November 21, 2005

Maggie Marston
Moab/Monticello Ranger District
PO Box 386
Moab, UT 84532

Dear Maggie,

We appreciate this opportunity to provide substantive comments in response to the notice in the newspaper of record. Please add every individual and organization named at the end of these substantive comments to all of the District and Forest's contact and mailing lists for this proposed action. All named and signed at the end of this letter are each an interested party. Please provide a response to our comments and please provide an opportunity to comment on a complete brief description of the proposed action as soon as one is drafted. Please also provide us an opportunity to review and comment on the environmental analysis, including the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis of the proposed action that is obviated even by the CE direction prior to signing or making a decision. Please provide an opportunity to review and comment on any environmental documents that area prepared or drafted in association with this analysis and planning.

The following comments explain why a CE for Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments is not legal. Determination of an appropriate term grazing permit for each of these two allotments should be determined collaboratively through NEPA with an Environmental Impact Statement. The cattle grazing and associated support activities (e.g., diverting and eliminating springs; seeding and maintaining exotic vegetation that excludes native species) are highly controversial; intensely and profoundly affect (in both context and intensity) the soils, native plants and animals, Congressionally designated areas, native American and historic sites, hydrology, and aesthetics of the Manti-La Sal NF; and limit the ability of federally listed and sensitive species (and their habitats) to reverse declines in their populations (and the condition and extent of their habitats).

The Appeal Reform Act requires comment and appeal for all actions implementing Forest Plans, and the authorization of livestock grazing on two allotments for the next decade is a large act ion implementing the 1986 Manti-La Sal NF Land and Resource Management Plan (aka Forest Plan).

These comments incorporate by reference all relevant comments and scientific information provided by Utah Environmental Congress (UEC) in their August 24, 2005 comments on proposed CEs for Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments.

Lack of disclosure of the proposed action

The Forest Service Handbook at FSH 1909.153 Chapter 30.3(3) notes:

Scoping is required on all proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded.

FSH 1909.15 Chapter 10 Section 11.2 notes what is required during scoping:

The most important element of the scoping process is to correctly identify and describe the proposed action. Elements of the proposed action include the nature, characteristics, and scope of the proposed action, the purpose and need for the proposed action, and the decision to be made.

No scope, need, purpose, or nature of the proposed action has been provided in either the first or second legal notices proposing a CE for authorizing grazing under a new term grazing permit for Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments. What is the proposed action? Continue grazing exactly as described in the expiring term grazing permits? Or, is the proposed action a proposal to issue new permits that reflect knowledge that has been gained since the permits were last issued? Is the proposed action to increase, decrease, or to not specify the grazing AUMs, timing and intensity? Are there any proposed range projects associated with the permit, such as fencing, stock pond or spring development or maintenance? Are there proposed resolutions to conflicts with recreationists and native species? The public has no way of knowing the answers to these questions from the legal notice, and there is no scoping letter with any additional basic detail. How can you expect the public to provide meaningful (let alone substantive) comments on the proposed action when the Forest has at all times failed to provide notice of, mail, or send even a basic description of the proposed action?

The lack of disclosure of the proposed action (that includes a simple description of the nature, scope, and purpose and need), is not consistent with the Appeals Reform Act, Administrative Procedures Act, FSH 1909.15 or NEPA. As UEC stated in their August 24, 2005 scoping comments on the first legal notice for these CEs, the proposed action description (including its purpose and need) "...need to be provided to the public so that substantive comments on all these very basic components of the proposed action can be provided." These have not been provided.

No indication of which NFMA regulations are being used.

The Forest does not indicate whether the proposed CEs for Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments are being analyzed and implemented pursuant to the Forest Plan and the 1982 regulations that it is based upon, or if the 2005 NFMA regulations are being used for this proposed action.

Is this action consistent with the Forest Plan and the 1982 NFMA regulations it is developed and implemented pursuant to? If implementation is pursuant to the 2005 NFMA regulations, how do you resolve the problem of there being NO standards for Forest Plan implementation under the new regulations? For example, that will violate the Forest Plan, and direction for, e.g., northern goshawk, sage grouse, and requirements for projects when TES species are present.

