Three Forest Coalition Comments on

Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Final Environmental Impact Statement

Three Forests Coalition

 

September 6, 2005

 

Grand Canyon Trust

Great Old Broads for Wilderness

Sierra Club, Utah Chapter

Utah Environmental Congress

Western Watersheds Project

Wild Utah Project

 

 

            Member organizations of the Three Forests Coalition submit the following comments on the Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).  We incorporate by reference both our scoping and DEIS comments.On the basis of evidence compiled in these comments, we find the FEIS arbitrary and capricious in its failure to analyze the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, provide meaningful vegetation and soils data and  macroinvertebrate monitoring data within the project area and other MIS  data, use scientific information provided in earlier comments by the Three Forests Coalition, and be readable.

 

We urge the Manti-La Sal National Forest to issue a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement that will:

 

1. Be readable by the general public.
2. Reasonably and accurately interpret the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative and clearly compares its distinct management features with Alternative 1 (or a modified version of Alternative 1)
3. Reasonably and accurately compare the environmental impacts and costs and benefits of the accurately-interpreted Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative with Alternative 1 (or a modified version of Alternative 1)
4. Accurately and clearly summarize Forest monitoring data on condition and trends of native vegetation versus exotic vegetation in the 31 Wasatch Plateau sheep allotments
5. Provide population trend data for macroinvertebrates (a Forest management indicator species) within the project area
6. Base key conclusions on best available scientific information
7. Indicate current conditions and trends information within the analysis area for:
1. Macroinvertebrates
2. Brewer's sparrows
3. Native forbs
4. Native grasses
5. Uplands soil disturbance related to vegetation and soil type
6. Sedimentation of creeks and streams
7. Springs and seeps (which includes summer brood-rearing habitat for sage grouse)
8. Riparian areas, specifically in those riparian and upland areas highlighted as exhibiting sheep damage or overgrazing in the Level II riparian inventories, which were completed 8-15 years ago; and in those allotments' primary creeks/streams that have never been inventoried.
8. Indicate monitoring commitments for the life of the term grazing permits under each reasonably-interpreted alternative
9. Display public costs of maintaining the 31 sheep allotments under each alternative, including:
1. Administration
2. Enforcement
3. Monitoring
4. Treatments
5. Mitigation, e.g., weed control, stream bank restoration
10. Compare sheep-grazed areas with non-grazed reference areas that currently exist in the Manti-La Sal NF (or in adjacent relevant habitats such as Cedar Breaks National Monument).

 

Some background is in order, to highlight the particular importance of knowing conditions and trends of uplands soil disturbance, stream/creek sedimentation, native forbs, native grasses, and shrubs/young sprouts (including young aspen ramets) within the analysis area:

 

I.          Sheep allotment utilization behavior, as described by the FEIS:

 

• Uplands. "Sheep, by their grazing nature, prefer to graze in uplands (Windward, 1994)."(FEIS 3-9)
• Higher elevations. "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)

• Forbs and shrubs. "Sheep prefer eating forbsand shrubs to grass (Stoddard et al. 1975)." (FEIS 3-19)
• Aspen, forb, grass, and sagebrush communities: "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 palatableforbs and some grasses are readily taken." (FEIS 3-19)
• The FEIS notes, for instance, Prevedal and Johnson recently concluded, following analysis of historical photographs on Wagon Road Ridge 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).
• Grass and forb understory on big sagebrush stands in Region 4 is diminishing "because of grazing in combination with the increase in overstory sagebrush (>15 percent)[see Section 4  in these comments as to  why the "more than 15 percent" overstory contribution to loss of grass and forb understory appears unsupported by data --] . 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).

 

 

II.        The importance of erosion, compaction, and bare soils in the uplands in approximately 69% of the analysis area, as described in the FEIS:

 

• Sagebrush, snowberry, and aspen vegetation: "Permeability is moderate to slow, and the erosion hazard rating is moderate where slopes are less than about 30%. On steeper slopes the erosion potential is moderately high to high. Most of the soils have a moderate susceptibility to compaction by livestock." (FEIS 3-28, emphasis added) Aspen is on 31% of the allotments; sagebrush on 7%; snowberry is within the mountain brush, see below -- see FEIS 3-11)

 

• Mountain brush: "On the steep south facing and east facing slopes supporting oak brush (Quercus gambelii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and other mountain brush) the soils are shallow to moderately deepwith sandy loam to clay loam textures and dark colored topsoils that are about 6 to 10 inches in thickness.They are typically stony and somewhat droughty. There is a high runoff potential and the soil erosion potential is high if adequate cover is not maintained." (FEIS 3-28, emphasis added) Mountain brush is on 16% of the area- FEIS 3-11

 

• "Grass/forb, tall forb sites, and tarweed sites : The amount of bare ground, or exposed soil, is greater than desirable on tarweed and grass/forb and tallforb sites." (FEIS 3-28, emphasis added). Forbs are on 9% of the area; "grass" on 6% -- FEIS 3-11)

 

 

Thus, the FEIS indicates that approximately 69% of the analysis area is subject to erosion, bare soils, and/or compaction.

