October 7, 2001

Mr. Glenn A. Carpenter

Field Office Manager

BLM Salt Lake Field Office

2370 South 2300 West

Salt Lake City, Utah 84119

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

RE: APPEAL and PETITION FOR A STAY by Interested Publics Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Western Watersheds Project for Grazing Permit Renewal for:

EA#UT-020-01-072, Findings of No Significant Impact and Notices of Final Decision for Baker Hills, Connor, Dove Creek, Golden Spike, North Kelton, Snowville, South Kelton and U&I Allotments

EA#UT-020-01-70, Findings of No Significant Impact and Notices of Final Decision for Vipont, Junction Creek, Janey’s Spring, Muddy Creek, Hardesty Creek, Dairy Valley and Fisher Creek Grazing Allotments

EA#UT-020-2001-0073, Findings of No Significant Impact and Notices of Final Decision for Basin Land and Livestock, Mann, Matlin, Peplin, Red Dome, Selman, Terrace, Young Brothers and Ward Allotments

EA#UT-020-01-112, Findings of No Significant Impact and Notices of Final Decision for Grouse Creek, Dry Canyon, Lynn, Kimball Creek, Buckskin, Red Butte, Ingham and Owl Springs Allotments

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and Western Watersheds Project (WWP) hereby file this APPEAL and PETITION FOR STAY of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) term grazing permit renewal for the allotments described above pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4160.4.

SUWA and WWP, on behalf of their members, are interested publics on each of the allotments. SUWA and WWP have filed a Protest of the EAs and the related decisions pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4160.2. This Appeal is timely filed pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4160.4.

The EA’s are legally inadequate and fail to fulfill the BLM’s statutory and regulatory duties, inter alia, to restore and sustain ecosystem values and balance resource benefits and harms associated with livestock grazing impacts. Thus, SUWA and WWP file this Appeal and PETITION FOR STAY for the same reasons given in their Protest (attached) and as further explained below.

Basis for Appeal

1. The BLM Fails to Comply with the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration.

For several reasons, the BLM fails to meet its regulatory obligations under 43 C.F.R. § 4180 in the EAs. Among the requirements of The Fundamentals of Rangeland Health are that “Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward properly functioning condition…” and “Habitats are, or are making significant progress towards being restored or maintained ….”. Four Standards were established to assure that these Fundamentals were achieved (BLM 1996).

Standard 1 requires that upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity as indicated by sufficient cover and litter, absence of excessive erosion and the appropriate amount, type and distribution of vegetation reflecting the presence of the Desired Plant Community (DPC). PFC Assessments were conducted on 8 of 30 allotments. In the eight allotments assessed, 35 locations were evaluated. Of these, 5 were functioning at risk (FAR) for soil stability and 7 were FAR for watershed function. Red Willow Research (2001) visited nine allotments in the spring of 2001 and determined that soils and watersheds were degraded and eroding with significant amounts of bare ground and that all were either Functioning-at-Risk or Non-Functioning. Dr. Carter of Western Watersheds Project visited eight additional allotments and found similar conditions including overutilization by livestock leading to large expanses of bare ground, sheet and gully erosion. Dr. Carter’s observations were provided with the WWP protest comments and the Red Willow Report was also provided. Copies of these documents are attached to this Appeal and Petition for Stay.

The Soil Survey of Box Elder County, Utah, Western Part (USDA, 1997) shows that many of the soils in the project area are susceptible to wind and water erosion and that many of the vegetation and soil types are poorly suitable for livestock grazing due to low forage production or poor suitability for seeding. The Air, Soils and Watershed section of the RMP (BLM 1985) provides an overview of the status of soils in the Planning Area. Soil surveys are cited for information on erosion. Soils around the Great Salt Lake are low in susceptibility to water erosion, but are high in susceptibility to wind erosion. Upslope from the lake, erosion condition is low to moderate. Five allotments, including South Kelton, White Lakes, Lucin-Pilot, Rosebud and Warm Springs have areas with critical to severe erosion. Sheet erosion, bank cutting, gully erosion and side-branching occur during runoff. Lack of vegetative cover and surface disturbance including livestock grazing are listed as causes. The EAs have not taken this information into account in determining either the appropriateness, or suitability of grazing livestock in these allotments or in determining the impacts of livestock on the soils.

The PFC Assessments provided in the referenced EAs indicated that of 37 sites assessed, most were in proper functioning condition for soil and watershed attributes with a portion functioning at risk. Yet, evidence of water erosion such as flow pathways, pedestals, terracettes, lack of ground covering vegetation in shrub interspaces, and gullies have been documented by Red Willow Research (2001) and Dr. Carter in the attached protest and report. In addition, EA No. UT-020-01-112, provided a trend estimate based on existing monitoring. Of the eight allotments described, five had a downward trend, two were stable and one was upward. Yet, the PFC assessments done in 2000 under the existing grazing management showed that most of the 35 sites surveyed were in properly functioning condition (PFC). This casts major doubt on the validity of the PFC assessments and their ability to accurately determine condition. Stevens et al (2001), in their review of BLM PFC assessment techniques for riparian areas, reported research that showed poor correspondence for evaluation of functional status between individuals, interdisciplinary teams and the BLM’s professional uplands PFC assessment team.

