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.

 

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

                                                          iii.      Lack of aspen trend data. Although aspen and aspen/conifer constitute 31% of the allotment areas (see FEIS Table 3-2, p. 3-11) and aspen is a vegetation type of concern, only one of the 85 vegetation trend studies focused on aspen and this one trend study found a downward trend (FEIS Table 3-7, p. 3-18).

c.       No trends for macroinvertebrates (MIS) . The FEIS discussion (see H-27 to H-32) of macroinvertebrate data is nonsensical because it never indicates the precise location of sampling points let alone whether they are downstream or upstream of sheep grazing, whether data have been gathered repeatedly at any given point, or whether any of the sampling points are within the sheep allotments. Macroinvertebrates are one of Manti-La Sal NF's management indicator species for which trends are to be examined. No meaningful impacts or trends with regard to sheep grazing can be discerned without repeated measurements in identified areas upstream and downstream of sheep grazing on these allotments. (See expanded macroinvertebrates discussion in Section __: Management Indicator Species.)

d.      No trend data is provided on migratory birds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

5.      Brewer's sparrows are sensitive to fragmentation of habitat, and size of patches of sagebrush/how much sagebrush is in the landscape. So - anything that significantly fragments habitats  - may affect individuals and nesting population in a particular area. Forest treatments that remove sagebrush, facilities that intensify livestock impacts, maintenance of exotic seedings, and unspecified "watershed enhancements' (FEIS, Appendix C) may reduce the extent of tall big sagebrush.

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

e.       No reference areas[11] are used. The Forest has used no reference areas for the following habitats that are impacted by sheep in these allotments, and thus has no ability to analyze the degree of grazing-related and cumulative degradation (environmental impacts) that are occurring in the following analysis area habitats:

1.      Riparian areas

2.      Upland meadows

3.      Seeps and springs (even though the Department of Interior had requested such information in their comment letter on the DEIS and tribes had expressed concern for the condition of springs)

4.      Aspen clones in conifer areas

5.      Headwaters

6.      Subalpine meadows (e.g., like those above 10,000 feet on the allotments)

7.      Sagebrush, for understory vegetation

The FEIS claims to have no reference areas to compare to grazed conditions.: "A search to find reference areas continues but none have been found within the analysis area" (FEIS 3-12; emphasis added.. However, the requirement that reference areas of comparable vegetation habitat be present within the analysis area is arbitrary and unreasonable.. Reference areas are available on the Forest or adjacent public lands, e.g., Cedar Breaks NM)l. For instance, Bob Thompson, Range Conservationist for the Manti-La Sal NF indicates that the following areas could be used now and set aside for expansion as reference areas:

 

HABITAT TYPE	SUB-TYPE OF HABITAT	MANTI-LA SAL DISTRICT	POTENTIAL USE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A REFERENCE AREA	NOTES
ALPINE AREAS		Moab	Mt. Peale RNA	Established 5 years ago. No permanent reference points established there yet
			Special interest area--west slope of Abajos	Abajo daisy--endemic
HEADWATERS				None on Manti Division; towns have tapped them.
		Moab District	Deer Spring	In La Sal Mts., near Doe Canyon. Exclosure to protect Colorado Cutthroat.
			Beaver Creek	Under Greens Peak. Edge of alpine, subalpine; tall forbs
PINYON-JUNIPER	Pinyon-juniper	Monticello	Peters Point	Serviceberry, bitterbrush, sagebrush; a variety of community types; soils good
	Utah juniper	Sanpete	Ives Canyon - Birdseye area	West side of Sanpete District
	Rocky Mountain juniper	Sanpete	By Sweat Creek, combined with the riparian area on Right Fork of Lake Fork
			Joes Valley Reservoir	Bitterbrush, mahogany
RIPARIAN AREAS -GOOD CONDITION		Sanpete	Lake Fork above Right Fork	Lower end of Lake Fork has ORVs, camping, livestock grazing
MEADOWS		Ferron-Price	Upper Spoon Creek
			Paradise Creek, Millers Flat	Across valley from Mont Lewis RNA
			Mont Lewis Botanical Area	Twenty acres as part; 80 acres as a buffer; could go to 120 acres altogether. About 200 species in the area. Was grazed off and on in the past; recently trespass-grazed by a new permittee.
		Sanpete	Gooseberry	Some recreational impacts
GRASS		Ferron-Price	Wagon Ridge	Natives and intermediates (i.e., not climax species, but native)
MOUNTAIN BRUSH		Ferron-Price	South Horn	A 30-year, 12-acre exclosure. Where elk can get into it, they clear it out
			Birch Leaf Mountain
			Kitchen	End of Wagon Ridge Road
SAGEBRUSH	Upper elevation: Big Mountain sagebrush	Ferron-Price	Mammoth Guard Station
			Gooseberry	Mostly over 8,000 feet, but there's private land
ASPEN		Moab	Sinbad Ridge proposed RNA	Lots of aspen
		Monticello	Two-acre exclosure	South and west on North Long Point
BEAVER-OCCUPIED STREAMS		Sanpete	Lake Fork	Upper area; same as for RIPARIAN AREA-GOOD CONDITION
			Twelve Mile	Scattered all the way up
		Ferron-Price	Huntington Canyon	Scattered from bottom to top; some tributaries have beaver. A couple of roadless areas, so has less disturbance. In 1992, one reach on Lake Canyon, tributary to Huntington Canyon, had a length of 2400' (732m) and "Active dams almost continuous, Too many to count . . . . One dam extends to another" (Riparian Level II Inventory,1992)
Sources: Personal communication of Mary O'Brien with Manti-La Sal NF Range Conservationist Bob Thompson, August 9 and November 15, 2004. Sites noted in italics were suggested by Wayne Hoskisson on November 15, 2004.

 

As well, the US Geological Survey has been doing extensive vegetation mapping within Cedar Breaks National Monument and thus could match some high-elevation sites with those of similar soils/elevation/ vegetation within the 31-allotments area (personal communication, Mark Miller, U.S. Geological Survey, August 24, 2005).

The FEIS fails to analyze the benefits of using reference areas (as proposed in the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative) compared to Alternative 1's lack of reference area conditions by which to evaluate sheep grazing-related conditions and trends.

f.        Information re: sedimentation is absent. The FEIS still contains no quantitative or qualitative information on the amount or significance of the sediment delivery to streams, even though the EPA asked for this in their DEIS comments. Instead, the FEIS quotes a long paragraph to the effect that upland sediment often doesn't end up in streams (see FEIS 3-32).

Despite the fact that a number of the riparian inventories on these allotments specifically mention sheep causing sedimentation in the creeks and streams (e.g., Bennetts Canyon, Paradise Creek, and Potters Canyon), the FEIS provides no analysis of this issue of sedimentation.

The FEIS fails to revisit 8-16 year old riparian inventories documenting sheep sedimentation of creeks and streams or to provide any other indication of trends of sheep-related sedimentation. See Appendix B photos in the allotment analysis area for evidence of why sedimentation should be analyzed in the FEIS.