 

 

This background makes clear that the following conditions are of particular importance to analyze for potential impacts of grazing sheep within a full range of reasonable alternatives:

 

1.       Native forbs

2.       Native grasses vs. exotic grasses

3.       Native shrubs

4.       Recruitment of young aspen ramets into overstory

5.       Upland soil disturbance and bare soil

6.       Sedimentation of springs, seeps, creeks

7.       Macroinvertebrates as indicators of sheep impacts

 

For the most part, the FEIS fails to provide clear information or accurate conclusions regarding any of the above critical resources within the project area.

 

The FEIS states (FEIS S-vi) that this proposed action would achieve the following goals, but the FEIS fails to provide information that is necessary to understand whether the proposed action would achieve the goals:

 

1. Bring livestock obligation in line with rangeland carrying capacity.
• The FEIS fails to distinguish between native and exotic vegetation, and fails to determine sheep use of native vs. exotic vegetation.
• The FEIS fails to analyze the cumulative use of at-risk vegetation (e.g., aspen, tall forbs, native forbs, native grasses, native shrubs) by elk, deer, and sheep).
• The FEIS does not indicate what areas the sheep actually use (e.g., they don't use a lot of the dense spruce forests...] and what native/exotic forage is there in those areas.

 

2. Maintain upward or stable trends in vegetation and soil condition.

The FEIS fails to describe soil disturbance within the allotments and fails to demonstrate that the proposed (i.e., current management) will maintain upward or satisfactory native vegetation or ground cover.

 

3. Invest in range improvements where they will mitigate impacts of grazing or restore/maintain proper functioning condition or habitat diversity

The FEIS fails to indicate the costs of livestock developments under any alternatives; and fails to indicate the environmental impacts of existing and proposed spring developments.

 

4. Maintain satisfactory watershed conditions.
• The FEIS fails to update riparian inventories that are eight to sixteen years old and which indicate riparian and upland degradation by sheep grazing.
• The FEIS fails to analyze soil disturbance, loss of vegetative cover, and sedimentation of creeks/springs.
• The FEIS fails to discuss the condition of springs and seeps in the allotments area.
• The FEIS fails to distinguish between native and exotic vegetation, thereby precluding understanding of current watershed conditions.
• The FEIS fails to compare allotment area conditions with reference area conditions, and thus judges "satisfactory" relative only to livestock-grazed watersheds.

 

5. Improve deteriorated watershed conditions where feasible.

See above.

 

6. Promote high level of vegetative diversity and productivity

The FEIS fails to distinguish between native and exotic vegetative diversity and productivity, thereby rendering meaningless the term "vegetative diversity and productivity."

 

 

 

1.     The FEIS fails to analyze a range of reasonable alternatives

By arbitrarily rendering the

Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (Alternative 2) unreasonable

 

The FEIS fails to provide an analysis of the critical components of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative. Instead, the Forest has essentially dismissed the Alternative by interpreting it in a way that makes it unreasonable.  The Forest took one minor element of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative [i.e., unsuitability (not incapability) of "key" mule deer fawning habitat for sheep grazing], and arbitrarily and capriciously made it the single major feature that would lead to sheep grazing being summarily dismissed from 88.6 percent of the allotments.

 

This is a failing of major import, because much of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative deals 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.  By arbitrarily claiming that the Sustainable Multiple

 

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, indicated as unsuitable (not incapable) in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative was unreasonably interpreted to mean that not only 4,092 acres "critical fawning habitat" (i.e., the obvious meaning of "key" mule deer fawning habitat), but also 129,538 acres of summer deer habitat, which is not key fawning habitat, would be incapable.

b.       "Key mule deer winter habitat" habitat, indicated as unsuitable (not incapable) in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative was interpreted to mean 10,213 acres of "high value winter deer habitat" would be incapable, even though there are zero acres of critical (i.e., "key") winter deer habitat.

c.       All goshawk habitat was interpreted as incapable, although the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative had indicated that goshawk habitat is suitable for combined wildlife/sheep utilization of 20%.

d.      All riparian habitat was interpreted as incapable for grazing, although the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative had indicated that riparian areas are suitable for grazing (with clear use thresholds). That is, forage within 150 feet of water bodies, seeps, and springs would not be used in calculating AUMs.

e.       Thus the FEIS allowed sheep grazing on only 11.4% of the allotment areas in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (i.e., 164,749 acres of the total 185,924 acres would be closed), while sheep grazing was judged to be capable and suitable on 62.9% of the [inexplicably different] total of 178,863 acres of the Proposed Alternative 1 (see Appendix A, Maps 2 and 3; note that the Forest blurs and confuses "capable," "suitable," and "open").

f.        If "key mule deer fawning habitat" had been reasonably interpreted to mean 4,092 acres "critical fawning habitat" and "key mule deer winter habitat" had been reasonably interpreted to mean zero acres of "critical winter deer habitat," the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would have indicated

