communities (FEIS 3-13).

Here is how the FEIS arbitrarily and capriciously avoided reasonable interpretation (and therefore meaningful analysis) of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative:

a. "Key mule deer fawning" habitat in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative was interpreted to eliminate sheep grazing on 76% of the entire Wasatch Plateau 31-allotment area. "Key mule deer fawning area"which was indicated as unsuitable (not incapable) in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative was unreasonably interpreted by the Manti-La Sal NF to mean that sheep grazing would be eliminated on all 133,630 acres of summer deer habitat (which is not "key" fawning habitat; see FEIS at 3-22 with corrected acreage in ROD "Errata for Published Document" re: "Deer Fawning", no page number).

In the FEIS Map for Alternative 2 (the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative), 4,092 acres were identified as "critical fawning habitat" while 129,538 acres were identified as "high value summer deer habitat." In the ROD, the Forest changed the term "critical fawning habitat" to "critical summer habitat." If the Forest was going to equate to key fawning habitat to key summer habitat (given that the Forest has not mapped fawning habitat for mule deer), then "key" fawning habitat of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative should have been interpreted to mean "critical summer deer habitat" (4,092 acres, or 2.3% of the 31 allotment acres), not all mapped summer range on the Wasatch Plateau (i.e., 133,630 acres, or 76% of the entire Forest acreage in the 31 allotments).

Further, given that the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative proposed that critical mule deer fawning habitat be regarded as unsuitable (not incapable), the total elimination of sheep grazing from such acreage was not accurate.

The FEIS also concluded that sheep grazing would not be allowed at all on high value deer winter range (the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative indicated "key" mule deer winter range would be unsuitable; see FEIS Map for Alternative 2), or goshawk habitat (the SMU Alternative allowed grazing in goshawk habitat; see FEIS Map for Alternative 2), with the result that the Forest claimed the SMU Alternative would allow sheep grazing on only 11.4% of the allotment areas (i.e., 21, 175 acres of 175,861 acres) while sheep grazing was judged to be capable and suitable on 67% (118,074 acres) for the Forest's Alternative 1 (ROD Appendix K).

b. Goshawk habitat. Although the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative had indicated that goshawk habitat is suitable for combined wildlife/sheep utilization of 20%. the FEIS stated that "Goshawk nest site [sic] are within deer fawning habitat that is excluded from grazing" (FEIS 2-7).

The Forest thus arbitrarily avoided analyzing the comparative environmental consequences of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative and the Forest's Alternative 1:

Management Feature

Alternative 1

(M-LS NF)

Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Forest Service evidence of the reasonableness of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Goshawk habitat

Standard M-LS NF utilization allowed on forbs and grasses:

· 26-45% (upland)

· 50-60% (riparian Spring)

· 45-50% (riparian Summer)

· 30-40% or 4"-5" of stubble or regrowth (riparian Fall)

≤20% utilization (avg.) of grasses/forbs by wildlife and sheep within 30 acres of goshawk nest, 400 acres of fledglings, and 5,400 acres of home range

The SMU Alternative follows livestock grazing recommendations in Reynolds, et al. (1992)[12], a report from the FS Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Livestock may affect forage and cover resources for goshawk prey (Reynolds et al., 1992).

"Sheep grazing could have potential indirect impacts on the northern goshawk by removing young stems and reducing quaking aspen's ability to regenerate. This could allow the encroachment of conifer and the loss of potential future nesting habitat." (Wasatch Plateau sheep grazing FEIS, Appendix G-33, emphasis added).

c. Aspen communities. Although the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative had indicated that aspen clones can be utilized by sheep if young stems are growing above elk/deer/sheep browse height; AND native grass/forb biomass ≥50% and ground cover are ≥85% of a reference area, the FEIS failed to consider the comparative consequences with their own Alternative 1's lack of limits on aspen ramets because:

i. "...[M]ost of the aspen in the analysis area is excluded from grazing under the key deer fawning habitat (no grazing). Where grazing is allowed, the degree of [comparative] aspen regeneration has not been determined." (ROD Response to Comments at 33)

ii. "Most aspen stands would be eliminated from grazing under the deer fawning closure" (FEIS 3-23)

The Forest thus arbitrarily avoided analyzing the comparative environmental consequences of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative and the Forest's Alternative 1:

Management Feature

Alternative 1

(M-LS NF)

Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Forest Service evidence of the reasonableness of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Shrub/aspen sprout branch tips

No limits on browsing shrub/aspen sprouts mentioned in the FEIS though sheep prefer to "graze" browse [i.e., shrubs, aspen ramets] more than grass (FEIS, 3-1)

1. ≤30% browse of current year's branch tips by sheep and wildlife by end of sheep grazing season

2. ≤20% browsed stem tips of shrubs in shrublands/ grasslands in "unsatisfactory condition"

· Aspen is one of the four at-risk plant communities that make the majority of the suitable range for sheep (FEIS 3-13)

· "Where [aspen] sprouting is taking place light forage use by sheep and/or wildlife can hinder growth.."(FEIS 3-22)

· The Intermountain Region FS recommends utilization criteria on riparian and upland shrubs that protect the ability of the shrubs to reproduce and add new individuals (USFS 2004, 3-8)[13] (Emphasis added)

d. The FEIS states, "[The SMU] alternative also prescribes no sheep grazing of aspen sprouts until they are above the height of browsing elk, elk being the tallest browsing animal in the area." (FEIS 3-22; emphasis added).