The FEIS fails to analyze the comparative consequences for sedimentation of creeks, given Alternative 1's lack of streambank trampling limits, acceptance of 50% bare soil in all vegetation types (FEIS 3-29 and 3-30);  and the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative's limits of 15% bank trampling and lower upland forage utilization limits.

g.       Data on soil disturbance is absent. "No estimate of the spatial extent or severity of soil disturbance will be made in this analysis." (FEIS 3-31) Instead, the FEIS provides a highly confusing reference to "soil erosion index" ratings, without indicating the methods of gathering that data, the extent of that data, or the scientific basis for the apparently ad hoc ratings. Such data could have been present in an EIS appendix.[12]

See Appendix B for photos and descriptions of a small sample of locations in the analysis area of soil disturbance.  These photos and descriptions demonstrate the need for a hard look at the spatial extent and severity of soil disturbance in the allotments, as sheep are grazing on slopes, erodible soils, and damp soils, many of which are high elevation, where the season for plant growth and recovery is short and limited.

h.       Essentially no analysis of trends and conditions of native forbs. The FEIS doesn't distinguish between native and exotic forbs, and yet this is crucial, because sheep primarily browse forbs and shrubs and, as the FEIS acknowledges,

                                                               i.      "All of the plant species that are expected to be in the analysis area are represented in the area but theretends to be a poor distribution of forb species" (FEIS 3-13);and

                                                             ii.      Tall forbs is one of four plant communities that are at risk and which make the majority of the suitable range for sheep: (FEIS 3-13);

i.         Virtually no information is provided on aspen, shrub browse condition or trends (except for one trend study cited on aspen, which was a downward trend - .).Again, this is crucial, because, as the FEIS states,

                                                               i.      "Sheep prefer eating forbsand shrubs to grass (Stoddard et al. 1975)" (FEIS 3-19);

                                                             ii.      Aspen is one of four plant communities that are at risk and which make the majority of the suitable range for sheep: (FEIS 3-13);

                                                            iii.       "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."(FEIS 3-19); and]

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

j.        No information on trends of invasive species.

k.      No information is provided on soil compaction -- e.g., of meadows, seeps, springs,, which are crucial for water infiltration. This despite the reality that water storage and retention as well as extending the season of creek and stream flow on the Forest is extremely important, particularly during drought.

As noted in the photo below, sheep walk on soggy, just-free-of-snow slopes and flats in these allotments, leaving deep footprints, and hardening drying meadows.

The FEIS fails to acknowledge research information provided as a hard copy document during the scoping period regarding the extraordinary importance of compaction in dry and wet meadows (i.e., Kauffman, Boone, Andrea Thorpe, and Jack Brookshire. [In press, 2004]. Livestock exclusion and belowground ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications.

 

8.  A Number of Key Conclusions Are Contraindicated

For instance,

l.         The FEIS has not provided evidence that the Proposed Action will result in upward trends, as is stated in the FEIS, e.g.,

1.       "Trend studies indicate increasing production as soils continue to develop with increased litter accumulations." (FEIS 3-2)

2.       "Under alt. 1 and 2, deteriorated sites would continue to improve as trend studies indicate." (FEIS 2-12)

3.       "Aspen treatments would result in maintenance of some early seral types but aspen would be expected to advance ecologically under all alternatives" (FEIS 2-12).  The FEIS is ignoring the fact that the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative does not advocate burning or logging of aspen, and thus would not result in the "maintenance of some early seral types" but instead would exclude sheep grazing from aspen stands that are lacking recruitment of young sprouts into overstory aspen.

The claim that all alternatives would "result in maintenance of some early seral types" is  incomprehensible, because the FEIS claims that there will be essentially zero acres of "early" seral aspen under any of their alternatives, although "early seral" aspen is never defined (see FEIS S-xi).

m.     The FEIS concludes that no grazing (FEIS Alt. 3; i.e., zero sheep instead of 36,000 AUMs) would result in no change in aspen regeneration: "No change would be expected in aspen regeneration as apical dominance still holds sprouting in some stands." (FEIS 3-25) This rather incomprehensible statement is made despite acknowledgment that aspen plant communities are  both at risk  from ungulate grazing (FEIS 3-13) and favored by sheep: "Within the analysis area sagebrush, grasslands, forbs, and aspen plant communities,provide much of the forage used by sheep. These are also sites where sheep prefer to graze" (FEIS 3-19) and "Where [aspen] sprouting is taking place light forage use by sheep and/or wildlife can hinder growth..."(FEIS 3-22

 

9. The FEIS Fails To Adequately Address

Project Management Indicator Species

 

The Manti-La Sal National Forest 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, identifies 5 MIS that are selected in the Wildlife Resources Report (WRR) for this 31 sheep FEIS project area.  The MIS are used for determining the effects of this activity implementing the Plan on diversity.  Noting that this is not all possible MIS, the 5 MIS that are selected in the analysis that have populations and/or habitat in the project area include:

 

• Northern goshawk
• Elk
• Mule deer
• Macroinvertebrates
• Golden Eagle

 

See Wildlife Resource Report (WRR) Table 3 (FEIS H-7 and H-8) as evidence that each of these MIS were selected and considered for analysis of this project. 

 

Arbitrarily, the FEIS and WRR then suggest at several points that the Forest has not collected required quantitative population trend data and determined relationships between this management activity implementing the Forest Plan and population trend changes for the selected MIS.  The FEIS and WRP also at times appear to question the validity of the MIS it selected (e.g. macroinvertebrates), and then fail to consider and select any other more appropriate MIS. 

 

For the MIS that are selected and used for this analysis, there is evidence of an additional failure to monitor adequate MIS in the project area.  It is important to select and monitor more than just a few MIS with population trend data inside the project area to meet NFMA and the Forest Plan's fish and wildlife diversity MIS mandates.  Oddly, even for some of the most important MIS for this project area (such as macroinvertebrates); there is no functional project area presentation or analysis in the FEIS or in the Wildlife Resources Report.  The recent 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the 1000 Lakes Timber Sale informs these issues:

 

Under a plain reading of § 219.19 and UEC I, we conclude that the Forest Service must select an MIS with some evidence that it is "present in the [project] area."  The Forest Service must then collect "actual, quantitative population data," id. At 1226, to monitor population trends and to determine relationships to habitat changes.  See 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(6).  It must also confirm, with "good faith efforts," the presence of the selected MIS within a project area.  UEC I, 372 F.3d at 1230.  If no MIS representative is "present in the [project] area," the Forest Service must show good-faith efforts to confirm and explain the absence of selected MIS.  It may be that the Forest Service selected an improper guild, or actions previously taken may have had a significant deleterious effect on the chosen MIS.  "[W]here impossible, the Forest Service is not required by the applicable statutes and regulations to collect population data."  Id. at 1229.

          The Forest Service must select within each guild an appropriate MIS that is present in the project area.  Selecting only one or two (or a few) acceptable MIS actually present in a project area cannot satisfy the overall monitoring obligations of § 219.19.  See Martin, 168 F.3d at 7 (concluding that the Forest Service violated §§ 219.19 and 219.26 because it "ha[d] no population data for half of the MIS in the Forest and thus [could not] reliably gauge the impact of the timber projects on these species").  Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, No. 03-4251, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17619, at *1 (10^th Cir. Aug. 19, 2005).(Emphasis added.)

 

As this Circuit Court has ruled, the Forest is entitled deference in the MIS it selects for projects implementing the Forest Plan, but in order to meet the requirements of §219.19, that MIS selection must include sufficient MIS actually in the project area so that the effects of the project implementing the Forest Plan on the MIS population trends can be determined and analyzed to meet the NFMA and Forest Plan requirements.  This needs to be done in the analysis of this project, and evidence in the FEIS indicates that the Forest has not met its MIS selection or monitoring requirements.  Details on the selected MIS are below.

 

Macroinvertebrates

 

The MLSNF Forest Plan page IV-6 identifies macroinvertebrates as a Management Indicator Species (MIS), and the WRR for this project selects and considers this MIS for the analysis of this proposed action.  The Forest Plan FEIS (III-34) states that the macroinvertebrates MIS, "are ecological indicator species in aquatic habitats and the ability of that habitat to support fisheries" ... "Aquatic habitat on the Forest consists of 680 miles of stream fisheries and 1,765 acres of lakes and reservoirs.  Macroinvertebrates are found in these areas" ... "Changes in aquatic habitats, resulting from activities in the terrestrial habitat, are rapidly seen through changes in the species composition and biomass of macroinvertebrates."  A list of five aquatic insects is identified as what is minimally needed to accomplish any meaningful assessment of impacts from a project on the aquatic ecosystem.  The Forest Plan and its FEIS state that the chosen list of macroinvertebrates would be treated as one MIS.[13]  The same page of the Forest Plan and its FEIS state, "These habitats can be monitored for macroinvertebrates on a priority basis as needed to determine the specific effects of any one project or activity, as well as the effects of general Forest land management, on the aquatic resources."  The Forest has simply not met this obligation.