Given that the Forest has not implemented an EMS with a minimum scope that includes the "land management planning process," implementation of this action could not possibly be consistent with the 2005 NFMA implementing regulations. In light of this and because the 2005 NFMA regulations are illegal, we recommend using the current Forest Plan and the regulations upon which it is based and implemented for approval and analysis of this proposed action.

Regarding CEs under 2005 Appropriations Act, .Section 339 of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act states:

...A decision made by the Secretary of Agriculture to authorize grazing on an allotment shall be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if: (1) the decision continues current grazing management; (2) monitoring indicates that current grazing management is meeting, or satisfactorily moving toward, objectives in the land and resource management plan, as determined by the Secretary; and (3) the decision is consistent with agency policy concerning extraordinary circumstances. The total number of allotments that may be categorically excluded under this section may not exceed 900.

Forest Service policy concerning extraordinary circumstances, found at FSH 1909.15 Chapter 30.3.2, states:

Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS are:

a. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species.

b. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.

c. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas.

d. Inventoried roadless areas.

e. Research natural areas.

f. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites.

g. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.

The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.

CEs for the Dorry and Twin Springs allotments are inconsistent with the above appropriations act language for the following reasons:

1. The legal notice does not indicate whether the decision will continue or modify current grazing practices or management.
2. Monitoring data and observations across the allotments do not support the assumption that current grazing management is meeting or satisfactorily moving toward objectives in the Forest Plan (see below).
3. On-ground observation and monitoring data indicate that there are significant impacts regarding extraordinary circumstances in Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments (see below)

Significant impacts to wetlands (extraordinary circumstances) in Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments.

At areas visited randomly and briefly, observations are readily available (documented by GPS location) which reveal heavy, significant, and damaging impacts to the wetlands of Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments.

A. TWIN SPRINGS (See Appendix A: Twin Springs Allotment Photos and Field Notes and additional photos taken by Dan Kent, Red Rock Forests, which are being sent separately on November 21, 2005)

• At Twin Springs, observations reveal that the lower pond in Twin Springs is highly impacted (See Appendix A Twin Springs Allotment Photos and Field Notes):
• The pond is experiencing significant eutrophication, which is indicative of heavy fertilization inputs (a heavily-used horse pasture lies directly north). (See Appendix A IMG 1861)
• Native riparian vegetation has been largely replaced by exotic vegetation, including (Appendix A IMGs 1862, 1866)
• Banks of pond are compacted (Appendix A IMGs 1868, 1869)

• At Twin Springs, the springs and ponds are highly impacted:
• Vegetation has been eliminated from the ponds and spring riparian area vegetation and lack the frog species found in the lower pond (Appendix A IMGS 1874, 1875, 1877, 1896,1901-1904; frog see IMG 1864)
• The watercourse between the lower and first upper pond is becoming incised, isolating willows (Appendix A IMGs 1870, 1871)
• The spring itself is devoid of riparian area because it is piped at its source (Appendix A IMG 1879)
• Willows are dead and dying for the length of the valley at least up to the permittee's corrals (and we were prevented from walking further up the marked trail by numerous permittee dogs threatening by barking (Appendix A IMGs 1880-1882, 1890-1894, 1897, 1905, 1906)
• Willow resprouts are being heavily browsed (Appendix A 1906)
• Unauthorized mechanical cutting and herbiciding of gooseberry, perhaps by permittee (i.e., District Ranger Maggie Marston expressed no knowledge of this when told; see Appendix A IMGs 1883-1888, 1898, 1900, 1905

Note that the Twin Springs riparian system, documented above (September 4, 2005) in photographs to be heavily denuded and incised, exhibiting eutrophication, with essentially all large old willows dead and dying, young willows heavily browsed, and gooseberry shrubs mechanically cut and almost certainly herbicided, this area was judged in August 2005 to be properly functioning by contractor Joni Vanderbilt (August 25, 2005, Project Record index R081, "Hydrologic Technical Report"):

Some wetlands riparian areas are also present on the mesas near springs and in swells. One of the largest is Twin Springs, where the permittee's cabin is located. This site was rated properly functioning during a recent assessment (812005). Many of the springs on the mesa areas have been developed, historically with a trough and more recently by the construction of ponds. Due to the scarcity of water, livestock use around these ponds is generally high. [Emphasis added]

In contrast after Wayne Hoskisson told Maggie Marston in early September that he had photographs of willow and gooseberry conditions at Twin Springs, Maggie Marston, in an October 17, 2005 allotment inspection report states that "overall riparian shrubland and willow browse throughout the Twin Springs allotment appears light" except in the Twin Springs area. Ms. Marston claims that she rode the Twin Springs administration site with the categorical exclusion watershed contractor in late August 2005 and "The contractor and M. Marston have provided a PFC assessment for the [Twin Springs] area and it was categorized as functional, at risk."