In fact, the SMU Alternative states that grazing within aspen stands is suitable in aspen stands if "young stems are growing above elk/deer/sheep browse height" (FEIS 2-7). The SMU Alternative at no point says that no sheep grazing of aspen sprouts can take place until they are above the height of browsing elk. It indicates that sheep browsing should not be taking place in aspen stands that are not experiencing young stems growing above the height of browsing elk.

This is a critical area of difference with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), which repeatedly mentions burning of aspen groves as the major step to be taken to manage for aspen stands (FEIS 2-3; 2-9; 3-21; S-viii; S-xi (burning is implied, given the ROD definition of early seral aspen as "stands recovering from prescribe [sic] burning" (ROD Response to Comments at 26))

The FEIS admits that the Forest has not mapped the extent of aspen sprouting (FEIS 2-7). Nevertheless, it concludes (without any supporting data) that it will not matter whether aspen is grazed with 26,321 AUMs (Alternative 1) or no sheep at all (because of the "fawning closure"). The FEIS states that the percent bare ground within aspen clones will be virtually the same (approximately 10%; FEIS S-x); and the erosion index will be approximately the same (FEIS S-x). Neither alternative (i.e., 26,321 AUMs or zero AUMs) would supposedly result in significantly different percentage of early seral aspen (unscientifically defined as "stands recovering from prescribe [sic] burning" ROD Response to Comments at 26) acres or late seral aspen (inexplicably defined as "stands where conifers penetrate the canopy and begin to restrict light to the understory" ROD at 26) (FEIS S-xi). This is a scientifically insupportable analysis that defies what can be viewed on ground in many grazed aspen stands within these allotments (Appeal Appendix B: "Aspen Stands: Field Notes and Photos. Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments) ,i.e., browsed young ramets, depauperate understory, compacted ground) compared to ungrazed aspen (Appeal Appendix B, IMG 1844). This violates NEPA regulation 1502.24 "Methodology and scientific accuracy."

e. Riparian habitat Although the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative differed from the Forest's Alternative 1 for riparian areas, the Forest simply said: "No capacity was given for most of the riparian areas as they are excluded under key deer fawning habitat (FEIS 2-6)." (ROD Response to Comments at 24).

The Forest claimed that it would make no difference whether 30,732 sheep plus lambs (plus cattle in Joes Valley Allotment) are present in the allotments and allowed in riparian areas (e.g., around springs, seeps, ponds, ephemeral and perennial streams) or not:

ISSUE: Riparian (FEIS Table S-1 at S-xii)

ALTERNATIVE

RANGELAND

RESTORATION

ALTERNATIVE

SUSTAINABLE

MULIPLE USE

Impacted by Sheep

Light to None

The Forest arbitrarily avoided analyzing the comparative environmental consequences for either streams or seeps and springs of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative versus the Forest's Alternative 1:

Management Feature

Alternative 1

(M-LS NF)

Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Forest Service evidence of the reasonableness of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Riparian (streams)

· Spring: 50-60%

· Summer: 45-50%

· Fall: 30-40% or 4-5" stubble or regrowth (DEIS, B-1)

· [No browse limit stated for shrubs or young saplings]

None; riparian areas unsuitable for grazing (unless contradicted by on-site information) within 300 feet on each side of perennial streams except in appropriately located and designated sites that will have minimal negative effects on vegetation and aquatic resources and are spaced appropriately as crossings essential for access to water or movement of sheep to upland forage.

· Riparian communities are one of the four at-risk plant communities that make the majority of the suitable range for sheep (FEIS 3-13)

· The FEIS acknowledges that riparian use by sheep is a key issue (FEIS at 1-7): "Sheep grazing can impact riparian area by improper bedding and trailing."

· Wet meadows and riparian areas constitute less 2% of the allotments area (FEIS 3-11), so protection of riparian areas would thus involve very little reduction of grazing area.

Herders have the ability to move sheep away from riparian areas (DEIS 3-42)

"Sheep

rarely use [Gooseberry, Cottonwood, and Boulger Creeks] and they are vegetated with grasses and grass-like plants." (FEIS at 3-89)

The lower half of [Nuck Woodward] canyon is rarely by livestock and has a high

degree of stability resulting from dense willow and grass-like plants." (FEIS 3-8)

Riparian: Springs and seeps

· Spring: 50-60%

· Summer: 45-50%

· Fall: 30-40% or 4-5" stubble or regrowth (DEIS, B-1)

· [No browse limit stated for shrubs or young saplings]

· No monitoring of seeps or springs is proposed

· Unsuitable for grazing (unless contradicted by onsite information) within 150 feet surrounding springs, seeps, and wetlands except in appropriately located and designated sites that will have minimal negative effects on vegetation and aquatic resources

· Annually, riparian area condition of seeps, springs, and wetlands will be monitored on 1/5 of the allotments through wetlands inventories.