 

At several points in the various comment periods that have been offered for this project, we have commented that the Forest was not following the Forest Plan and NFMA MIS monitoring requirements.  The macroinvertebrates MIS monitoring standards state, "Improve and maintain a good or above Diversity Index (DAT) of 11-17, a standing crop of 1.6 -- 4.0, and a Biotic Condition Index (BCI) or 75 or above"  Forest Plan page III-20.  The Forest Plan Chapter 4 monitoring table for macroinvertebrates states, "for baseline stations or as needed for select project activities" include a minimum of gathering of data using the R4 GAWS, BCI and HCI macroinvertebrates indices.  Page 28 of the WRR says that none of these indices are being used.  However, BCI can be extrapolated from another source of data that is collected (CTQd).  This would seem to obviate either the need to amend the Forest Plan, or to collect the data mandated by the Forest Plan for this MIS. 

 

The BCI standard for the macroinvertebrates MIS is identified as a minimum of 75 on Forest Plan page III-20.  The macroinvertebrates MIS monitoring table on page IV-6 of the Forest plan says that a 20% variation in the GAWS, BCT, or HCI rating would cause further evaluation and/or a change in the management direction.  Nowhere in the Forest Plan direction can one find a BCI standard of 60, which is 20% of the minimum BCI standard of 75.  Page 28 of the WRR is arbitrary and capricious because it dishonestly and inaccurately combines the MIS monitoring requirement with the minimum BCI standard of 75 to fabricate a non-existent Forest Plan BCI standard of 60.  Not only is this dishonest, making up a Forest Plan BCI standard of 60 is in violation of NEPA and NFMA, particularly because no Forest Plan amendment is under consideration. 

 

Furthermore the non-existent Forest Plan BCI standard of 60 fabricated in the WRR arbitrarily conceals from the public and the decisionmaker the actual current extent of the extensive water quality and aquatic MIS violations across the project area and the Forest in general because the Forest Plan BCI standard of 75 is inaccurately implied as a BCI standard of only 60.  The effects analysis in the FEIS and the WRR need to be revised in light of an honest and accurate presentation and analysis of the effects of the proposed action (continue current grazing) on this MIS and Forest Plan standards in the project area.

 

Finally, the premise of the entire macroinvertebrates MIS section in the WRR appears as an attempt to discredit macroinvertebrates as a functional aquatic management indicator species:

 

Freshwater macro-invertebrate communities are highly variable. Most sampling locations are near the Forest boundary and reflect the overall water quality and aquatic habitat quality of the stream system and watershed above the monitoring or sampling point. The sampling locations are not designed to monitor the effects of a single land use or activity. The effects of landslides, wildfires, floods and droughts may take several years to affect these communities. The effects may persist for several years and may outweigh the effects of human activities in the watershed. In the stream system, many physical, chemical, and biotic factors interact to affect macro-invertebrate communities in ways that are not fully understood. "Cause and effect are often separated in time and space, concealing linkages in a complex series of physical and biological interactions. Consequently, it is often difficult to: 1) clearly link land use or management effects to environmental impacts and 2) separate man caused impacts from those that result from natural phenomena" (Larsen, 1998). For a Forest-wide management indicator, assessment of trend could be expressed as a question -- Over the years, is there a Forest-wide trend in the number of streams not meeting or surpassing the Forest Plan's BCI standard?  WRR, (FEIS H-30).

 

First, it is clear here that the WRR applies macroinvertebrates data gathered from unrelated watersheds at different times of the year at a Forest-wide scale, which makes less sense than trying to compare apples and oranges. 

 

The Forest Plan expects the macroinvertebrates trend data to be collected "For baseline stations or as needed for select project activities."  To compare fall data from a baseline station near Scofield Reservoir/Fish Creek with spring data on Indian Creek in the Monticello District or mid-summer macroinvertebrates data in Twelve Mile Creek is meaningless.  Oddly, the charts and graphs in this part of the report appear to try to extrapolate some meaningful result from such a junk-in-junk-out analysis by lumping and comparing macroinvertebrates data collected at different times of the year, different years, and from unrelated watersheds, dozens to hundreds of miles apart with unrelated anthropogenic and natural disturbances.  Since the Forest clearly thinks that the results of using aquatic macroinvertebrates monitoring cannot really be used as management indicator species that reflect habitat changes from management, the Forest should not have selected macroinvertebrates as the aquatic MIS for this project.  If the Forest actually believes that macroinvertebrates monitoring is ineffective for monitoring aquatic habitat but still used macroinvertebrates to monitor that habitat, than it violates the Forest Plan, NFMA, and 36 CFR§219.19 (see above case law from 2005).  

 

In reality, aquatic macroinvertebrates monitoring is well established to be a good aquatic management indicator species, as is explained in the introduction to the Data Analysis and Interpretation section of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Monitoring Reports you receive from the National Aquatic Monitoring Center, which does your macroinvertebrates monitoring.  The Forest's 1999 macroinvertebrates MIS monitoring report from this Utah State lab is enclosed to provide an example.  Reading the report makes it overwhelmingly clear that the National Aquatic Monitoring Center sees strong value in monitoring aquatic macroinvertebrates because changes in their indices quickly reflect changes in aquatic habitats -- even within one year of management activities in the affected watershed. 

 

The EIS and WRR need to be revised, analyzing the aquatic macroinvertebrates MIS GAWS, HCI and BCI trend data specific to individual baseline monitoring stations and for select locations specific to watersheds affected in this project area.  The data collected at the same time of year and same location for multiple years needs to be compared to disclose the macroinvertebrates MIS trends, and this has not been done.  This needs to be done in a revised FEIS and WRR in order to ensure that an honest and meaningful analysis of the effects to aquatic habitat is before the public and decisionmaker before a decision is signed, as well as to be in compliance with the Forest Plan, NFMA, and NEPA obligations.

 

                        Northern goshawk

 

The Goshawk Forest Plan amendment and associated guideline 'v' direct the Forest to modify grazing practices to maintain and restore the desired seed, mast, and foliage production defined in the landscape assessment process for areas functioning at risk.  This new Forest Plan direction is alluded to as a 'design feature' on FEIS page 2-3, but neither the status nor results of the landscape assessment process are used to inform any modifications in grazing practices in the EIS or in the development of the proposed action.  The EIS needs to be modified to disclose that status of the goshawk landscape assessment process and aspen (or aspen/conifer) areas that are functioning at risk. 

Given that:

(1) most of the goshawks on the Forest appear to prefer nesting in aspen (FEIS page G-18 notes 80% are in stands with some aspen and up to 65% of nests are in pure aspen),

(2) Much of the aspen on the Wasatch Plateau is known to be functioning at risk, and

(3) Sheep grazing is known to reduce aspen regeneration,

This is a substantial issue that has been overlooked in the EIS that must be addressed. 

 

Direct impacts to goshawk MIS trends are not adequately disclosed or analyzed. 