This is false. Via a FOIA request, Grand Canyon Trust received Twin Springs and Dorry Allotment documents on a CD, which includes the Twin Springs Allotment "Riparian/Wetland Assessment of Proper Functioning Condition Combined Lotic/Lentic Standard Checklist" This consists of checklists having been filled out for only two sites in the entire Twin Springs Allotment, one of them being the Twin Springs..

While the handwriting is faint, the 8/20./2005 Twin Springs Checklist mentions the permittee cabin and horse pasture site at Twin Springs. The report checks the site as "Proper Functioning Condition." "Yes" is checked for:

• "Plants exhibit high vigor" with a handwritten note at the end of the report that "Some willows are decadent and dying" [emphasis added]
• Allthough virtually all the willows, many of which were huge, are dead or dying and new sprouts are being browsed back.
• "System is in balance with the water and sediment being supplies [sic] by the watershed" (no excessive erosion or deposition"
• Despite the eutrophication of the lower pond, incision of the water course between the lower pond and the one above it, and denudation of spring sources
• "Accumulation of chemicals affecting plant productivity and/or composition is not apparent"
• Although gooseberry has been almost certainly treated with herbicides, perhaps by the permittee
• "System is vertically stable"
• Although all the large willows are dead or dying, and the large gooseberry in the valley has been hacked back to about 5 feet tall

All checklist features of the Twin Springs site are checked "Yes" (meaning functioning well. This would seem to raise questions about other reports by Joni Vanderbilt and Maggie Marston judging what is proper functioning condition.

• Along Forest Road 340 on the way to Woodenshoe Point
• Numerous springs are denuded, compacted, and (inevitably) polluted (Appendix A IMGs 1603, 1608, 1609, 1616, 1617, 1638)
• Creek beds are incised (Appendix A IMGs 1644, 1645)

B. DORRY ALLOTMENT (See Appendix B: Dorry Allotment Photos and Field Notes)

• Wet meadows receive heavy use (Appendix B IMGs 1154-1156; 1513. 1514, 1517, 1518, 1519)
• Moist slopes become denuded where cattle graze (Appendix B IMG 1162, 1992).
• Springs are often unprotected, resulting in elimination of riparian vegetation, pollution of water, and degrading of spring hydrological functioning (see Appendix B IMGs 1157-1159, 1506-1511

• The Dorry Allotment Hydrologic Technical Report prepared for this CE proposal includes a two-page checklist review of six wetlands sites within the Dorry Allotment. Three of the six were rated as functioning at risk. (Hydrologic Technical Report, Dorry Canyon Allotment, undated but developed for the Dorry Canyon Allotment categorical exclusion; Project Record RO79).

• Squaw Springs is noted as functioning at risk with "only a few old willows, no young aspen." It is "over-widened"; its lotic conditions "could be better"; its natural surface or subsurface flow patterns are altered by disturbance; its stream banks are altered by hoof action, trails, and roads; its floodplain and channel characteristics are not adequate to dissipate energy, and its system is not in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the watershed. The handwritten notes are too faint to read, as supplied on CD by the Forest in response to a FOIA request.