                                                               i.      118,075 capable acres (i.e., 63.5% of total: 185,924 acres minus 67,849 incapable acres (see FEIS Appendix A, Map 3) -- presumably these incapable areas are derived from Region 4 capability requirements, though the incapable areas for Alternative 2 are inexplicably different)

                                                             ii.      112,561 capable and suitable acres (i.e., 60.5% of total: 185,924 acres minus unanalyzed-by-Forest number of acres in municipal watersheds; and unanalyzed-by-Forest number of acres that are not meeting the reproductive, structural or functional needs of management indicator species and species of special concern)

 

The following text and figures are copied directly from FEIS Appendix A, Maps 2 and 3:

 

Alternative 2 Sustained [sic] Multiple Use

Alternative 1 Rangeland Restoration

Total Acres ---------------------------------- 185,924[1] Incapable ------------------------------------ 67,849 Unsuitable ----------------------------------- 5,514 Goshawk ------------------------------------- 42,218 High Value Summer Deer Habitat 129,538 Critical Fawning Habitat -------------- 4,092 High Value Winter Deer Habitat 10,213 Riparian Areas ----------------------------- 1,612 Critical Winter Deer Habitat --------- 0     Capable Rangeland Open ----------- 21,175 to Sheep Grazing

Total Acres ------------ 178,863 Incapable --------------- 60,789 Unsuitable -------------- 5,514                 Capable ---------------- 112,560

 

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;
• 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 chart at the end of this document)

 

§         An example: Instead of analyzing the impacts of the SMU Alternative provision that aspen stands can be grazed 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(FEIS 2-7),the FEIS merely says that "Most aspen stands would be eliminated from grazing under the deer fawning closure" (FEIS 3-23) and "Excluding aspen under the fawning closure discussed above would provide an opportunity to evaluate browsing impacts by wildlife" (but not to evaluate limited browsing impacts by sheep; FEIS 3-22).

 

Despite having admitted that "Where [aspen] sprouting is taking place light forage use by sheep and/or wildlife can hinder growth.."(FEIS 3-22), the FEIS concludes that whether aspen is grazed with 26,321 AUMs (Alternative 1) or no sheep at all (because of the "fawning closure"), the percent bare ground within aspen clones will be virtually the same (approximately 10%); the erosion index will be approximately the same; neither would result in early seral aspen (which is never defined) and almost exactly the same acres of late seral aspen (which is not defined) would exist (FEIS S-x and S-xi). This is a superficial analysis that defies what can be viewed on ground in many aspen stands (i.e., browsed young ramets, depauperate understory, compacted ground), as well as being based on a false premise (i.e., that under the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative "fawning habitat closure", there would be essentially no sheep grazing).

 

2.     The FEIS Fails To Provide Readers With A Clear Comparison

Of The Provisions of Alternative 1

And The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative,

Effectively Rendering the FEIS Unreadable.

 

Any reader will have difficulty flipping back and forth between pages to discern the different management provisions of Alternative 1 and 2 (see, e.g., for Alternative 1, S-i through S-iii and 2-1 through 2-5; but Alternative 2 only on 2-5 through 2-8. Only in Appendix B does the reader see which of 13 features listed for Alternative 1 on S-I through S-iii and 2-1 through 2-5 but not listed for Alternative 2 on 2-5 through 2-8 are in common with Alternative 2 .) A chart comparing selected economic and environmental impact outcomes is provided (Table S-1, FEIS s-x through s-xiii; and Table 2-1, FEIS 2-10 through 2-12), but the Forest provided no chart comparing the management features that supposedly result in vastly different AUMs but (inexplicably) virtually the same environmental impacts. See, e.g., the Hells Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan Final EIS (USFS 2003) for an example of clearly comparing EIS alternatives for the public and decisionmakers.

 

3.     The FEIS knowingly misrepresents the

Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative.

 

Three (of many) examples follow:

 

a.       Example 1: The FEIS states, "[The SMU Alternative] expands rangeland suitability criteria to exclude grazing in areas of concern: deer fawning and wintering habitat, sage grouse habitat, areas of low production and areas where habitat conditions are not meeting reproductive, structural or functional needs of management indicator species (s-viii; emphasis added).

 

In fact, the SMU Alternative considers grazing suitable in sage grouse habitat as long as conditions are suitable for the sage grouse; allows unavoidable grazing within "key" (i.e., critical) mule deer fawning habitat, but does not include that small area of forage in calculating AUMs; and does not count forage toward AUMs in areas where habitat conditions are not meeting reproductive, structural or functional needs of management indicator species or species of special concern (see FEIS 2-6).

 

b.      Example 2:  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 mentions burning of aspen groves as the treatment of choice for aspen stands.

 

c.       The FEIS inexplicably indicates (FEIS Appendix C: Existing and Planned Improvements by Alternative) that the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would involve such treatments as:

                                                               i.       900 acres of unspecified vegetative treatments on Little Petes Hole

                                                             ii.      600 acres of sagebrush "control" and/or pinyon-juniper thinning in Joes Valley

                                                            iii.      Maintenance of "11111" [???!!!] acres of seeding on Booths Canyon

                                                           iv.      1150 acres of unspecified vegetative treatments on Trough Springs Ridge

 

In fact, the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would not maintain existing seedings of exotic plants, would not be doing sagebrush "control" and/or pinyon-juniper thinning.  For instance, the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative prohibits "seeding of non-native forage species" (FEIS 2-8).  Nothing in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative implies sagebrush control.