 

Page G-18 (BA-BE) cites Graham et al. 1999 when noting that Goshawk nest sites are usually located near water.  Appendix C indicates that there are about 170 existing "developments" that divert water from natural water sources like springs, seeps, and streams into artificial containers for livestock to drink from.  Many of these artificial diversions result in decreased water availability in its natural flowing environment for Goshawk MIS to use.  In spite of this, the EIS fails at all points to disclose any direct impacts to goshawks, which are known to nest near water.  The EIS needs to disclose direct impacts to goshawk resulting from the roughly 170 current water diversions.  Appendix C also indicates that the proposed action would result in even more additional artificial water diversions for sheep. 

 

Additional direct impacts will occur from human disturbance resulting from the intensive sheep herding and trailing activities near the goshawk territories in the project area.  The US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the active goshawk nests be buffered with a ½ mile buffer.  Page 18 of the BE/BA.  However, nowhere is there a disclosure of which and how many sheepherder camps and trailing areas are within this ½ mile goshawk buffer.  This needs to be remedied in a revised EIS to meet NFMA and NEPA direction. 

 

There also are, and will be additional, direct impacts to goshawk and the species this MIS represents as a result of the current and proposed fencing in the proposed action. 

Avian wildlife such as goshawk and the species this MIS represent are directly injured and killed by barbwire fencing installed for livestock on National Forest lands in Utah.  Nowhere in the FEIS is there disclosure or analysis of this known direct impact.

 

The goshawk MIS indirect impacts disclosure and analysis in the EIS is also lacking. 

 

While some of the impacts to goshawk prey are disclosed, others are not.  For example, special term and condition 'i' on FEIS page S-iv says, "All troughs should be equipped with a floating board or pole secured near one end of the top rim of the trough and extend out into the trough far enough to provide a platform from which birds and rodents can escape or drink from the trough."  Use of the word should means that this does not have to be done.  As is clear in the picture below, even IF all troughs have a stick or pole stuck in each, there STILL will be indirect impacts to goshawk and the species this MIS represents, due to their prey drowning when they cannot navigate the stick or pole.  All water developments need to be mandated to have certified functioning wildlife escape ramps.  This will work to reduce (but not eliminate) this known indirect impact to goshawk MIS, the wildlife it represents, and migratory birds. 

Migratory birds and avian wildlife are not the only native species taken by troughs that do not have functional wildlife escape ramps.  Small mammals also are killed, some of which are primary prey species of your MIS.

 

The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (Alternative 2)  prescribes that within goshawk nest areas combined sheep/wildlife utilization will average 20% and not exceed 40%.  Many of these sites are NOT within key deer fawning habitat as the FEIS inaccurately and arbitrarily states.  Regardless, the EIS fails to disclose and discuss the differences in the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of alternative 2, compared to the greater impacts to goshawk that would occur from alternative 1, which is to continue current grazing. 

 

The analysis of the effects to goshawk in chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS is largely absent, and what is there is based on analysis of effects to habitat, and not effects of the proposed action implementing the Forest Plan to the population trends of this MIS.  Furthermore, there is no attempt to estimate the effects of habitat changes or forest management activities on the goshawk MIS population trend in the FEIS.  The Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment (BE-BA) , on page 19 does include a graph showing percent occupied goshawk MIS territories on the Manti Division, which indicates that the trend is down from 45% occupancy to about 35% in recent years (FEIS H-19).  Thank you for including graphs such as this in the BE-BA.  The chart below that graph indicates that in 2004 2 of 10 territories inside the project area were occupied.  This is 20% occupancy of the MIS in the project area, which is notably less than the 35% occupancy rate across the Manti division of the Forest.  This is significant to note, given that the proposed action is to continue current grazing management.  Arbitrarily, there is no discussion, analysis, or explanation of why the trend for this MIS is 15% less in the project area than the Manti division of the Forest.  The EIS needs to include a disclosure and analysis of the 15% decrease in the goshawk trend in the project area that has been incurring current grazing management, which is proposed to be re-approved.

 

                   Elk and Deer

 

Elk and deer are two separate MIS in the Forest Plan, however they will be discussed together here because the Forest has failed to meet the monitoring and analysis requirements set forth (by NFMA and the Forest Plan) for both of these MIS in very similar ways.  It is not clear why the elk and deer MIS were selected and monitored for this project, largely because it is never specified in the FEIS what communities and habitat types these MIS are being used to represent.  However, we support selection and monitoring of these MIS for this and all projects. 

 

The Forest Plan does state that, "Elk are sensitive to activities occurring on their range and monitoring of projects is necessary to show the effects of land uses," and for deer it states, "Monitoring this species will show the effects of Forest management."  Forest Plan page II-32.  Page 22 of the Wildlife Resources Report (WRR) also notes, "Competition that does occur between elk and sheep for food resources, occurs on high elevation summer range."  This is a fair characterization of this project area, so it is reasonable that decreasing or eliminating sheep in the project area will improve food availability and may result in positive population trends for the elk MIS, which is not currently at management objectives.  Page 24 of the WRR says that, "Mule deer are concentrate selectors, diets contain a much higher shrub component than compared to elk, although dietary composition of forage classes vary among locations and seasons and depend on their availability." 

 

Page 50 of the WRR discloses that there will be some indirect impacts to deer and elk MIS due to decreased food availability in alternative 1, and WRR page 72 indicates that there would be no indirect impacts to these MIS in alternative 2.  However, the decreased water availability due to piping and water diversions in the proposed action incur direct and indirect impacts to this MIS and its population trends that are never disclosed.  There are additional direct and indirect impacts from the miles and miles of fencing that are known to directly kill ungulates as in the picture below.  The fencing inherent in the proposed action also indirectly affects their ability to disperse and escape from dangers.  The EIS needs to disclose these direct and indirect impacts to the population trends of these two MIS.

Fencing for permitted livestock grazing kills wild ungulate MIS, a direct impact.  There are indirect impacts as well from current and proposed fencing in the proposed action that are not disclosed or analyzed for deer and elk MIS.

 

                        Golden eagle

 

The Forest plan identifies "active nest site" surveys as the monitoring method to establish the quantitative population trends of this MIS.  Forest Plan page IV-6.  The sheep grazing FEIS (3-57) indicates that the golden eagle (GE)has been selected and considered as an MIS for this project.  Golden eagles are known to nest in and adjacent to the project area.  They nest on cliffs and in trees, and hunt over open country for small mammals, snakes, birds, and carrion.  Id.  Even though indirect impacts exist for other raptor wildlife that prey on small mammals and birds, the FEIS arbitrarily concludes "no impact" to this MIS from alternative 1 on page 3-64.  Clearly the proposed action involves indirect impacts to golden eagle prey, and the FEIS needs to be revised to reflect this reality.  The water diversions, fencing, and predator control associated with alternative 1 (and cumulative impacts) would also involve additional direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the GE MIS that need to be disclosed and analyzed, but currently are not.

 

The WRR (FEIS H-26 to 27) notes that there are 17 GE nest sites within 1 mile of the project area, and 6 GE nests inside the project area.  Not one of the GE nests in the project area was active last year and only 1 of the GE nests near the project area was active last year.  From 1999 to 2004 the percent of active GE nests declined from 12% to about 5%.  This drop in active nest sites over the 5-year period is in excess of 50%.  Page H-27 (the WRR) attributes the negative population trend to drought and a reduction in the GE prey base. 

 

Page IV-6 of the Forest Plan directs that for the GE MIS, a 20% variation in the active nest sites in a 5-year reporting period is the "variation which would cause further evaluation and/or change in management direction."  The documented 50+% decline in GE MIS active nest sites over the last 5 years is far in excess of the 20% specified in the Forest Plan, yet there is no further evaluation considered, and no change in management direction is even proposed.  This is particularly arbitrary given that the fencing, dewatering, and reduction in GE prey resulting from the proposed action involve direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the GE MIS.  The EIS needs to be revised to more fully disclose and analyze this population crash, and how management direction needs to be changed to increase GE prey base and eliminate as many direct and indirect impacts as possible. 