"[D]isturbance of natural springs was identified as a concern" to the Manti-La Sal NF by the tribal governments of the Hopi, Paiute, Ute Mountain Ute,

White Mesa Ute, Ute Tribe (Fort Duchesne), and Navajo in June of 2001 (FEIS at 1-6)

"[Scad Valley] has a high number of plant

species mostly associated with high alpine meadows and springs" FEIS at 3-67

f. Sagebrush communities Although the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative had indicated that wildlife habitat (e.g., sagebrush communities) can be utilized by sheep, the FEIS falsely claims that The FEIS states, "[The SMU Alternative] expands rangeland suitability criteria to exclude grazing in ...sage grouse habitat..."(s-viii; emphasis added).

The Forest thus arbitrarily avoided analyzing the comparative environmental consequences of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative and the Forest's Alternative 1:

Management Feature

Alternative 1

(M-LS NF)

Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Forest Service evidence of the reasonableness of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Wildlife habitat (e.g., Sagebrush for sage grouse, Brewer's sparrow)

Suitable for standard forage use:

· Spring: 50-60%

· Summer: 45-50%

· Fall: 30-40% or 4-5" stubble or regrowth (DEIS, B-1)

· [No browse limit stated for sagebrush or associated shrubs or saplings]

· Sagebrush "control" treatments

· Seeding treatments with exotic species if native species are not available) [14]

· Occupied and potential TES habitat (e.g., sagebrush) can be grazed by sheep if evidence indicates grazing will not directly or indirectly contribute to retardation of the species' reproduction and potential spread

· Potential nesting and brood rearing habitat for sage grouse is suitable if residual grass height is 18 cm (6 inches) during nesting and brood rearing season.

· Conversion of sagebrush for sheep forage is prohibited.

· Use genetically-local native seed and seedlings in revegetation

· Use nonpersistent non-natives only as an emergency and as an intermediate step to accomplish native plant restoration

· Sagebrush communities are one of the four at-risk plant communities that make the majority of the suitable range for sheep (FEIS 3-13)m

· Brewer's sparrows are sagebrush-steppe obligates (FEIS H-9). They are identified as a "priority" migratory land bird (FEIS H-8).They utilize tall Big Sagebrush (FEIS H-11) and potential suitable habitat is found in 26 of the 31 sheep allotments (FEIS H-60).

Thus, by arbitrarily and inaccurately interpreting the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative to exclude 88.6.% of the analysis area, the M-LS NF:

Arbitrarily rendered the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative unreasonable, thus failing to consider a full range of reasonable alternatives
Avoided comparing their Alternative 1 to the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative for the four at-risk habitats admitted by the FEIS to be most utilized and/or impacted by domestic sheep: Quaking aspen, native forbs, sagebrush and riparian communities (FEIS 3-13).

Wholly avoided analyzing the consequences of Alternative 1 versus Alternative 2 for native wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems -- e.g., the FEIS did not analyze what it would mean to include or not include in the forage base the habitat of MIS or species of special concern that is not meeting the reproductive needs of the species; or to allow browse of 30% of shrub tips vs. unlimited browse (see FEIS 2-5 through 2-8 for the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative; FEIS 2-1 through 2-5 for Alternative 1; See Attachment

V. The Manti-La Sal National Forest Violated (1) The Forest Plan And National Forest Management Act (NFMA) Requirements For Management Indicator Species And Diversity Monitoring And Standards And (2) NEPA Regulations 40 CFR Part 1505.2 - 1505.3.

NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR §1505.2 and §1505.3 state, " Mitigation (1505.2(c)) and other conditions established in the environmental impact statement or during its review and committed as part of the decision shall be implemented by the lead agency or other appropriate consenting agency"

Page 5 of the Record Of Decision (ROD) that approved the Forest Plan states, "During implementation, when various projects are designed, site-specific analysis will be required. Analyses may take the form of Environmental Assessments [40 CFR 1508.9], Environmental Impact Statements [40 CFR 1508.11], or categorical exclusions [40 CFR 1508.4]. The Supervisor may amend the Forest Plan in accordance with 36 CFR 219.10(f) [1982]. Any resulting documents will be tiered to the FEIS, pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.28 [1982]." This FEIS is tiered to the Forest Plan FEIS. Forest Plan amendments are not proposed, analyzed, or contemplated at this time. Page 14 of the Forest Plan ROD states, "Maintaining visual quality objectives, viable populations of wildlife management indicator species ... are all examples of standards and guidelines which act as mitigation measures." It goes on to state, "Mitigating measures, stated as standards and guidelines, are intended to be adopted and enforced in project level activities."

Failure to gather meaningful quantitative population trend data for MIS and failure to meet standards and guidelines for those MIS constitutes failure to adopt and enforce these mitigations measures committed to in the Forest Plan ROD and is in violation of NFMA, NEPA and 40 CFR §1505.2 and §1505.3.

The Manti-La Sal National Forest 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, identifies these 6 MIS:

Northern goshawk
Elk
Mule deer
Macroinvertebrates
Golden Eagle
Aberts squirrel

All but the last of the above MIS are selected and used for this analysis. However there is a failure to monitor these MIS population trends. Oddly, even for some of the most important MIS for this project area (such as macroinvertebrates), there is no functional project area presentation or analysis of its population trends. The recent 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings inform these issues:

The Forest Service must gather quantitative data on actual MIS populations that allows it to estimate the effects of any forest management activities on the animal population trends, and determine the relationship between management activities and population trend changes." Utah Environmental Congress v. Bosworth, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12441 (10th Cir. 2004).