 

 

4.     Key FEIS Conclusions/Statements Are Made

Without Stating Methods or Data

On Which They Are Based.

 

For instance:

 

a.       The conclusion that either 26,321 AUMs or 3,518 AUMs have virtually the same consequences for the environment. Having drastically reduced the grazing area of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, and then reducing AUMs 7.5-fold (from 26,321 AUMs in Alternative 1 to 3,518 AUMs in the Sustainable Alternative, see p. 3-4), the FEIS concludes (without explaining its methodology) that under both scenarios, bare ground and erosion will remain the same (FEIS S-x); ecological status of all vegetation types will remain the same (FEIS S-xi); and plant species composition will remain virtually the same (FEIS S-xii). This is contradicted by the FEIS' own data from exclosures, and condition and trend transects.

 

b.      The conclusion that the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) will result in upward trends. The FEIS does not establish overall upward trends for current management (see extensive discussion and evidence below), and yet no new management of sheep is being proposed under the new transects.[2] 

c.       Bare ground desired conditions are not referenced to any data or scientific literature. Nor is "desired condition" defined -- desired by whom? Sheepherders? The nation?  For what ecological ends?

 

                                                               i.      Desired conditions re: bare ground for individual vegetation types are not referenced to any scientific data or literature:

 

"To meet or surpass desired condition, aspen should have no more than 10% bare ground, tall forb lands should have no more than 40%, grasslands should have no more than 50%, conifer should have no more than 20%, and mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush should have no more than 30% bare ground." (FEIS 3-29)

 

                                                             ii.      Conflicting bare ground conditions higher than those for aspen, tall forb sites, conifer areas, and mountain big sagebrush are stated for  "all" (i.e., lumped, and therefore probably meaningless) vegetation types and the entire analysis area without reference to any data or scientific literature:

1.       "The maximum [bare ground] for soil protection is assumed to be 40% for all vegetation types." (FEIS 3-29)\

 

2.       "Fifty percent is assumed to be the minimum effective ground cover [i.e., 50% bare ground] for all of the vegetation types in this analysis." (FEIS 3-29 -- 3-30)

 

The Forest might respond that desired conditions is different than "minimum" bare ground conditions, but at no point does the FEIS indicate that 50% bare ground in an aspen stand on a slope, in a tall forb stand on a slope, or mountain big sagebrush would allow for those ecosystems to function or remain stable.

d.      Sagebrush cover desired conditions are not referenced to any scientific data or literature. The FEIS states. "Across the [Wasatch] Plateau most sagebrush is denser than is desirable." (J-35). Presumably this is the basis for indicating that sagebrush "control treatments" will be maintained on 800 acres of Joes Valley Reservoir (Appendix C, FEIS C-1). When Mary O'Brien asked John Healy, "What density of which sagebrush species/subspecies is considered undesirable for what species, based on what studies?", John Healy wrote in response (August 26, 2005):

Desired future condition for mountain big sagebrush describes that at 15% crown cover, under story vegetation can be suppressed. Proper functioning condition provides for a range in crown cover with 40% of the area with greater than 15% crown cover. Based on observations by range personnel sagebrush in areas is exceeding 15% crown cover."

When asked for scientific documentation upon which the Forest is relying for referring to dense sagebrush as "undesirable," Mr. Healy responded: "This is based on Properly Functioning Condition descriptions developed in 1996 by the Intermountain Region."  Mr. Healy enclosed a page from the Properly Functioning Condition document.

First, Mr. Healy did not indicate that over 40% of mountain big sagebrush either within the Forest or on the 31 allotment analysis area is exceeding 15% ground cover.

 

Secondly, Mr. Healy, like the FEIS, did not reference scientific literature, but instead an Intermountain Region Properly Functioning Condition table that was drawn up nine years ago (i.e., in 1996), before attention was being focused on the extreme fragmentation of sagebrush and the dependence of particular species on dense, unfragmented sagebrush. Mr. Healy did not refer to any of the more recent peer-reviewed scientific literature discussed and referenced in three documents the Three Forests Coalition had cited during scoping for this EIS and in DEIS comments, and later sent by hard copy (or, in a few cases, referenced to a website location of the document):

 

                                                               i.      American Lands Alliance. 2003. Status Review And Petition To List The Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) As Threatened Or Endangered Under The Endangered Species Act. 218 pages.

                                                             ii.      Dobkin, David S. and Joel D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe Landscapes in Jeopardy: Distributions, Abundances, and the Uncertain Future of Birds and Small Mammals in the Intermountain West. High Desert Ecological Research Institute, Bend, OR.

                                                            iii.      Knick, Steven T., David S. Dobkin, John T. Rotenberry, Michael A. Schroeder, W. Matthew Vander Haegen, and Charles Van Riper III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. The Condor 105:611-635.