See also Appendix B IMGs 1513, 1514, 1517, 1518 and 1519 at and near Squaw Springs

• Brumley Creek near Squaw Springs Trail is rated as functioning at risk, where stream banks are altered by disturbance, the riparian zone has not achieved its potential extent, there is not diverse age class distribution of vegetation, and adequate vegetation cover is not present to protect stream banks. Mostly too-light-to-be-read handwritten notes include, "Overuse of riparian area by livestock is evident in this reach; shrubs are present only in patches; a more continuous cover is expected at this site. Gramanoids [sic] and forbs have been grazed away" (Hydrologic Technical Report, see (2.) above)

• Dorry Canyon off of Squaw Springs Trail is rated functioning at risk, with riparian zone not achieving its potential extent; lack of diverse age-class distribution, lack of diverse composition of vegetation for maintenance and recovery, lack of vegetation with root masses capable of withstanding high stream flows, plants not exhibiting high vigor, lack of adequate vegetation cover, and lack of maintenance of microsite condition by adjacent site characteristics, lack of vertical stability, and excessive erosion or deposition. The handwritten note states, "Could be downward but recent cattle drive makes it hard to tell... The spring should be protected."

Significant impacts to willow, which is potentially suitable riparian habitat for the federally endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher.

• There is potentially suitable riparian habitat in the Twin Springs and Dorry allotments for the federally endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher and the Forest notes that according to USFWS protocol willow habitat is to be maintained and/or enhanced and monitored for its condition and regeneration by the Forest Service (undated Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment for the Twin Springs Range Allotment Categorical Exclusion; Project Record R068 and undated Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment for the Dorry Range Allotment Categorical Exclusion; Project Record R069).

According to the BE/BA, Southwestern willow flycatcher needs dense, multi-layered riparian vegetation, including willows:

The SWWF is a riparian obligate species, nesting in dense clumps of willow or shrubs with similar structure (alder, some tamarisk) along low-gradient streams, wetlands, beaver ponds, wet meadows and rivers.

The BE/BA also notes that USFWS protocol requires taking action based on monitoring of riparian conditions, e.g., willow regeneration:

Fencing should be required when impacts approach, but are not allowed to exceed, set thresholds to such factors as willow regeneration, bank erosion, depauperate or altered macroinvertebrate populations and invasive species.

The BE/BA claims that the above guidelines are being followed, though no evidence is provided in the Project Record that this is the case. The Project Record reveals no systematic willow monitoring for condition and regeneration within potentially suitable Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat on the Twin Springs Allotment. The BE/BA admits that all suitable habitat within the allotment has not been surveyed for Southwestern willow flycatcher.

• The status of willows (which are essential structural elements in riparian habitat suitable for willows) is at best uncertain and at worst significantly damaged.
• At Twin Springs, willows are dead and dying for the length of the valley at least up to the permittee's corrals (and we were prevented from walking further up the marked trail by numerous permittee dogs threatening by barking (Appendix A IMGs 1880-1882, 1890-1894, 1897, 1905, 1906)
• At Twin Springs, willow resprouts are being heavily browsed (1906)
• An August 27, 2003 memo on the Woodenshoe Fire, notes that the 2003 fire burned approximately 2,700 acres and killed "a number of...willow species" (Project Record R091). No evidence is provided in the Project Record as to how willows (and other native species) have fared since the fire, but Appendix A IMGs 1936-1942, 1945, 1959-1962, 1965-1967, 1970, and 1972-1977 indicate that cattle are grazing on steep, barren slopes and in denuded landscapes within the burn area.. How willows are doing within this fire area is not noted.
• In an October 17, 2005 Allotment Inspection report, Rangeland Management Specialist Maggie Marston notes that in Horse Pasture, which " has not been grazed by the permittee in several years" (emphasis added), willow vigor is "excellent," although again, no monitoring data or evidence that regeneration is occurring are supplied, so we simply have a ride-by report).

• Adverse impacts to willow would be expected with cattle grazing.
• In their August 24, 2005 scoping comments on the proposed Twin Springs and Dorry Allotment CEs,. UEC noted that willow canopy cover was found to be 8.5 times greater in livestock exclosures than in adjacent grazed riparian areas (citing Schulz and Leininger 1990).
• During 2004, the Three Forests Coalition submitted hard copies and annotations of numerous scientific documents, including Brookshire, et al (2002), finding willow reproduction to be suppressed with even light livestock grazing combined with wild ungulate grazing. While that study

Lack of indication that Twin Springs or Dorry Allotment are moving toward Desired Conditions.

• Although three of the wetlands (springs, wet meadows) surveyed for the Hydrologic Technical Reports for Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments were found to be functioning at risk, none are indicated as showing an upward trend. The only upward trend noted in the Dorry Allotment Hydrologic Report (RO 79 at 2) is in upper Pack Creek where "A portion of the upper part of the allotment is closed to grazing, and there is good recovery and a rapid upward trend of the riparian condition."