Under a plain reading of § 219.19 and UEC I, we conclude that the Forest Service must select an MIS with some evidence that it is "present in the [project] area." The Forest Service must then collect "actual, quantitative population data," id. at 1226, to monitor population trends and to determine relationships to habitat changes. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(6)."..."Selecting only one or two (or a few) acceptable MIS actually present in a project area cannot satisfy the overall monitoring obligations of § 219.19. See Martin, 168 F.3d at 7 (concluding that the Forest Service violated §§ 219.19 and 219.26 because it "ha[d] no population data for half of the MIS in the Forest and thus [could not] reliably gauge the impact of the timber projects on these species"). Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, No. 03-4251, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17619, at *1 (10^th Cir. Aug. 19, 2005).

Page 12 of the ROD applies (1982) 36 CFR§219.27 and its management requirements for projects implementing Forest Plans to this project. 36 CFR§219.27(6) incorporates the wildlife viability MIS regulation at §219.19 to its management requirements. Application of the 2005 NFMA planning rule in this context is arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the APA.

In order to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan and the 1982 NFMA regulations at 36 CFR§219.27 (that incorporates the MIS regulations at§219.19) the Forest must gather MIS trend data in the project area sufficient to determine the effects of the project implementing the Forest Plan on the MIS population trends. This needs to be done in the analysis of this project, and evidence in the EIS indicates that the Forest has not met its MIS population trend monitoring requirements, in violation of the NFMA, APA, and the Forest Plan. Details on the selected MIS are below.

Macroinvertebrates MIS. The MLSNF Forest Plan page IV-6 identifies macroinvertebrates as a Management Indicator Species (MIS). Forest Plan FEIS page III-34 states that the macroinvertebrates MIS, "are ecological indicator species in aquatic habitats and the ability of that habitat to support fisheries" ... "Aquatic habitat on the Forest consists of 680 miles of stream fisheries and 1,765 acres of lakes and reservoirs. Macroinvertebrates are found in these areas" ... "Changes in aquatic habitats, resulting from activities in the terrestrial habitat, are rapidly seen through changes in the species composition and biomass of macroinvertebrates." (Emphasis added.)

A list of five aquatic insects is identified as what is minimally needed to accomplish any meaningful assessment of impacts from a project on the aquatic ecosystem. The Forest Plan and its FEIS state that the chosen list of macroinvertebrates would be treated as one MIS.[15] The same page of the Forest Plan and its FEIS state, "These habitats can be monitored for macroinvertebrates on a priority basis as needed to determine the specific effects of any one project or activity, as well as the effects of general Forest land management, on the aquatic resources" (emphasis added.) The Forest has simply not met this obligation. The macroinvertebrates MIS monitoring standards state, "Improve and maintain a good or above Diversity Index (DAT) of 11-17, a standing crop of 1.6 -- 4.0, and a Biotic Condition Index (BCI) or 75 or above." Forest Plan page III-20. The Forest Plan Chapter 4 monitoring table for macroinvertebrates states, "for baseline stations or as needed for select project activities" gather a minimum of data using the R4 GAWS, BCI and HCI macroinvertebrates indices. The Forest Plan expects the macroinvertebrates trend data to be collected "For baseline stations or as needed for select project activities."

Aquatic macroinvertebrates monitoring is well established to be a good aquatic management indicator species, as is explained in the introduction to the Data Analysis and Interpretation section of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Monitoring Reports the Manti-La Sal NF receives from the National Aquatic Monitoring Center, which does the Forest's macroinvertebrates monitoring. The February 8, 1999 letter to John Healy from UDWR (Letter from Miles Moretti, Southwestern Regional Supervisor; Project Record Index number 03-04-119) that concerns macroinvertebrates MIS monitoring underlines the known value of the macroinvertebrates MIS and demonstrated inadequacies in watersheds affected by the approved action. Reading this and the National Aquatic Monitoring Center reports in the record make it overwhelmingly clear that the value of monitoring aquatic macroinvertebrates and problems with conditions in the project area are substantial. Changes in macroinvertebrate indices quickly reflect changes in aquatic habitats -- even within one year of management activities in the affected watershed.

Although the Wasatch Plateau sheep grazing FEIS acknowledges that macroinvertebrates are within the 31-allotments area (FEIS at 3-57), The Forest has failed to gather any macroinvertebrates MIS trend data in the allotments (project) area.

The FEIS (see FEIS at H-30 through H-32) attempts to "fabricate" macroinvertebrates MIS trends by mixing and comparing unrelated sample data from different macroinvertebrates populations in different watersheds in different years. This is akin to describing "trends" in pollution by monitoring once next to a coal-burning power plant one year and monitoring once within a remote wilderness area the next year. It is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to basic scientific methodology, and does not yield aquatic MIS trend data of any value.

The FEIS (at H-30) inexplicably notes for this management indicator species that "The sampling locations are not designed to monitor the effects of a single land use or activity." In fact, the sampling locations and repeat measurements could have been designed to monitor water quality effects of sheep grazing, but were not.

Having scattered MIS monitoring sites throughout the Forest without attempting to place them in geographic or temporal relationship to any specific land uses or activities and without gathering data consistently over time at a given site, the FEIS (at H-30) then asks a question that can't be answered and at any rate is not informative regarding sheep grazing on the 31 allotments: "Over the years, is there a Forest-wide trend in the number of streams not meeting or surpassing the Forest Plan's BCI standard?"