 

Likewise, Mr. Healy did not reference the data 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.)

 

e.       Decline of aspen is repeatedly attributed to "invasion by conifers," with burning being cited repeatedly as the apparently only treatment of choice to remedy this problem (see, e.g., FEIS s-viii, 2-2, 2-3, 2-9, 3-15, 3-20, and 3-21).  The FEIS admits that"

                                                               i.      "ungulate" (without mentioning sheep) grazing can put aspen plant communities at risk (see FEIS 3-13);

                                                             ii.      aspen sprouts are readily grazed by sheep, which can greatly reduce stand recovery in stands that have infrequent sprouting (FEIS 3-20);

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

                                                           iv.      fire  most likely occurred in aspen anywhere from once in a century to ten years (see FEIS 3-13),

 

Nevertheless, the FEIS concludes (as noted above) that whether aspen is grazed with 26,321 AUMs (Alternative 1) or no sheep at all (because of the "fawning closure"), the percent bare ground within aspen clones will be virtually the same (approximately 10%); the erosion index will be approximately the same; neither would result in early seral aspen (which is never defined but which supposedly would include stands in which browsed ramets are not being recruited into overstory due to ungulate grazing) and almost exactly the same acres would exist of late seral aspen (which is not defined, but which presumably would mean mature aspen and snags, which are lost when burning rather than rest from ungulate grazing is the only treatment of choice) (FEIS S-x and S-xi).

 

The FEIS fails to analyze the impacts of an accurately-interpreted SMU Alternative, which would avoid grazing of sheep in aspen stands that are not  being able to recruit young ramets (sprouts) into overstory trees (FEIS 2-7).

 

5. The DEIS Fails To Address Significant Issues Raised And Information Provided By the Three Forests Coalition and EPA

During the Scoping and Draft EIS Comment Periods.

 

A few (out of many) examples include:

 

1. The FEIS does not discuss whether forage production is sufficient to support the proposed livestock numbers as well as the multiple use values of native wildlife and the native grasses and forbs (Three Forests Coalition March 27, 2004 scoping comments, including Attachment A). Such multiple use values include aspen recruitment to above-browse heights, sagebrush and greater sage grouse recovery, mountain brush and tall forb recovery, reference areas for understanding of site potentials, mule deer fawning and rearing habitat, and beaver/willow restoration for riparian recovery and Manti-La Sal National Forest water retention and release.

 

2. 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.[3]
3. The FEIS fails to describe the condition or trend of springs and seeps in the allotments area, impacts of sheep grazing on springs and seeps, or impacts of water developments on seeps and springs..

 

                                                               i.      In its comments on the Draft EIS, the U.S. Department of Interior requested information on impacts of sheep grazing on springs.

 

                                                             ii.      The FEIS notes that in Forest conversations with the tribal governments of the Hopi, Paiute, Ute Mountain Ute,White Mesa Ute, Ute Tribe (Fort Duchesne), and Navajo in June of 2001, "...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).

 

                                                            iii.      When Grand Canyon Trust submitted a FOIA request for data on water quality and flow at natural springs within the 31 allotments, the Forest responded:

 

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.

 

                                                           iv.      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.

 

                                                             v.      The FEIS fails to compare a reasonably-interpreted Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative and Alternative 1 in terms of their different treatment of springs and seeps (see, e.g., numerous provisions for utilization, monitoring, and protection of seeps and springs in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, 2-4 through 2-6 through 2-8. The only provision for springs within Alternative 1 that " No salting will take place within 1/4 mile of streams, creeks, springs or seeps" (FEIS 2-4).

 

                                                           vi.      The FEIS fails to analyze environmental impacts associated with developing eight additional springs/troughs under Alternative 1 and fails to indicate why the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would develop additional springs/troughs (FEIS Appendix C).

 

 

6.     Key FEIS conclusions are contrary to data.

 

For example:

 

a.       The FEIS repeatedly states that sheep impacts to riparian areas are "none to light," (see, e.g., Summary Table S-1, footnote 6, S-xii) or "light to moderate" (see riparian inventory report summaries, FEIS 3-7 through 3-9 and FEIS 3-68 through 3-69).  However, riparian inventories summarized  in the FEIS frequently indicate "moderate" impacts and sometimes "severe" impacts. For example (and more examples exist; emphases added):

                                                               i.      The FEIS reports for riparian inventory conditions on Muddy Creek, Horse Creek, and Spinner's [Reservoir] Creek: "Sheep use in the upper areas was noted and was rated low to moderate effects on riparian areas, with some trampling noted at water sites."

 

 In fact, the most recent report for Spinner's Reservoir Creek (i.e., 12 years ago, in 1993[4]) writes "Riparian vegetation included eroding banks or barren/forb uplands with aspen or aspen/conifer above... Sheep use was evident in S-1 and in the uplands throughout the drainage. Impacts were rated moderate and included bank trampling at watering spots that was producing some sediment. Overgrazing of what little vegetation occurs is hindering vegetation," The inventory recommended "Restrict [sheep] entry, especially in lower complexes until vegetation has stabilized."