 

10. The FEIS Will Leave Decisions Of Major Import To

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs)

That "May" Be Prepared In The Future, and

Will Be Prepared Without NEPA

 

The FEIS states, "A new or amended AMP maybe be [sic] developed for each allotment and implemented as funding allows." (FEIS S-viii). John Healy has indicated that any allotment management plans that may be developed would be developed administratively, under the interpretation that 36 CFR 221.1(b)(2) does not require NEPA analysis [14]  This will leave major , decisions of long-term environmental significance (e.g., grazing system, number of AUMs, any possible monitoring methods) to decisionmaking free of consideration of alternatives, environmental analysis, or public scrutiny.

 

The oldest of the 31 sheep allotment management plans on the Wasatch Plateau is 32 years old (1973): the most recent was completed 14 years ago ( 1991).

 

Age of current Wasatch Plateau Sheep Allotment Management Plans	Number of Wasatch Plateau Sheep Allotment Management Plans
0-13 years old	0
14-20 years old	14
21-30 years old	13
32 years old	1
Apparently no AMP [15]	3

 

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

 

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

 

11. The  FEIS Socio-Economic Analysis Is

Speculative and Incomplete

 

The FEIS states that "The purpose and need for the assessment is to evaluate permit issuance" (FEIS, J-14), but it does so only in speculative terms of what might happen if 38 permittees and 30 herders are not fully supported by continued grazing of current AUMs on the 31 Wasatch Plateau allotments, without "increasing environmental coordination (grazing restrictions)" (FEIS 3-5).

.

The FEIS economics analysis consists basically of the following:

 

• Existing sheep grazing permits benefit 38 permittees, who hire 30 herders (FEIS  3-3 and 3-5). Income from lamb/ewe sales is a significant portion of the income for 16 farm families (FEIS J-12).

 

• The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (arbitrarily interpreted to end sheep grazing on 88.6 percent of the allotments area)  is estimated to eliminate Wasatch Plateau sheep grazing for  37 of 42 operators (the reference to 42 rather than 38 operators is not clear (compare with FEIS 3-3) would be "impacted" and speculates that some would sell their public land operations. Only three to five of the 30 herders would remain employed (FEIS 3-5)

 

• Alternative 3 (no sheep grazing) is predicted to  result in the loss of all but one herder's jobs and the probability that only two of the 38 operators are diverse enough to stay in business.

 

• "The analysis speculates most operators would most likely sell their properties, as income from the sale of lambs/ewes would be lost or greatly decreased." (Appendix J, GCT 60 Response)

 

The  FEIS cumulative impact (socioeconomic) analysis consists basically of the following:

 

• Sheep grazing contributes to the local desire to maintain a rural atmosphere (FEIS 3-5).
• "There is a desire to maintain the farms but it is felt that rancher and farmers have the right to subdivide their properties." (FEIS 3-2)
• "Most likely some permittees would sell their property that could then be subdivided. This would result in moving the  counties away from a rural atmosphere and increasing the loss of farm acreage and open space." (FEIS 3-5
• Conflicts exist between grazing and recreation (FEIS 3-4).

 

This FEIS socio-economic analysis fails because:

 

The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative has been arbitrarily misinterpreted to eliminate sheep grazing from 88.6 percent of the allotments area (see Section 1, these comments)

The analysis is almost wholly limited to speculation about the demise of private sheep ranching if grazing is not kept at current levels.

There is no analysis of the significant public and natural resources costs of permitting varying levels of AUMs,  nor of how those costs would change under a reasonably-interpreted Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative. Such costs (which would vary considerably among reasonably-interpreted alternatives) include:

1. Monitoring
2. Vegetation treatments (e.g., Alternative 1 would involve pinyon-juniper treatments, seeding of exotic species, sagebrush treatments, aspen burning, installation of exclosures)
3. Administration (preparation of environmental analyses and documents, enforcement, annual operating instructions, responding to conflicts with recreation)
4. Water developments and maintenance
5. Mitigation (e.g., noxious weed control)
6. Socio-economic opportunities foregone, such as:

                                                               i.      Reduced mule deer numbers and hunting through forage competition with sheep.

                                                             ii.      Absence of watchable/huntable bighorn because reintroduction of this extirpated native species is impossible if domestic sheep, with their inevitable transmission to bighorn of bighorn-fatal Pasteurella bacteria.

 

The FEIS failsto use recent data for its speculations,  The FEIS uses outdated 2001 livestock  economics data, rather than more recent data because, the FEIS asserts, more recent data are affected by drought  (FEIS J-11, J-12) This arbitrarily assumes that although the industry continues to decline nationally and regionally, it somehow will thrive, or at least stay level in the four counties if all current AUMs are retained, all permits are issued,  and drought will not continue or recur.

 

The economics analysis uses indefensible, unfounded speculation. For example:

a.       The FEIS speculates that the outcome of Alternative 3 (no grazing)  will result in subdivision of ranches, implying that issuing the permits will prevent this (FEIS 3-5).  Even the most casual analysis of Utah's growth rates in population and housing development would negate this implication.  For instance, as the FEIS notes for Sanpete County, "Urbanization is taking place in [the county's] larger communities... The county is presently struggling with the problems of rapid growth, some of the highestin the State, and the desire to maintain the rural setting. There is a desire to maintain the farms but it isfelt that rancher and farmers have the right to subdivide their properties" (FEIS 3-2).

b.      The FEIS asserts that under the unreasonably-interpreted Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative or Alternative 3 (no grazing) nearly all the permittees and herders would lose their livelihood (FEIS 3-5). The permittees would then likely subdivide their private landholdings (FEIS 3-5), on the assumption that the free market will not facilitate diversification into other endeavors.[16] The FEIS provides no evidence for this assertion and assumes no diversification or agricultural flexibility. However, even in Sanpete County, the largest sheep industry in the state, 96% of agricultural operations do not rely on sheep and goats; cattle/calves make up 23% of total livestock and poultry sales, while poultry makes up 54%..

 

Key conclusions are made without stating methods or data on which they are based. For example:

a.       The  assumption that 38 out of a total of 3,350 farm operators in the four counties have only two options: either raise sheep or subdivide (FEIS 3-4 and 3-5)

b.      The assumption that renewing all sheep grazing permits and AUMs on the Wasatch Plateau of the Manti-La Sal NF will contribute significantly to the retention of open space  This, in spite of the fact that people employed in the four county analysis area in agriculture constitute 0.1% of the four counties' employment (FEIS J-13), and sheep production is worth only 4% of all livestock/poultry sales in Sanpete County, which is the largest sheep-producing county of the four counties (see Table 2, Three Forests Coalition DEIS comments).

c.       The implication that continued sheep grazing on the Forest will contribute significantly to stemming the tide of unrelenting pressure for conversion of land from farming to housing and other urban developments (FEIS 3-4).

 

12.  There is no commitment to any specific monitoring in the future.

 

The FEIS states that monitoring methods and locations would be described in AMPs (FEIS 1-2) that "may" be developed in the future.  The FEIS fails to directly compare the monitoring that would be done under the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (FEIS 2-7 and 2-8) with the absence of monitoring commitments under Alternative 1.

 

13.  The FEIS Does Not Use Scientific Information

Submitted In Hard Copy to the Forest

      Mr. Healy requested hard copies of all documents the Three Forests Coalition had referenced in its scoping and DEIS comments. We provided hard copies of most of the documents; and website locations for a very few long documents.  The following lists the documents cited in Three Forest Coalition scoping comments and DEIS comments; and indicates briefly the information that was ignored in the FEIS, despite the fact that the information contradicts FEIS conclusions or addresses information or issues  ignored in the FEIS:

n.       Documents cited in scoping comments were not cited or acknowledged in the FEIS.  A few examples are given of evidence provided by, and ignored in the FEIS.  Additional examples exist, as the FEIS acknowledged or used essentially none of the evidence cited in the 36 documents referenced and discussed in the scoping comments and provided in hard copy to John Healy.