The data displayed in the FEIS demonstrates a failure to gather and maintain information on whether macroinvertebrates MIS within the 31 allotments area are meeting standards (Forest Plan page III-20) of: (1) a DAT of 11-17, (2) a standing crop of 1.6-4.0 or, (3) a BCI of 75 or above.

Having completely failed to systematically gather any meaningful, site-specific data within the 31 allotments area, the FEIS makes no conclusions at all regarding grazing impacts on or trends of macroinvertebrate species.

All of the above is in violation of the Forest Plan and NFMA. This also is in violation of NFMA regulations cited and applied for this project that includes 36 CFR part 219.19.

This is also violates NEPA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1505.2 and 1505.3. " Mitigation (1505.2(c)) and other conditions established in the environmental impact statement or during its review and committed as part of the decision shall be implemented by the lead agency or other appropriate consenting agency" (emphasis added).

As noted earlier page 14 of the Forest Plan ROD states, " Maintaining visual quality objectives, viable populations of wildlife management indicator species" ..."are all examples of standards and guidelines which act as mitigation measures." It goes on to state, "Mitigating measures, stated as standards and guidelines, are intended to be adopted and enforced in project level activities" Failure to monitor, and the failure to enforce the monitoring and mitigation measures for MIS such as the macroinvertebrates MIS with this action implementing the Forest Plan that was approved in the Forest Plan ROD is arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of NEPA, its above implementing regulations, and the APA.

Moreover, the failure to use standard scientific methodology to arrive at a meaningful conclusion violates NEPA regulation 1502.24: "Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements."

VI. The Manti-La Sal National Forest Violated NEPA by Claiming Economic Benefits Without Documenting Costs and Benefits.

NEPA Sec. 102 [42 USC § 4332] and Regulation 1501.2direct agencies to

(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact onman's environment; and

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established by title II of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations;

NEPA regulation 1501.2 requires agencies to comply with (A). NEPA regulation 1507.2 requires agencies to have the capability (in terms of personnel and other resources) of complying with (A)... and to identify methods and procedures required by (B).

Instead of using a systematic, interdisciplinary approach that would examine both the costs and benefits of the proposed term grazing permits for 31 allotments, the FEIS simply presents a sophomoric, unsystematic, undocumented economic defense (i.e., of private benefits) of a small portion of the area's economy. The public costs associated with these private benefits are not presented.

The FEIS exaggerates the contribution of sheep grazing to the local economy.

As its keystone example of the economic contribution of sheep grazing to the local economy, the ROD at 6 states that "Sanpete County, the largest lamb producer in the state...receive[s] economic benefits from ranchers raising lambs. Lamb production is a large contributor to the approximately $93.2 million produced by agriculture in Sanpete County each year" (Emphasis added.)

In fact sheep, goats and products amount to less than 4% of the Sanpete County agricultural economy. In 2002 Sanpete County agricultural production amounted to $93.7 million. Livestock and poultry accounted for 95% of that ($88.9 million). Sheep, goats and products amounted to $3.5 million, which is 3.7% of total agriculture and 3.9% of livestock and poultry.1

If each family of the 42 operators the FEIS (at 3-5) states are involved in the sheep grazing of the Wasatch Plateau had five working members (a generous estimate), the operators and sheep herders would constitute 0.1% of the four counties' employment (Three Forests Coalition DEIS comments at 37)
In 2004 there were 9,245 jobs in Sanpete County and 179,832 in Utah County.[16] Thirty-one herders (ROD at 6) is .00005% of these jobs.

The FEIS fails to use recent agricultural data because it occurs in a "drought". In response to Three Forests Coalition objections to the failure to use recent data, the ROD (Response to Comments at 80) states: "...2001 Utah Agriculture statistical reports were used as the statewide drought had a significant impact on agriculture."

This implies that economics should be based on best-case agricultural conditions rather than reality.
The use of "best case" scenarios ignores the need to display over-time trends. The Utah sheep and lambs inventory for 2004 was 39.8% less than in 1997. At the national level the inventory of sheep and lambs dropped by 23.9% from 1997 to 2004.5

However, in 2001, with an inventory of 390,000 head, 29,169,000 pounds of sheep and lambs were marketed for $61/100lbs (value of production equaled $14,345,000).
In 2004 with an inventory of 265,000 head, 29,169,000 pounds of sheep and lambs were marketed for $101/100lbs (value of production equaled $18,947,000).
Ranchers made an additional $4.6 million with 125,000 fewer sheep.

The FEIS makes unfounded speculation about private landholdings as a justification for private sheep grazing of the Wasatch Plateau. No data are provided to back up their conclusions (This violates NEPA 1502.24)

ROD at 7 states: "The selected alternative also helps address a National Forest concern for retention of open space. Sheep operators control varying size ranches and farms that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Without the benefit of public land grazing many operators would sell their private land that would most likely be developed for residential houses a growing trend for rural areas located near the Wasatch front."

In the face of unrelenting pressure for conversion of land from farming to housing, and given the fact that the base properties are only a very small portion of total farmland in the County, the Forest fails to provide evidence that continued sheep grazing on the Forest will stem the tide
While sheep sales amount to under 4% of total livestock and poultry sales in Sanpete County, poultry amounts to 54%. Poultry is not at all dependent on public land grazing, so there is at least one potential alternative to selling properties for housing development.