 

                                                             ii.      The FEIS reports for Scad Valley Creek (FEIS 3-67): "Scad Valley Creek is a tributary to Paradise Creek. It is a low gradient meandering stream with dense grass-like plants overhanging the stream. Colorado cutthroat trout may be introduced into this stream in the near future. Sheep grazing impacts are light associated with trailing."

 

In fact, the most recent riparian inventory for Scad Valley Creek (i.e., 13 years ago, in 1992[5]) notes [with emphases added]:

 

1.      Riparian Complex 1 (2,200 feet long) : Sheep impacts are light

2.      Complex 2 (4,200 feet long): "There is light grazing by sheep in the complex."

3.      Complex 3 (1,000 feet long): About 40% of the valley side slopes are "actively slumping"

4.      Complex 4 (2,400 feet long): There is "some sheep grazing."

5.      Complex 5 (2,400 feet long): "Sheep grazing is impacting the riparian-stream habitat....The fish habitat contains too much silt ..." Recommendations: "Review sheep grazing damage. The stream banks need to be stabilized in some areas. A reduction in stream sediment and an increase in deep pools could significantly increase trout production."

6.      Complex 6 (3,600 feet long): "Sheep grazing is impacting the stream-riparian area." Recommendations: "Same as complex 5."

7.      Complex 7 (3,000 feet long): "The upland valley slopes have been heavily grazed by sheep. The riparian vegetation is in poor shape....the fish habitat is only [no words here] due primarily to the heavy silt load.," Recommendations: "Same as complexes 5 and 6. Sheep grazing management goals and impacts need to be reviewed. The heavy silt loading appears to be coming from overland runoff of heavily grazed riparian and upland areas."

8.      Complex 8 (2,000 feet long) Recommendations: "Same as complexes 5 and 6."

9.      Complex 9 (3,200 feet long): "There is heavy sheep grazing with adverse impacts to the complex." Recommendations:
"Sheep grazing impacts and management goals need to be reviewed."

10.  Complex 10 (2,000 feet long): "Sheep grazing is impacting the riparian-stream habitat and adjacent upland area. The stream is too silted, small, and shallow to produce fishes." Recommendations: "Same as Complex 9."

11.  Complex 11: "The channel was dry. No transect taken."

 

                                                            iii.      The FEIS reports for Potters Canyon (FEIS 3-9): "Potters Canyon is the headwaters for Lowry Water. It is a moderately high gradient stream with a gravel, rubble, and boulder substrate. Light to moderate grazingimpacts were generally noted but some sites, where livestock water or cross, hadheavier impacts. There are many unstable stream banks with undercutting. Upper Potters is more stable than lower reaches."

 

In fact, the most recent riparian inventory for Potters Canyon (i.e., 13 years ago, in 1992[6], with emphases added) does not note "light" grazing impacts except in one of 8 complexes, and does not indicate that the "heavier" impacts were limited to watering or crossing sites: Overall summary: "Sheep grazing is impacting the stream-riparian habitats and may be contributing to a rapid runoff pattern in some complexes."

1.       Riparian Complex 1 (1,980 feet long):  "Sheep grazing and recreation are having severe impacts on the complex."

2.       Complex 2 (2,600 feet long):  "Sheep grazing impacts continue. Fishes were observed, but the habitat ....contains too much silt."

3.       Complex 3 (2,300 feet long):  "Sheep grazing impacts continue."

4.       Complex 4 (2,600 feet long): "Sheep grazing impacts are diminished."

5.       Complex 5 (2,900 feet long):  "Sheep grazing impacts have increased. The upland slopes are producing high runoff."  Recommendations: "Monitor and control grazing."

6.       Complex 6 (1,000 feet long):  "Sheep grazing impacts continue to be moderately high." Recommendations:  "Monitor and control grazing impacts.  Stabilize stream bands if feasible."

7.       Complex 7 (2,500 feet long):  "Sheep grazing impacts continue."

8.       Complex 8 (1,500 feet long):  "The channel banks are steep, 70% unstable, and undercut. The stream appears to receive high spring runoff....Sheep grazing impacts remain moderately high."

 

                                                           iv.      The FEIS reports for Seeley Creek (but they are summarizing the 8-year old Seeley Canyon riparian inventory[7], not the Seeley Creek inventory[8]): "Toward the upper reaches of the stream sheep grazing was noted in adjacent upland. No livestock impacts were noted on greenline vegetation."

 

In fact, the Seeley Canyon inventory notes, "There was evidence of considerably heavy grazing by sheep in the upper reaches of this creek. Grazing concentrated on the forb complement of the riparian complexes.  Losses of beaver dams have decreased stream bank stability and lowered the fisheries potential in Lake Canyon Creek. ...Instream structures may be employed to increase stability and reduce suspended sediment in Seeley Canyon/ Beavers could also be reintroduced to reestablish dams."