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

Documents the densification of Interior West forests by livestock grazing, rendering the forests more vulnerable to disease, insects, and fires outside of historical intensity and size.

The FEIS neither acknowledges this nor considers the potential role of sheep grazing on invasion of conifers into aspen, or the increase of "doghair" forests.

                                                             ii.      Belsky, AJ, A Matzke, and S Uselman.  1999.  Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1):419-431.

 

This is a review of  livestock influences on riparian ecosystems in the western United States, citing over 140 studies; no positive environmental effects were found.

 

The FEIS fails to analyze many of these impacts in light of sheep grazing.

                                                            iii.      Brookshire, EN, JB Kauffman, D Lytjen, and N Otting. 2002. Cumulative effects of wild ungulate and livestock herbivory on riparian willows. Oecologia 132:559-566.

 

Studying elk, deer, and light sheep browsing (i.e., herders were instructed to keep sheep out of the riparian area except for access to water)  in northeastern Oregon, this study found that willows grazed by both wild ungulates and domestic sheep did not flower, nor did willows under 70 cm. tall.  The willows studied, Salix boothii and S. geyeriana, are present in Manti-La Sal riparian areas.         The researchers note, "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."

 

The FEIS fails to consider impacts of sheep grazing on willows, despite the fact that they do so, on these allotments:

 

Figure 8.  Sheep browsing willos in Potters Creek, Potters Canyon Allotment, August 19, 2005. GPS UTM 047378; 4369654

 

The FEIS states (3-22): "Most willows exceed the height of grazing sheep.", although it reports that in Bear Creek, "Livestock grazing has contributed to the problem by use of remnant willows" (FEIS 3-67).

 

The FEIS fails to compare the comparative environmental impacts of Alternative 1 (no browse restrictions) and Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (30% of willow branches can be utilized) for willows and riparian areas in light of scientific evidenc

                                                           iv.      Carey, C., N. Cohen, and L. Rollins-Smith. 1999. Amphibian declines: an immunological perspective. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 23:459-472.

Notes that degraded water quality, threat of trampling, or other stressors caused by grazing activities could alter immune response of frogs, making them more susceptible to disease (Carey et al. 1999).

The FEIS does not acknowledge this;  

                                                             v.      Chong, Geneva, Sara Simonson, Thomas Stohlgren, and Mohammed Kalkhan. 2001. Biodiversity: Aspen stands have the lead, but will nonnative species take over? Pp. 261-266 in Shepperd, Wayne, Dan Binkley, Dale Bartos, Thomas Stohlgren, and Lane Eskey, compilers. 2001. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 pp

Adverse effects that livestock grazing has had and can have on aspen community resistance to exotic, invasive species.  This is not acknowledged by the FEIS.

                                                           vi.      Duff, Donald.  1977.  Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Livestock and Wildlife-Fisheries Relationships in the Great Basin.  University of California Agricultural Station Scientific Special Publication 3301. Berkeley, California.

 

This study reports diverse aquatic habitat benefits six years after removing riparian livestock grazing via a ¼ mile exclosure on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah.  Streambank stabilization, growth of native willow stock, and increased fish numbers were found within the exclosure.

 

The FEIS presents no discussion of livestock exclosures on streams in relation to fish numbers or native willow stock

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

The broad-tailed hummingbird breeds in Utah in lowland riparian and mountain riparian habitat types.  This species is a "priority species" according to the Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy (Parrish, et al., 2002).  Point counts conducted in Utah riparian habitat statewide for Neotropical migratory birds during breeding periods from 1992-1998 indicate a significant declining trend for broad-tailed hummingbirds throughout Utah (Howe et al 1999).  Effects of livestock grazing in Utah on this species are largely unstudied, but grazing practices that reduce the availability of wildflowers or nesting habitat are likely detrimental (Parrish, et al., 2002).  Utah Partners in Flight (Parrish, et al., 2002) recommend 1) grazing practices in areas known to contain high densities of broadtails should be modified to provide maximum availability of forage and nesting habitat during breeding periods; 2) grazing in areas of high broad-tailed hummingbird concentration should not be allowed until after August 1; and 3) grazing allotments should be managed so as to not reduce density of wildflowers in areas used for nesting and foraging broadtails.

 

The FEIS fails to acknowledge the Howe Utah study showing declines of broad-tailed hummingbirds, or the above Utah Partners in Flight recommendations that were cited in the Three Forests Coalition scoping document.  The FEIS claims "...the effects on broad tailed hummingbird densities from grazing are unknown" (FEIS H-61)  and that there will be "little to no" direct impacts on hummingbird breeding habitat because sheep don't focus on riparian forbs (FEIS H-61), but elsewhere states that  hummingbirds utilize tall forb meadows and aspen stands to forage (which are grazed by sheep) (FEIS H-62).

 

The FEIS provides no indication that it has any idea of the populations or trends of broad-tailed hummingbirds in the allotments area or Forest.

                                                        viii.      Kauffman, Boone, Robert Beschta, Nick Otting, and Danna Lytjen.  1997.  An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States.  Fisheries 22(5):12-24.

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

In the 40 aspen exclosures Kay has measured or otherwise evaluated in western U.S. and Canada, "...and in all cases where aspen has been protected, it successfully regenerated and formed multi-aged stands without  fire or other disturbance." (p. 134).

The FEIS and Forest fail to acknowledge this evidence that livestock grazing may be contributing to conifer invasion of aspen. Instead the FEIS names burning as the treatment of choice to "restore" aspen stands.

o.      Documents cited in DEIS comments

                                                               i.      Bartelt, Paul E. 1998. Natural history notes: Bufo boreas (western toad) mortality. Herpetological Review 29(2).

Reported on sheep damage to this declining native species that is present  within the analysis area.  The FEIS fails to address impacts of sheep on western toad.

                                                             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.

Notes grazing changes plant communities and soil composition, which alters disturbance regimes and increases spread of exotic vegetation which depletes [sage grouse] habitat.

 The FEIS fails to address impacts of sheep grazing on potentially suitable sage grouse late spring/summer brood habitat (e,g., springs, wet meadows, forb habitat)

                                                            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.

Notes that changes in water and nutrient cycling caused by grazing promotes spread of invasive species, which then alters fire and disturbance regimes and degrades [or possibly destroys] grouse habitat (from researchers cited in Knick et al 2003)

The FEIS fails to address impacts of sheep grazing on potentially suitable sage grouse late spring/summer brood habitat.

                                                           iv.      Parks, Catherine, Michael Wisdom, and John Kie. 2004. The influence of ungulates on non-native plant invasions in forests and rangelands. Appendix D, Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

Notes that selective foraging can favor survival and reproduction of plants. 

This was cited in support of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative  management prescription that a site would be unsuitable for sheep grazing if it contains any of the ten exotic, invasive species considered most threatening to the Wasatch Plateau area.  The FEIS did not analyze the implications of having this management prescription compared to not having it in Alternative 1.

                                                             v.       [Petition] 2003. Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA.

Cites evidence that degraded habitat has been found to decrease nutrient output which decreases sage grouse clutch sizes and chick survival and eggshell thickness. 