• No upward trend (let alone systematic monitoring) is noted for the endangered Southwestern flycatcher habitat conditions (i.e., dense, multi-layered vegetation) within the Twin Springs or Dorry Allotments.

• No upward trend is described toward good or excellent range condition in Twin Springs Allotment Mexican spotted owl "key grazing areas", i.e., oak, riparian, and meadow areas as recommended in the Recovery Plan for that owl's prey habitat. Almost the entire Twin Springs Allotment is within designated Critical Habitat for the federally Threatened Mexican Spotted Owl. With the recent losses in Cherry Canyon of excellent MSO habitat by fire, there is a great need to emphasize MSO habitat protection in nearby areas. Furthermore, it is unclear how the poorly functioning condition of this allotment is affecting habitat for the prey base of the owls living in the two canyons surrounding Dry Mesa, which is the heart of the allotment. Along Forest Road 340 on the way to Woodenshoe Point
• Numerous springs are denuded, compacted, and (inevitably) polluted (Appendix A IMGs 1603, 1608, 1609, 1616, 1617, 1638)
• Every spring visited on Dry Mesa was completely denuded and therefore non-functioning for organisms dependent on this habitat type

However, the BE/BA merely cites a four-year old USFWS letter saying that livestock grazing on the three southern Utah national forests doesn't affect Mexican Spotted Owl habitat (BE/BA for Twin Springs Allotment, pp. 10-11; Project Record R068). Such a statement, backed by no data and clear documented evidence of heavy grazing in oak, meadow, and riparian areas, is useless.

• Deer population trends are noted as downward on Elk Ridge (Twin Springs Allotment), and elk trends are noted as increasing, but the BE/BA for the Twin Springs Allotment notes (at 29), "Deer population trends cannot be related to any specific vegetation management actions on the Manti-La Sal National Forest" and "Trends in the elk population are not related tospecific habitat management actions on the Manti-La Sal National Forest." Thus the Forest is saying that neither deer nor elk are a species that can be used to indicate management actions or trends although they are considered a management indicator species by the Forest.

• The BE/BA for Twin Springs Allotment cites "Recent" (unidentified) winter range trend studies to be recording stable except downward for browse (almost certainly exotic) on old chainings (what proportion of the allotment are these?) and summer range was stable except downward on Woodenshoe Point where there was a 2003 fire. Thus there is no evidence of upward trend.

• The 13 Twin Springs Allotment utilization studies read in 2004 (apparently for this CE proposal; Project Record RO 86) use exclusively exotic grasses as the utilization measure (i.e., exotic Kentucky bluegrass, crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, and/or western wheatgrass), thus avoiding all measure of utilization of native perennial grasses. This is of great concern, as observations on Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments show native bunchgrasses effectively selected against by removal of nearly all reproductive parts and most of their vegetative parts (see Appendix A IMGs 1858, 1912, 1916, 1934; Appendix B IMGs 2000, 2012).

The photographs accompanying the utilization studies (Project Record RO 86) record an average 33% bare ground (ranging from 15% to 45% bare ground) even though nearly all of the plots are taken in rhizomatous (lawngrass) Kentucky bluegrass. The photos show a near golf-course length of grasses, with the exception of one photo taken in crested wheatgrass (which isn't preferred if there are any native grasses around). The findings of high amounts of bare ground accord with documented observations on the Dorry and Twin Springs Allotments (Appendix A, IMGs 1606, 1854-1855, 1857,1859, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1925, 1926, 1933, 1936-1945, 1947, 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1958-1962, 1974; Appendix B, IMGs 1162, 1990-1993, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2011-2013, 2015, 2016)

The near total elimination of native perennial bunchgrasses from these sites could hardly be considered an upward trend for native wildlife, native forbs, native grasses, or native shrubs. This is a highly significant and controversial impact on the Twin Springs and Dorry Allotments.

No similar range trend studies were included for Dorry Allotment in the FOIA response CD.