 

b.      The FEIS summarizes that trends are upward or stable in the allotments. The term "stable" as used in the FEIS provides absolutely zero information because it means "no trend" and can mean "stable in poor condition" (see definition of "Stable Trend", FEIS 3-18). Given that "stable" can mean "stuck in poor condition," the data offered by the FEIS in fact tend to show downward trends or at the least downward and unknown (i.e., "downward or stable"). For example see Table below, drawing on numbers printed in the FEIS:

 

 

Little Creek Exclosure 1985-2003 (Table 3-4; FEIS 3-15)   The FEIS says that sheep use is "light"; and that the area outside the exclosure was ripped in the 1970s   "Least desirable species" (which usually means exotics and/or noxious species) have decreased without grazing, and have increased with the sheep grazing.	Change measured	Livestock Exclosure (i.e., available to deer and elk)	Outside Exclosure
	Change in frequency of "desirable" species (which can be native or seeded exotics, acc. to the Forest)	+42.5	+11.5
	Change in frequency of "least desirable species"	-7.2	+10.8
	Change in % Vegetation cover	Note: the Table is unreadable for this, e.g., indicating an increase of 23.5% vegetation cover inside the exclosure, while showing a change from 13.7 to 4.0; and a decrease of 32.5% litter cover while showing a decrease from 36.5 to 33.5
Toms Ridge Exclosure Established "early 1970s." (Table 3-5, FEIS 3-16)   Note that sheep reduce forb presence; and increase annuals/exotics. The bare ground has doubled to 70% with grazing.	Element compared	Livestock Exclosure	Outside Exclosure
	Species composition	91% forbs	55% forbs
	%"Early Plants" [generally means annual and/or exotic species]	0.4%	20%
	% bare ground	36%	70%
Horseshoe Flat Exclosure (Table 3-6, FEIS 3-17) The area was seeded in 1915.   The FEIS says of these data: "At this specific site, one would have to conclude that sheep grazing is removing too much vegetation due [to] the high amount of bare ground [i.e., 62% outside the exclosure compared to 3% inside the exclosure) but that grazing is promoting species diversity." The conclusion that "grazing [is] promoting species diversity" is mystifying, apparently referring to the finding that 13 forb species are outside the exclosure (whether these forbs are exotic weeds or not is not noted) versus 11 inside (!??)  Meanwhile, there are 7 grass species inside the exclosure compared to 5 outside and one shrub species is inside and one outside. The conclusion that grazing is promoting species diversity" is both unwarranted and uninformative (given that the increase in "species diversity" can mean increases in exotic, invasive species).   Note that forbs and shrubs are the focus of sheep grazing, and that the cover of forbs and shrubs is 77% higher without the sheep grazing.	Element compared	Livestock Exclosure	Outside Exclosure
	Species composition: % forbs %shrubs	30% forbs 16% shrubs	23% forbs 3% shrubs
	Bare ground	3%	62%
85 Vegetative Trend Studies (Table 3-7, FEIS 3-18). Note: We learned that apparently 57 of the 85 vegetative trend plots are "photograph plots" only, because when, on FEIS 3-13, reference was made to sampling 28 of the 85 plots, and Mary O'Brien asked why only 28 of the 85 transects were sampled, John Healy responded "Some of the transects are photograph plots that are more difficult to describe." (??!!)  The methods used to determine trends up, down, or "stable" have not been revealed in the FEIS.   This table uses the terms "up", "down," or "stable" to describe trends, without indicating the degree of trend (i.e., up by a little and down by a lot? Vice-versa?).	Sage/grass Sage/forb Grass/forb Aspen Mt. Brush Tall Forb Grassland   Total Percent	Trend up   2 1 18 0 2 2 0   25 29%	Trend down or stable 12 1 32 1 (down) 5 5 4   60 71%

 

 

 

From these and other data offered in the FEIS (which nearly always fail to indicate whether native or exotic species are being discussed, and which variously fail to indicate degree of trend, the meaning of "early seral", and/or the meaning of "desirable,") no overall conclusion can be made as to trends of vegetation. Thus the FEIS does fail to analyze the impacts of sheep grazing, as well as failing to consider the comparative impacts of a reasonably-interpreted Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative.

 

c.       The FEIS claims "Under proper use species diversity and ground cover can be improved and maintained as is indicated by trend studies discussed above" (FEIS 3-19).

 

See above discussion regarding the fact that meaningful information on native species diversity, let alone species diversity has not been provided in the FEIS.

 

As for ground cover (versus bare soil), the FEIS indicates that bare soil in 85 soil trend studies "averages 54.3%" (ranging from 0.7 to 93.3%) and that sites with greater than 40 to 50% bare ground "are considered to be at risk for erosion" (FEIS 3-18). Thus, although the allotment soils on average are at risk for erosion, under current sheep grazing management, the FEIS somehow concludes that without changing management in the future, ground cover can be improved and "maintained." (Remember that "maintained" has zero meaning because it means "no trend" and can mean no change from poor condition.) .

 

 

7.     The FEIS Fails To Determine Or Reveal

Current Trends/Conditions on the 31 Allotments.