The Forest claims that it is their "responsibility" to maintain access to forage as long as resource impacts are acceptable, without showing that resource impacts are acceptable (or defining the threshold of "acceptable".

ROD at 2 states, "Since the Forest supplies an integral piece of the forage needed for private sheep operations to remain viable, it is our responsibility to maintain access to the forage, as long as resource impacts are acceptable" No definition of "acceptable " resource impacts is given.

The private sheep operations are placing the entire 31-allotments area at risk of soil loss, with an average 54.3% bare soil (FEIS 3-18).
In 85 trend studies of soil conditions within the 31 allotments, 61% of the studies report downward or potentially degraded status (FEIS 3-18).
The Forest does not provide any trend or habitat condition data on the two priority migratory bird species that may be most impacted by sheep grazing, Brewer's sparrow and broad-tailed hummingbird. Both of these species are declining state-wide. Sage grouse are at extremely low numbers on the allotments.
The Forest has not mapped aspen regeneration (or lack of regeneration) where grazing is taking place; has not surveyed conditions of springs within the allotments; and surveys of some of the project area's streams are eight to thirteen years old (Three Forests Coalition FEIS comments at 26).

The FEIS implies that it has a responsibility to rescue a shrinking economic industry. The ROD (Response to Comments at 80) states, "In conversations with livestock operators they continually indicate there is growing difficulty to stay in sheep production: finding good herders, getting sheep sheared, increasing operating costs, develop (sic) of adjacent farm lands, increasing conflicts with neighbors, low wool prices" (emphasis added).

The assertion of how hard it is to get good help brings to question the assertion ROD (at 6) that employment of 29-31 herders is a substantial benefit.
In 2004 there were 9,245 jobs in Sanpete County and 179,832 in Utah County.[17] Thirty-one herders is .00005% of the jobs.
In 2005, the Salt Lake Tribune noted, "Utah job market is red-hot; Schools, hospitals, construction sites hungry for workers."[18]
The simple fact is that herders are hard to find because so many better jobs are available. The claim that providing 31 jobs out of a total of 189,000 jobs, at the lowest wages possible, contributes to the local economy deliberately creates a false impression.

The FEIS fails to provide a cost-benefit analysis. The FEIS only claims private economic benefits without describing public economic costs associated with the sheep grazing. This amounts to salesmanship, not a systematic economics analysis

Unmentioned costs include

permit management, monitoring, enforcement
the cost of this EIS
competition for forage with huntable animals
costs of remediation (e.g., aspen "treatments", exotic seedings, attempts at restoring native tall forbs)
maintenance costs on the allotments
maintenance of roads servicing the allotments
game management, predator control, and protection of threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species conducted by other agencies
water treatments
invasive species control

VII. The Manti-La Sal National Forest Violated NEPA By Failing To Prepare An Adequate Analysis Of Cumulative Impacts.

"Cumulative impact" is defined in NEPA as, "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time."[19]

"The cumulative effects analysis must be sufficiently detailed to be 'useful to the decisionmaker in deciding whether, or how, to alter the program to lessen cumulative impacts,' ... and must rely on some quantified or detailed information...." Lands Council v. Vaught, 198 F.Supp.2d 1211, 1245 (E.D.Wash. 2002).

Adequate discussion of cumulative impacts is consistently a problem in the FEIS largely because the Forest failed to describe how specific past and reasonably foreseeable projects together with sheep and cattle grazing and wild ungulate populations will be expected to impact soil, water quality, wildlife, and management indicator species.

.In City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Trans[20], the court held that an NEPA document must "catalogue adequately the relevant past projects in the area." It must also include a "useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future projects [which] requires a discussion of how [future] projects together with the proposed...project will affect the environment." Id (emphasis added). For this project there is no indication as to what particular impacts these projects presented cumulatively for any applicable resource value described in the FEIS.

Additionally, reasonably foreseeable actions such as the Dominion oil/gas development project (Scoping notice File code 2820-2/1950,November 2, 2005) inside some of the allotments are not accounted for. Effects of other past timber sales such as the roughly 25 mmbf cut in several sales on the Wasatch Plateau (approved via the salvage rider of 1995) are never disclosed or accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis to soils, water, aquatic habitats/MIS, or terrestrial TES and MIS wildlife.

The 9^th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals held that the Forest Service must specifically mention past sales and discuss how those sales have harmed the environment. The following describes cumulative impact deficiencies in that case, which are just as apparent in this FEIS.

"The Final Environmental Impact Statement generally describes the past timber harvests, gives the total acres cut, with types of cutting, per decade, and asserts that timber harvests have contributed to the environmental problems in the Project area. But there is no catalog of past projects and no discussion of how those projects (and differences between the projects) have harmed the environment. Apart from a map in the Project file that shows past harvests, with general notes about total acres cut per watershed, there is no listing of individual past timber harvests. Moreover, there is no discussion of the connection between individual harvests and the prior environmental harms from those harvests that the Forest Service now acknowledges." Lands Council v. Powell, No. 03-35640, Aug. 13, 2004.[21]

In conclusion, the failures to include any meaningful cumulative effects analysis for soils, water, aquatic habitats, and vegetation is in violation of NEPA.