• Range trend studies reported by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (Southeastern Region Range Trend Workshop.May 6, 2005; Project Record RO 87) shows downward range trends in the La Sal Mountains between 1994 and 2004 for both soil and browse (p. 22). The one trend site that appears to be on the Dorry Allotment (Slaughter Flat) is a downward trend for both browse and herbaceous understory. This is shown in 2005 photographs of Slaughter Flat, even though cattle had not yet grazed the site this year (Appendix B IMGs 2006, 2011-2013, 2015-2018)

• Trend studies in the Twin Springs Allotment (Project Record R090) do not indicate upward trends:
• Woodenshoe (1999 most recent study). Herbaceous understory is downward, with Kentucky bluegrass becoming essentially a monoculture (70% of grasses) on the site. Native grasses Stipa comata, Poa fendleriana and Sitanion hystrix are being lost from the site.
• Kigalia Point. (1999 most recent study). This has become an exotic grass site with smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass accounting for 43% and 39% grass cover, respectively. Soil, browse, and herbaceous understory are all downward, attributed to a prescribed fire the previous year. Fire has caused aspen to sprout, but there is no follow-up study since 1999 to see if the aspen regeneration has failed as it has on essentially all aspen regeneration sites studied on Elk Ridge, due primarily to livestock grazing of ramets (Project Record R066).
• Dry Mesa Chaining.(Most recent trend study 8 years ago)This has become an exotic grass site by smooth brome and crested wheatgrass. One unidentified lupine (rated "poor" for forage) heavily dominates all forbs.
• Holding Pasture (Most recent trend study 7 years ago) This site has become an exotic grass site with intermediate wheatgrass and smooth brome. Forbs are almost gone from the site.
• Peavine Cow Skull (Most recent trend study 8 years ago). As of 1997, bare ground was increasing on this site (at 38%)
• JN Pasture West (Most recent trend 4 years ago). This is an exotic grass site dominated by intermediate wheatgrass with some Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Bare ground is 54.8 %.
• JN Pasture Burn No trend. Read only once 8 years ago (1997)

• A drop from over 80% occupancy of northern goshawk territories on the La Sal Division (Twin Springs and Dorry Allotments) in 2000 to about 35% occupancy 2001-2004 is attributed by the BE/BA (at 36) to drought without consideration that the prey availability during drought might be reduced by livestock grazing.

• The BE/BA (at 36) cites the Twin Springs Allotment Hydrologic Report as saying According to the Hydrologic Technical Report for the Twin Springs Range Allotment Categorical Exclusion, "no field indications of poor water quality were noted at springs or intermittent streams." This, however, is both useless (given that no measures of water quality were employed) and suspect given the photo documentation in Appendix A of trampled springs and ponds and eutrophied Twin Springs pond (Appendix A IMGs 1861, 1874, 1875, 1877, 1880, 1901, 1902, 1904) which is one of only two wetlands sites that were surveyed by the hydrologist for the Twin Springs Allotment CE proposal.

• The Twin Springs BE/BA (at 40) notes that broad-tailed hummingbirds are "observed regularly on the La Sal BBS survey (BBS data, project file)" without indicating trend or whether any breeding bird survey transects are on the Twin Springs or Dorry Allotments. The BE/BA notes why they might be expected to be trending downward on the allotments: "Cattle grazing may impact the availability of nectar producing flowers in limited areas" (the BE/BA use of the word "limited" is not clear), and the regional (undefined) trend is downward.

• Brewer's sparrows which depend on sagebrush communities on the Twin Springs Allotment, are noted as downward regionally (regionally is underfined) The BE/BA (at 40) merely states "However, by maintaining management standards for stubble heights and soil disturbance as listed in the Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), no measurable direct or indirect impacts on these sparrows is expected." However, stubble heights are not a grazing standard for livestock in upland (sagebrush) sites (i.e., grazing of 65% of forage is allowed), and, as shown in Appendix A IMGs 1946-1954, cattle on the Twin Springs Allotment are allowed to leave bare areas and essentially no stubble height in sagebrush. This BE/BA report for Brewer's sparrows is useless.