 

For instance:

a.       Riparian conditions.  Those riparian inventory surveys that have been completed (i.e., for approximately 21 creeks/streams in the allotment area) are 6-15 years old. No riparian inventory surveys have been completed for 14 other major creeks/streams in the allotments area. Those 6-15 year-old riparian inventories that indicated severe or moderate damage, the need for sheep exclusion or modified management, or mitigation, have not been updated for this term permit. Instead,  riparian conditions noted 6-15 years ago are described in the FEIS text as if they are current.

                                                               i.      Example:  Nuck Woodward Creek was last inventoried 16 years ago. [9] Apparently at the time it was a cattle allotment, because the recommendation was "Reduce the impacts from cattle."  The FEIS states (FEIS 3-8):  "Nuck Woodward Creek...has a high degree of stability resulting from dense grasses, grasslike plants, willows, and forbs. Sheep have access to the upper reaches of this creek but impacts are considered light." (FEIS 3-8)

In fact, a recent visit to Nuck Woodward Creek upper reaches found soil disturbance and bare areas on the sheep-grazed slopes immediately adjacent and upland of the narrow riparian area; compounded by oil, gas, and mining roads;  and road sedimentation:

Figure 1:  Upper Nuck Woodward Creek:  Oil, gas, mining  road in foreground; sheep trails below conifers in mid distance; bare slopes on Trough Springs Ridge beyond. Sheep were grazing immediately adjacent to this site. UTM  0488831,4383754..  9,428'August 18, 2005.

 

Figure 2.  Nuck Woodward Creek near Sheepherder's camp and grazing sheep. UTM 048805, 4383572.  9,424'.  August 18, 2005.

 

Figure 3.  Upper Nuck Woodward Creek near sheepherder's camp and grazing sheep. Six-foot gully in soft clay soil, but "riparian area" "green."   UTM 948805, 4383572. 9,424'. August 18, 2005.

 

Figure 4:  Common condition in upper reaches, Nuck Woodward Creek.  "Riparian area" is green for about 6' on either side.  Slope immediately above is de-vegetated, with erosion. UTM 0488736, 4382254. 9,492' August 18, 2005.

 

Creek/River	Year of Inventory	Number of years since inventory
Bear Creek Black Canyon Bob Wright Cottonwood Creek Upper Huntington Creek     -- Above Electric Lake Eccles Creek Flood Canyon Gooseberry Creek Horse Creek Indian Creek Jordon Creek Left Fork Mill Canyon. [?] Sawmill Spring Creek	None	Never been done
Nuck Woodward Creek (when it was a cattle allotment)	1990	15 years
Bennetts Canyon Booth Canyon Boulger Creek Crandall Canyon Creek Lake [Canyon?] Creek Paradise Creek Potters Canyon Reeder Canyon Scad Valley Lowry Water	1992	13 years
Spinners Creek	1993	12 years
Horse Creek	1994	11 years
Becks Creek Koffard Creek Little Petes Hole Creek Mud Creek Olsen Creek Seeley Canyon Seeley Creek Staker Creek	1997	8 years

 

b.      Vegetation Trends

                                                              i.       Native? Exotic? The FEIS almost never makes a distinction between native and exotic species, so the trends information (see, e.g., FEIS 3-13 through 3-19) does not inform readers as to whether native biodiversity is being lost., e.g., by conversion of a diverse native riparian understory area to Kentucky bluegrass, which is generally regarded as exotic[10] (despite the undocumented claim of John Healy); is well-known to increase at the expense of native diversity in riparian areas subject to over-grazing; whose roots are shallow, providing little riparian stability; and which competitively excludes native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The following examples illustrate how trend cannot be determined absent a clarification of whether the FEIS is talking about native or exotic species:

1.      "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. ..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."  \

Essentially zero information can be gained regarding impacts of sheep grazing by using terms such as "desirable" and "intermediate desirable"

2.      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)

 

Is the increase due to an invasion of exotic species? Extremely weedy fields can have a lot of (undesirable) species diversity. Even the examples that follow the above statement do not consistently indicate whether increases are of native or exotic, or exotic invasive species, 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: that Kentucky bluegrass excludes other species is well-established 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 (which was not listed in the accompanying "Plant Species: Manti-LaSal National Forest" which was provided to me to decipher the genus-species abbreviations), and the gain of LALE (again, not listed in the plant species list), PERY (Penstemon rydbergii, a native forb), HEUN (not listed in the plant species list), and ASTERZ (not listed in the plant species list).  It is remarkably difficult to determine conditions and trends in these 31 allotments!!

 

3.       The FEIS refers to planned "vegetation treatments" (FEIS, Appendix C) without indicating whether they will result in maintenance or introduction of exotic species.

 

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 5); while the untreated sagebrush contains a high diversity of native forbs (e.g., Berberis, Stipa, Penstemon, Castilleja, scarlet gilia, serviceberry, and bunchgrasses.) See Figures 6-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 Figure 5: Treated sagebrush, Bald Ridge, GPS UTM 0478921;4367447

 

 

Figure 6: Untreated sagebrush with forbs, Bald Ridge, GPS UTM 0478809; 4367195

 

Figure 7: 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.

 

   &nb