 

The FEIS does admit that suitable sage grouse habitat (including summer rearing habitat) is present in 17 of the 31 allotments (FEIS, Appendix G-9 and G-31), and that availability of herbaceous riparian species is needed for late-growing season foraging.  The FEIS cites scientific evidence  regarding five indirect negative impacts from livestock, and four  of these references deal with reduction of sagebrush (FEIS G-30)

 

However, the FEIS fails to consider the degradation of sage grouse summer habitat by sheep grazing, sagebrush "control", or development  (e.g., fencing) of springs for sheep grazing, because the habitat is  not within 2 miles of a currently active sage grouse nesting habitat (see, e.g., FEIS, Appendix G-9,  G-32).  Since sheep graze forbs and so do sage grouse, the FEIS's failure to address trends and conditions of forbs is a failure to address sage grouse summer habitat.

 

The FEIS fails to consider that degraded summer habitat may prevent successful nesting attempts. In other words, the FEIS assumes that adverse impacts of sheep grazing and sheep developments summer habitat need not be considered until leks and nesting are active nearby. This is an arbitrarily segmented view of  the responsibility of the Forest for sage grouse habitats.  Sage grouse nests may be several miles from leks, and summer brooding habitat many further miles -- i.e., migratory sage populations may occupy areas that exceed 2,700 km² (Connelly, et al. 2000 -- a document provided the Manti-La Sal NF during 2004 by the Three Forests Coalition).

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

 

This Forest Service report recommends livestock grazing utilization limits that are followed by the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, but not by Alternative 1. The FEIS fails to analyze the consequences for goshawk of following the recommendations versus not following them.  The FEIS avoids this comparison by saying, "Goshawk nest site are within deer fawning habitat that is excluded from grazing" (FEIS 2-7).

                                                          vii.      [UDNR] Utah Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Proposed Utah Species of Concern List. August 7, 2003, 138 pages. Salt Lake City, Utah.

The UDNR notes Livestock grazing as well as timber harvest and recreational use has degraded many important wetland and upland western toad habitats in Utah and these actions may directly cause toad mortality."  The FEIS fails to analyze the impacts of sheep grazing on the (declining)  western toad.

                                                        viii.       [USFS] U.S. Forest Service. 2004c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Reissuance of Term Grazing Permits On Eight Cattle Allotments Beaver Mountain  Tushar Range. Fishlake National Forest. Richfield, UT.

 

The current Fishlake cattle grazing term permit Draft EIS identifies annual and periodic monitoring (USFS 2004c, e.g., 1-6, 2-3). The M-LS NF sheep grazing FEIS identifies none.

                                                           ix.       [USFS] U.S. Forest Service. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker City, OR.

 

"Domestic livestock...can and do affect both historic and prehistoric heritage resources."  (USFS 2003, 3-218)

Sheep grazing can:

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

·         Compact or compress archaeological deposits,

·         Trail or cut through archaeological deposits exposing cultural materials

·         Chemically alter archaeological deposits by urine and feces,

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

The FEIS fails to consider these impacts (FEIS 3-49)

                                                             x.      [USFS] U.S. Forest Service, Region 4. 1996. "Intermountain Regional Assessment: Properly Functioning Condition" June 3.\

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). As a result of this loss in understory vegetation, soil stability and productivity may also be seriously affected"

The FEIS fails to acknowledge this impact of sheep grazing on big sagebrush understory, or this issue.  In fact, sagebrush understory is not mentioned.

                                                           xi.      [USFS] U.S. Forest Service. 1995. A Comprehensive Literature Review of the Effects of Grazing on Natural Resources. Dixie National Forest. Cedar City, UT. Cited in U.S. Forest Service (2004b)

 

Utilization of browse species should be based on the ability of plants to reproduce (USFS 1995).

 

The FEIS fails to provide any information on utilization of browse species, and does not analyze  the environmental consequences of absence of limits on sheep utilization of shrub species with the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative's restrictions on browse of shrub species.

References

 

Connelly, John, Michael Schroeder, Alan Sands, and Clait Braun.  2000.  Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.  Wildlife Society Bulletin   28(4):967-985.

 

Stevens, Lawrence, Peter Stacey, Don Duff, Chad Gourley, and James Catlin.  May 2002.  Riparian Ecosystem Evaluation:  A Review and Test of BLM's Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Guidelines.  A final report submitted to the Department of the Interior National Riparian Service Team.

 

[USFS] U.S. Forest Service, Region 4. 1996. "Intermountain Regional Assessment: Properly Functioning Condition" June 3.

 

Whitson, Tom, Larry Burrill, Steven Dewey, David Cudney, BE Nelson, Richard Lee, and Robert Parker.  2002.  Weeds of the West.  9^th Edition. The Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with the Western United States Land Grant Universities Cooperative Extension Services.

USFS, Wallowa Whitman National Forest. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Baker City, OR.

 

Grand Canyon Trust

Dr. Mary O'Brien

PO Box 12056

Eugene OR 97440

 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness

Veronica Egan

PO Box 2924

Durango, Colorado 81302

 

Sierra Club, Utah Chapter

Wayne Hoskisson

90 West Center Street

Moab, Utah 84532

 

 

Utah Environmental Congress

Kevin Mueller

1817 South Main, Suite 10

Salt Lake City, UT 84115

 

Western Watersheds Project

Dr. John Carter

PO Box 280

Mendon, Utah 84325

 

Wild Utah Project

James Catlin

68 South Main St., Suite 400

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

 

 

Appendices

 

Appendix A:     Comparison of FEIS Alternative 1 and Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Appendix B:     Disturbed, Eroding, and/or Bare Soils: Field Notes. Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments

 

Appendix A: Comparison of FEIS Alternative 1 and Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative

Management Feature		Alternative 1 Modified Proposed Alternative "Rangeland Restoration Alternative"	Alternative 2   "Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative"
ALLOWABLE FORAGE USE	Riparian: Grass and Forbs	·         Spring: 50-60% ·         Summer: 45-50% ·         Fall: 30-40% or 4-5" of stubble or regrowth	Riparian area forage is not calculated for allowable AUMs. Sheep leave riparian areas when one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. Streambank trampling ≥15 % within any 150 feet of streambanks (including trampling from ORV or other recreational uses). 2. 6" stubble height in greenline. 3. Browse on riparian shrubs exceeds 30% of riparian shrubs
	Upland: Grass and Forbs	Up to 45%	25% utilization of grass/forbs by sheep (allowing 25% for wildlife; 50% biomass retention by grasses/forbs
	Upland: Forb meadows	·         Spring: 50-60% ·         Summer: 45-50% ·         Fall: 30-40% or 4-5" of stubble or regrowth	Once-over grazing each year (e.g., with one or two sheep monitored with satellite radio collars to show location).
	Shrub/aspen sprout branch tips	No stated limits on browsing shrubs or aspen sprouts	≤30% browse of current year's branch tips by sheep and wildlife by end of sheep grazing season
	Goshawk habitat	"Where it is determined through the landscape assessment process that ungulate grazing is contributing to an identified functioning -at-risk condition relative to habitat needed to support goshawk and its prey, modify grazing practices to maintain or restore the desired seed, mast, and foliage production defined in the landscape assessment."	≤20% utilization (avg.) by wildlife and sheep within 30 acres of goshawk nest, 400 acres of fledglings, and 5,400 acres of home range
REFERENCE AREAS[17]		No reference areas are used to help judge relative condition of natural resources/suitability for sheep grazing	Reference areas are used to help determine suitability of sites for sheep grazing
SUITABILITY OF SITES FOR SHEEP GRAZING	Minimum forage production	No forage production required beyond capability requirement of having the potential to produce an average of 200 lbs. of forage per acre over the planning period	Forage production required for sheep grazing: 1.       sufficient to provide for wildlife and sheep at ≤50% combined utilization; AND 2.      at least 200 pounds of forage/acre on an air dry basis.
	Disturbed sites (e.g., fire, mechanical treatment)	Unstated reductions for unstated time following prescribed burning or other disturbance	Avoid sheep grazing of burned sites until recovery to forage production standards (see above)
	Riparian areas	Suitable	Riparian areas are unsuitable for sheep grazing except in designated sites spaced for essential access to water or crossings
	Meadows	Suitable	Can be grazed if soil bulk density ≤10% higher at end of grazing season compared to a reference meadow
	Aspen stands	Suitable	Can be grazed if: 1.       young stems are growing above elk/deer/sheep browse height; AND 2.       native grass/forb biomass ≥50% and ground cover ≥85% of a reference area
SUITABILITY OF SITES FOR GRAZING (cont.)	Wildlife habitat	Suitable	1.       Key mule deer fawning and winter habitat unsuitable 2.       Occupied and potential TES habitat can be grazed by sheep if evidence indicates grazing will not directly or indirectly contribute to retardation of the species' reproduction and potential spread 3.       Potential nesting and brood rearing habitat for sage grouse if residual grass height is 18 cm (6 inches) during nesting and brood rearing season.
	Invasive species sites	Suitable for grazing until the stand has produced seed for the season [Note: Not clear whether noxious weed site can be grazed until the last noxious weed species has produced seed)]   Unsuitable "where use would contribute to the spread of the noxious weed."	Unsuitable for sheep grazing if site contains any of the ten exotic, invasive species considered most threatening to the Wasatch Plateau area
	Municipal watersheds	Suitable for grazing	Unsuitable for sheep grazing if the watershed supplies culinary or household water
	Archaeological sites	Suitable for sheep grazing, but "the permittee is responsible to report any observed instances of livestock impacting an archaeological or historical site"	Sensitive archaeological sites are unsuitable for sheep grazing unless evidence indicates grazing would not be likely to adversely impact the site
	Additional unsuitable sites	There are no reference areas. Developed recreation or special use sites, administrative sites and research facilities or study sites.	Research Natural Areas, administrative sites, developed recreation sites, livestock exclosures, reference areas
MONITORING		"Implement monitoring designed to measure the effectiveness of the management system"   "Maintain beneficial existing monitoring studies and initiate additional studies as needed."   [i.e., no specific monitoring required]	Annual monitoring 1.       Forage remaining at end of season 2.       Forage production on burned sites until suitable for grazing 3.       Absence of sheep from riparian areas except at designated watering/crossing sites 4.       Presence of the ten most threatening exotic, invasive species Once every three years: 1.       Reference area forage production 2.       TES habitat condition
VEGETATION TREATMENTS		Sagebrush "control" treatments Seeding treatments (exotic unless native seed is "available") Herbicide spraying of tarweed Conifer stand "maintenance" Burning of aspen stands	1.       Use genetically-local native seed and seedlings in revegetation 2.       Use nonpersistent non-natives only as an emergency and as an intermediate step to accomplish native plant restoration 3.       No conversion of sagebrush for sheep forage
NUMBER OF SHEEP AUMS		Stocking determined administratively (i.e., without NEPA) based on "capacity" of sites after considering forage utilization extent of rangeland in unsatisfactory condition vegetative trends soil trends   Herds greater than 1000 ewes "would be discouraged"	Based on avoidance of: 1.       unsuitable sheep grazing sites (see above) 2.       exceedance of forage utilization limits (see above)
STRUCTURAL RANGE IMPROVE- MENTS		Install 24 water troughs to distribute grazing in uplands Treat 15, 387 acres of rangelands by spraying tarweed, burning aspen, and seeding (exotic if native seed "unavailable")	Structural improvements as needed to retain sheep on suitable sheep grazing sites
GRAZING SYSTEM CHANGES		Implement a rotation grazing system or high intensity short duration grazing system to meet the "physiological needs" of the forage plants	Grazing system changes as needed to remain within utilization limits and suitable sites
ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOP- MENT		AMPs "may" be revised, with AUMs, intensity and system decided upon administratively (i.e., without NEPA)	[The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative as submitted would develop AMPs with NEPA.]

 

Appendix B:  Disturbed, Eroding, and/or Bare Soils: Field Notes. Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments.
August 17-19, 2005 Manti-La Sal NF Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments:  Disturbed, Eroding, Bare Soils	Location	Altitude	Photo #	GPS UTM NAD27/CONUS		Camera record	Photo description
August 17, 2005	Driving up Nuck Woodward Creek; Wed. eve	9,005'	1	0489011	4379787	1681	Sheep erosion of the slope above Nuck Woodward Creek, above First Canyon
		9,212'	2	0488742	4381888	1684	Sheep erosion of the slope above Nuck Woodward Creek
August 18, 2005	Looking east from Nuck Woodward Canyon	9,571'	3-7	0488736	4384821	1687	Blowout looking east from the Nuck Woodward Creek road
	Looking west. from Nuck Woodward Canyon					1696	New oil, gas mining road in foreground; sheep trailing below conifers in mid; vegetation loss on Trough Springs Ridge beyond.
						1701	Person standing in 6' gully; note that the "riparian area" is green
						1703
						1705
		9,492'	8	0488736	4382254	1706	"Riparian area" is vegetated...about 6' on either side.  Adjacent slope above is de-vegetated
		9,660'	9-10	0473894	4385198	1736	Beat-out basin above Fairview Lake
						1739	The valley overgrazed down to Fairview Lakes
	Driving South on South Skyline Road.	9,978'	11-15	0473519	4382765	1742	Eroding hillside, looking N from So. Skyline Drive
						1744
						1745	The three slopes in one view
						1746	Middle slope
						1747	Farthest west slope
		9,571'	16	0473016	4383443	1757	In the furrows of the eroded slope
August 19, 2005	Climbing up out of Scad Valley Creek	9,081'	17-19	0478545	4368992	1762	Cow patties in sheep allotment!  Beat-up headwaters of Scad Valley Creek.
						1763	Cowed-out headwater area
						1764	Head-cutting where cow prints. Sheep hooves as well
	Potters Canyon Allotment	9,912'	20	0473857	4369733	1787	Beat-out slope adjacent to (south of) road
		9,869'	21-23	0473783	4369654	1788	Sheep bunched beneath spruce across Potters Creek; resting at top of eroded slope
						1792
						1798	Slope to Potters Creek
			24-26	0473683	4369785	1803	More sheep bedding in and crossing raw-banked creek
						1806	Sheep grazing on sparsely-vegetated SE slope (looking northwest of headwaters)
						1807	The sparse vegetation
	Driving up the road. Ridge between Bacon Rind Canyon and Potters Canyon.	10,168'	27-28	0474050	4368745	1810	View of headwaters of Potters Canyon.  Sheepherder trailer where the sheep were.
						1811	Close-up of the badly-eroded slope
		10,170'	29	0473112	4369151	1812	View of Bacon Rind. Eroding slopes
	Miles down Skyline Road	10,422'	30-31	0467074	4359326	1813	Sparse vegetation. Some sheep droppings.  Reeder Ridge(?)
						1814
		10,936'	32-33	0466303	4357683	1815	Sparse vegetation on Horseshoe Flat, looking SW from Clay Ridge Bench Road.
						1816	Sparse vegetation on Horseshoe Flat, looking S from Clay Ridge Bench Road
	Above Horseshoe Flat	10,825'	34-35	0463106	4357414	1834	Sheep grazing on damp soil below snow bank
						1836	Sparse vegetation at feet, with sheep droppings.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                 

 

Appendix C:  (a) Utah Environmental Congress DEIS comments incorporated into these FEIS comments because issues raised are still not addressed.  (b)The incorporated Utah State University National Aquatic Monitoring Center's 2000 report on 1999 Manti-La Sal National Forest macroinvertebrates MIS monitoring. Note: These are being sent directly to John Healy from Salt Lake City on September 6, 2005.