• Pinyon jay, gray vireo, Virginia's warblers and black-throated gray warblerdepend on mature pinyon/juniper, which is considered a Utah priority habitat for management. All these birds use the Twin Springs Allotment and all exhibit downward regional trends. The BE/BA (at 40) simply states, "Because Forest Plan standards and guidelines for forage utilization will continue to be met under the Categorical Exclusion, no adverse impacts are expected to these species." This ignores the destruction of pinyon-juniper to increase forage for cattle (e.g., the chaining on Dry Mesa), and fails to provide any evidence that either 65% utilization standards are not contributing to the downward trend of these species on the Twin Springs Allotment or that the utilization standards are in fact being met.

• Highly common observations (with photo/GPS documentation) of the following conditions throw into doubt any sense that the allotments are moving degraded conditions toward desired conditions:

• Cattle heavily grazing recently-burned areas, including unstable slopes (Appendix A IMGs a936-1942, 1945, 1959-1962, 1965-1967, 1970-1973, 1974)
• Cattle (or permittee's horses) heavily browsing gambel oak, bitterbrush, serviceberry, aspen cumulatively with wild ungulates (Appendix A, IMGs 1854-1855, 1857, 1911, 1915, 1919-1922, 1954, 1960, 1977, 1982,1985; Appendix B, IMG 1991)
• Cattle causing erosion, incision, pedestaling of plants, reduction of biological soil crusts (e.g., mosses) (Appendix A, IMGs 1912, 1915, 1916, 1937, 1941, Appendix B, IMGs 1993, 1997, 2011)
• Cattle heavily grazing sagebrush understory (Appendix A, IMGs 1946-1953)
• Cattle trampling springs and wet meadows (Appendix A, IMGs 1603, 1606, 1608, 1609, 1616, 1617, 1638, 1874, 1875, 1904, 1931; Appendix B IMGs 1154-1159, 1506-1511, 1513, 1517, 1519)
• Cattle eliminating vegetation from large proportions of the area (Appendix A, IMGs 1606, 1854-1855, 1857,1859, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1925, 1926, 1933, 1936-1945, 1947, 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1958-1962, 1974; Appendix B, IMGs 1162, 1990-1993, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2011-2013, 2015, 2016)

15. Annual Operating Instructions for Twin Springs Allotment for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 all carry the following instruction, which may never been carried out (the 2005 instructions did not include the section in which this appeared:

J Cooper Spring. Dig out the spring source with a backhoe to see if we can increase theflow. If the flow cannot be increased then re-evaluate and possibly remove theimprovements at this location. [See Appendix A IMGs 1644 and 1645 of incised creekbed downstream from Cooper Spring]

J Peavine Spring in the bottom of Peavine. The trough needs to be moved up slope to the west side away from the Peavine Trail.

Cooper Spring has not been flowing for years, yet exhibits abandoned trash from several versions of spring development scattered about the area. Livestock use continues to be heavy despite severe downcutting in this drainage harboring the largest ponderosas on Dry Mesa, which are at risk of being undercut by active, headward erosion. A deep, recently reformed stock pond 200 meters upstream contrasts with the Allotment Operation Instructions, call for cleaning of stock ponds to improve distribution of livestock. Perhaps the excessive impacts here are due to the undocumented improvement of this stock pond, while others continue to function poorly.

14. Annual Operating Instructions for Twin Springs Allotment for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 carry the following instruction, which apparently has never been carried out:

In addition, a large number of the ponds on Dry Mesa are caring [sic; the same misspelling occurs each year] heavy silt loads which have reduced their storage capacities. You need to set a priority for the better ponds and start cleaning them so they will hold water to help improve livestock distribution.

Impacts to Dark Canyon Wilderness and Dark Canyon IRA

Grazing is having major impact on these places on the slopes below Dry Mesa. Most trails into Dark Canyon are entrenched and severely eroding due to livestock use. Other users may be avoiding these "trails" because of their cattle-enhanced difficulty and ugliness, but again there is no assessment of cattle impacts on this aspect of Wilderness and roadless areas.