Example 1: Soils. Although the entire allotments area is at risk for soil erosion given an average 54.3% bare area (FEIS 3-18), and the FEIS (at 3-21) acknowledges that "recreation activities are increasing at a rapid rate and are impacting vegetation at many sites especially ATV users whom [sic] run over or denude sites", the FEIS does not attempt to examine the expected cumulative effect on soils across the allotments area of the extensive sheep grazing and roads and ORV routes and past erosion. See:

Appendix A IMG 1696 of oil, gas and mining road erosion
Appendix A IMGs 1837 and 1838 of culvert and road erosion
Appendix C IMG 1689 of ORV tracks
Appendix C IMG 1785 of ORV eroding ruts
Appendix C IMGs 1749 and 1750 failed culverts on South Skyline Ridge Road).
Appendix C IMG 1851 of old landslide

Merely listing the various impacts does not constitute a hard look at whether Regional guidelines of no more than 15% detrimental soil disturbance in a project area (FEIS 3-31) is being exceeded. At 54.3% bare area, the guidelines may well be exceeded. The FEIS offers no other threshold by which cumulative impacts to the area soils would lead to changes in the proposed term grazing permit or AMPs.

Example 2: Broad-tailed hummingbird. Although the broad-tailed hummingbird is declining in Utah, depends for foraging on forbs which are the preferred food of sheep, and will be impacted adversely by numerous planned projects (FEIS H-63 through H-65) and "could" gain some foraging habitat for which it would compete with sheep (FEIS H-65), the FEIS never takes a hard look at whether the broad-tailed hummingbird will decline in the project area. The FEIS (at H-77) merely concludes that sheep grazing the foraging habitat of the broad-tailed hummingbird "may" impact the hummingbird. The FEIS indicates no threshold by which all the impacts listed in the FEIS would add up to the need for an altered term grazing permit or AMPs.

The failures to account for cumulative impacts of the proposed sheep grazing with well known past and reasonably foreseeable projects with impacts is in violation of NEPA. These NEPA violations are arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the APA.

VIII. The Manti-La Sal National Forest violated the mandate of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The Manti-La Sal National Forest acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reaching its decision. The APA requires all agency actions to conform to general standards of regularity and rationality. The courts will overturn agency decisions that are "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."[22] The Supreme Court has held:

"Normally, an agency [action] would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."[23]

The appellant has demonstrated that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA and NEPA in failing to

conduct or plan for site-specific NEPA analysis of the allotments for AMPs
reasonably interpret the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives
include environmental impacts of alternatives on numerous cultural and natural resources such as archaeological sites, springs, soils, migratory birds, and aspen
document purported economic benefits and display economic costs of the sheep grazing
include a meaningful cumulative effects analysis
implement the monitoring and standards committed to in the Forest Plan ROD for MIS such as macroinvertebrates monitoring

This is arbitrary and capricious, violating the NEPA and the APA. The NFMA and Forest Plan violations relating to MIS are also already demonstrated to be in violation of the APA.

Request for Relief

Due to the violations of the numerous Federal laws, regulations, the Forest Plan, its FEIS and ROD, the appellant asserts that this project cannot be considered legal. The appellant requests relief in the form of a full remand of the decision made in the ROD for this project.

The Forest should be instructed to update AMPs and term grazing permits under NEPA according to a schedule. This could best be done collaboratively with interested and informed parties in order to insure support not only of appropriate sheep grazing but also the natural and cultural heritage of the Forest.

For each allotment, present the stocking number, the number of AUMS and the season of use that will be incorporated in each grazing permit.

* Describe for each allotment, past grazing use in terms of AUMs grazed and season of use.

* Describe for each grazing permit, what changes in grazing are proposed in the permit and the rationale for that change.

* Environmental impacts analyzed should reflect the grazing levels (stocking numbers and season of us) that will be found in the grazing permits. In many cases, impacts reported in monitoring are due to amounts of grazing that are less than the permitted amount and for this reason, the environmental analysis does not support the decision made.

* Based on current range forage production, conduct a range capacity analysis using the ecological standards described here and determine stocking numbers and seasons of use for each permit that are consistent with the requirement to prevent the impairments of the productivity of watersheds and native biodiversity.

* Base the amount of grazing allowed that are described in grazing permits on the range capacity analysis just described.

The Forest should be instructed to obtain meaningful trend and grazing-sensitive data for major native habitats (e.g., aspen, meadows, sagebrush communities, riparian areas) whose natural productivity is potentially adversely and even irreversibly impacted by sheep grazing. Particular collaborative attention is needed regarding the condition of:

· Springs

· Soil cover and erosion

· Aspen

· Native forbs

· Migratory birds, e.g., Brewer's sparrow and broad-tailed hummingbirds

· Amphibians

· Macroinvertebrates

· Sagebrush communities (including understory)

· Cultural artifacts

All of these elements have received inadequate attention by the Forest and permittees. Each is a significant element of the natural heritage of the Wasatch Plateau, the Manti-La Sal NF, the nation, and future generations.

[1] 36 CFR§215.8(a) states, "Appeals must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer As Follows:" ... "If the responsible official who made the decision is: District Ranger" ... "Then the Appeal Deciding Officer is: Forest Supervisor."