As forage is used on top, cattle begin to use the steep slopes above the Dark canyon Wilderness area. These soils are extremely erosive and excess use negatively impacts the DCW, as well as the slopes themselves, many of which are in the Dark Canyon IRA

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the legal notice. We look forward to an opportunity in the future to be able to provide comments in response to a description of the proposed action, particularly because we have not yet been able to review or comment on a description of the proposed action. Having said that, we do conclude that whether the proposed action is to continue, modify, or otherwise change permitted livestock grazing in these allotments, the evidence provided in our comments above as well as evidence present in the Forest's own documents demonstrate that any proposal to continue grazing or to modify current permitted grazing would trigger significance in context and intensity under NEPA and FSH 1909.15. Evidence presented here as well as in the Forest's documents demonstrate that this proposal does not fit within the confines of a CE. Finally, short of a holding by the Forest that there may be significant effects (which would require an EIS) it is overwhelmingly obvious that the degree of the potential effects as well as the degree of the significance of the effects has been documented in these scoping comments as well as in the Forest's own documentations to be "uncertain." It is obvious, as established in these comments as well as in the Forest's documents, that there are significant impacts from the proposal in both context and intensity (and short of that the degree of the significance and the degree of the potential effects of the proposed action on FSH listed resource conditions is uncertain). We respectfully remind the Forest that significance (and "uncertainty" as to the potential degree of effects) also triggers an EIS at times simply from uncertainty whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Significance calling for an EIS under this context has also been documented to exist at this time.

Please add and/or maintain all of those individuals and/or organizations named or signed on below to all of your mailing and contact lists for this action. All of us have previously been involved in the analysis or planning of, or have expressed interest, provided input/comments, or otherwise asked to be involved in the planning and analysis of this proposed action. However most or all have yet to be mailed notice, or have yet to have an opportunity to read, let alone comment upon, a description of the proposed action. We would like to know why this is the case. We also ask once again to be sent electronically or by mail (UEC requests to it to be mailed) all future notices, analyses, environmental documents, environmental analyses, decision documents, and/or all other opportunities for public input for this proposal as soon as the documents or opportunities exist. Please also send notice to all of our opportunity for administrative appeal opportunities should there be no further opportunities for public involvement before a decision is made. Thank you for your efforts to manage these outstanding lands, forests, TES wildlife communities, and designated wilderness as best as possible.

Sincerely,

Mary O'Brien
Grand Canyon Trust
PO Box 12056
Eugene, OR 97408
mob@uoregon.edu

Kevin Mueller,
Executive Director
Utah Environmental Congress
1817 South Main, Ste 10
Salt Lake City, UT 84115

Wayne Hoskisson
Sierra Club, Utah Chapter
263 S. 100 E.
Moab UT 84532
wayne.hoskisson@frontiernet.net

Dan Kent
Red Rock Forests
90 West Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
dan@redrockforests.org

References

Brookshire, Jack; Boone Kauffman, Danna Lytjen and Nick Otting. 2002. Cumulative effects of wild ungulate and livestock herbivory on riparian willows. Oecologia 132:559-566.

Appendix A: Twin Springs Allotment Photos and Field Notes

Appendix B: Dorry Allotment Photos and Field Notes

A half-page August 15, 2002 Twin Springs allotment inspection in Upper Dark Canyon Wilderness says, "Cattle have not yet entered this area...Forage along the riparian area is lush at this time, willow growth since this spring is quite remarkable." (Jimmie Forrest memo to Rod Player, "Twin Springs Inspection-Upper Dark Canyon Wilderness," August 15, 2002, File Code 2210 Twin Springs; Project Record R020)

No report is given as to the condition of willow growth after being browsed by cattle that season.

Brookshire, et al. state: "Thus, in contrast to studies of willow herbivory reporting stimulated branch growth [citation], basal stem sprouting citation], and flowering [citation] following singular herbivory events, our results suggest that repeated, long-term growth suppression can eliminate compensatory responses (i.e. increased production of basal stems or flowers) to herbivory." (p 564; emphases added).

"These species reproduce sexually and do not spread vegetatively [citation], thus long-term suppression of flowering would likely affect their persistence in riparian zones" (p. 564).

"Our study suggests that even relatively light levels of livestock grazing can limit growth and reproduction of woody vegetation in riparian zones that are also browsed by wild ungulates" (p. 565).

"Although willows likely constitute a small proportion of ungulate diets [citation], they may be disproportionately affected across the landscape because of their high palatability and limited distribution" (p.565).

"Riparian management that would result in high densities of wild ungulates while maintaining livestock grazing may conflict with the restoration of riparian vegetation and the high degree of biological diversity inherent to these ecosystems" (p. 565).