[2] No AMP was provided for three allotments through a Grand Canyon Trust Freedom of Information Act request for AMPs for all 31 allotments.

[3] In an October 10, 2004 email note by Dr. Mary O'Brien to John Healy, Team Leader and Information Contact for this Manti-La Sal National Forest DEIS, Dr. O'Brien asked, "Will the allotment management plans (AMPs) that might be developed for each allotment be undertaken as a NEPA process, or separately from NEPA?" On October 20, 2004, Mr. Healy responded to this question by email, stating, "AMP's will be separate and they are viewed as implementing documents for the NEPA document."

[4] The FEIS (at 3-29)says there are two elements being considered in their soil analysis:

    1. "percent bare ground"
    2. An erosion index rating.
        a. Ground cover [which thus repeats "percent bare ground"]
        b. "Visual evidence" of soil movement or rilling/guillying

An erosion index rating of 30 (allowed for "low concern") is:
    a. Plant and litter cover 40-59% [i.e., bare ground of 40% to 60%]
    b. Bare soil openings 6-12" in size and frequently joined together
    c. "Some" noticeable soil deposition

An allotment can be considered of "low" level of concern if bare ground has noticeable soil deposition [i.e., erosion] and bare ground of 49%. A level of concern is "moderate" if the erosion index is 30 with bare ground equal to or "more than" 50% A level of concern is "high" if there is greater than 50% bare ground, active sheet erosion, rock and pavement 1-15% cover.

[5] "A map of each grazing allotment showing this and other relevant information is extremely important for informed public analysis of and comment on the implications of all reasonable ...alternatives" (Three Forests Coalition DEIS comments, p. 29)

[6] On the Targhee National Forest in southeastern Idaho, Bartelt (1998) reports that hundreds of metamorphosing western toads were trampled when a large herd of sheep were driven through a pond that had dried 4 days earlier. The sheep, numbering between 500-1000, were herded to the dried pond for an hour; as a result, extensive area of riparian vegetation was completely flattened and a majority of the young toads at the pond were left dead or dying (Bartelt 1998) Bartelt, Paul E. 1998. Natural History Notes: Bufo boreas (Western Toad) Mortality. Herpetological Review 29(2).

[7] Kay, Charles. 2001. The condition and trend of aspen communities on BLM administered lands in central Nevada - - with recommendations for management. Final report to Battle Mountain Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, NV

[8] Belsky, Joy, and Dana Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the interior West. Conservation Biology 11(2):315-327.

[9] The FEIS failed to acknowledge information sent in 2004 by the Three Forests Coalition to the Manti-La Sal NF that contradicts Mr. Al Winward's "opinion" that when big sagebrush cover reaches 12 to 15 percent, the understory production of other plants decreases. (see pages 4-8 in the Forest Service publication, Welch, Bruce, and Craig Criddle. 2003. Countering Misinformation Concerning Big Sagebrush. Research Paper RMRS-RP-40. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station.)

[10] Howe, F.P., J.R. Parrish, and R.N. Norvell. 1999. Utah Partners in Flight 1999 Progress Report. UDWR Publication No. 99-34. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 62 pp

[11] Parrish, Jimmie R., Frank Howe and Russell Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Division of Wildlife Publication No. 02-27. 305p.

[12] Reynolds, R.T, Graham, R.T., Reiser, M.H., Basset, R.L, Kennedy, P.L., Boyce, D.A., Jr., Goodwin, G., Smith, R., Fisher, E.L. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen Tech Rep. GTR-RM-217. Fort Collins, CO. USDA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp.

[13] U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation. Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision. Manti-La Sal National Forest. Price, UT.

[14] On November 6, 2005, Mary O'Brien asked FEIS Team leader John Healy by email about the current availability to the Manti-La Sal NF of native seed; whether the Forest has an active program for obtaining, storing, and/or using local native seed; and the amount of native versus exotic seeds that have been used in "improvement

projects" during the past five years.

Mr. Healy responded on November 9: "We do not actively collect seed. I could only guess how much seed has been used. Over the past 5 years I estimate we seeded

350 acres has been seeded. Most of this was in the crested wheat [i.e., exotic] seeding

near Horn Mountain under an emergency watershed treatment project when

approximately 325 acres of crested wheat died due to drought.... On Horn

Mountain I applied approximately 1000 pounds of [exotic] crested wheat in the old

seeding along with [native] sagebrush, grama grass, Indian rice grass, bluebunch

wheatgrass, Poa secunda."

[15] Forest Plan FEIS page III-34, and Forest Plan page II-34

[16] Governors Office of Planning and Budget/Demographic and Economic Analysis, Economics, State and County Historical Economic Data, Labor Force, Employed, Unemployed, &Unemployment Rate (1980-2004). <http://governor.utah.gov/dea/HistoricalData.html>

[17] Governors Office of Planning and Budget/Demographic and Economic Analysis, Economics, State and County Historical Economic Data, Labor Force, Employed, Unemployed, &Unemployment Rate (1980-2004). <http://governor.utah.gov/dea/HistoricalData.html>

[18] Mitchell, Lesley, August 17, 2005. "Utah job market is red-hot", The Salt Lake Tribune

[21]http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9971F77E66C0452E88256EEF00572E6F/$file/0335640.pdf?openelement

[23] Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)