The scientific literature clearly ties significant erosion to overgrazing by cattle. Even under moderate stocking rates, grazing substantially contributes to the deterioration of soil stability in deserts (Warren et al. 1985), thus leading to increased soil erosion. Soil erosion is further exacerbated by increased surface runoff triggered by loss of vegetative cover and litter (Ellison 1960), both of which have been shown by numerous studies to be reduced by livestock grazing. Numerous studies have observed severe erosion in the western United States when comparing heavily grazed areas to ungrazed sites(e.g. Cottam and Evans 1945, Gardner 1950, Lusby 1979, and Kauffman et al. 1983). Furthermore, there are a number of extensive literature reviews on this topic that describe the indisputable impact of livestock grazing on soil stability and erosion (see Gifford and Hawkins 1978, Fleischner 1994, Trimble and Mendel 1995, and Jones 2000).

The documented significant erosion and erosion potential present in these allotments demonstrates BLM is not in compliance with the Standards and Guidelines. Yet, the agency ignores and fails to act on this determination as required by regulation. As the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health make clear, where the BLM makes a determination that upland soils are not properly functioning, the agency must immediately modify grazing management to ensure that the the areas will make sufficient progress toward becoming suitably functional. 43 C.F.R. § 4180.1. Importantly, this action must take place “as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year . . ..” Id. Yet the BLM unlawfully fails to “take appropriate action” to achieve the appropriate conditions and to conform to the relevant guidelines. No information is provided to show that the Proposed Action requiring upland utilization standards will result in improvement. No suitability determination for slopes and sensitive soils has been provided to show how management will protect these sensitive areas from further degradation. The upland utilization standards propose Moderate use (41 to 60%), yet Holechek et al (1998) describe moderate use levels for salt desert shrub land as 25 to 35% and sagebrush grassland as 30 to 40% with the further qualification that “Ranges in good condition and or grazed during the dormant season can withstand the higher utilization level. Those in poor condition or grazed during active growth should receive the lower utilization level.” It is clear that under sound range management principles, the levels of use prescribed by the Proposed Action for uplands are excessive, in fact, nearly double recommended levels.

Standard 2 requires that riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition as indicated by streambank vegetation, stream bank cover sufficient to protect against erosion, vegetation reflecting the DPC and other factors. Of the 30 allotments contained in the EAs referenced above, 15 have had no riparian assessments. Thirty-two riparian sites were assessed in the remaining allotments. Of these, 8 were determined to be in PFC, 18 were FAR and 6 were non-functioning (NF). The RMP (BLM 1985) noted there were 208 springs in the Box Elder Planning Area. It further indicated that some 124 springs and 16 perennial streams were degraded and in danger of being dewatered and lost due to livestock grazing and trampling. These springs along with seeps and wetlands were not addressed. This includes those that have been eliminated by livestock or construction of water developments as well as those that continue to exist. The conditions reported in the RMP are consistent with the Red Willow Research (2001) report. They existed under the conditions prevailing under the “No Action” alternatives described in the EAs. Yet, BLM has determined livestock grazing does not create a significant impact. The RMP and EIS (BLM 1985), in it’s Alternative 3, proposed fencing these springs to keep livestock from trampling and contaminating the water source. This clearly illustrates the current impacts that will continue under the Proposed Action. The past and current impacts to these resources from water developments for livestock were not addressed.

While BLM has proposed to set utilization standards on riparian areas they have failed to implement standards for, wetlands, seeps and springs. They have also ignored the effects of bank trampling by livestock which destabilizes streambanks and leads to increased erosion and siltation. The Beaverhead National Forest has recognized that bank trampling is the best indicator of livestock damage and is the most important monitoring parameter (Dallas, 1997). In their EAs for Rich County, BLM noted that “The opportunity for regrowth diminishes in mid-July through October which contributes to at risk circumstances on riparian areas.” Yet grazing seasons for some allotments allow grazing through this period, others allow grazing from winter to spring. of September on most allotments. This indicates that unless livestock are removed before mid-July, even though utilization standards are implemented, regrowth may not occur. The same is true for winter grazing. Regrowth cannot occur prior to the wet season when it is most needed to trap sediment and stabilize stream channels. The report (WWP 2000) attached to this Appeal and Petition for Stay discusses the effects of livestock on riparian areas, their associated watersheds and water quality. BLM has ignored the science related to the impacts of livestock on riparian and wetland areas, their water quality and biota. Further, BLM has ignored Executive Order No. 11990 which calls for protection and improvement of riparian and wetland areas.

Standard 3 requires that desired species, including native species are maintained as indicated by frequency, diversity, density, age classes and productivity of desired native species; habitat connectivity, re-occupation of disturbed areas and the appropriate amount and types of vegetation necessary to support ecological processes.

BLM provided assessments of biotic integrity on 8 of the 30 allotments in the EAs referenced above. Of 35 sites assessed for biotic integrity, 20 were FAR. In their Critical Elements Tables of the EAs, BLM has stated that noxious weeds are present and are being chemically treated. They also note cheatgrass and juniper expansion are threats. By failing to address livestock and their surface-disturbing activities which lead to the introduction and spread of weeds, BLM has failed to comply with Executive Order No. 13112 which directs agencies of the Federal Government to use relevant programs and authorities to: (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (2) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (3) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (4) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (5) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (6) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them; and (7) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. BLM has failed to provide any analysis of the relationship of livestock grazing to the noxious weed problem in these allotments and has failed to provide any enforceable proposed action to alleviate this infestation.

Standard 4 requires that BLM will comply with water quality standards established by the State of Utah and activities on BLM lands will fully support the designated beneficial uses described in the Utah Water Quality Standards for surface and groundwater as indicated by measurement of nutrient loads, total dissolved solids, chemical constituents, fecal coliform, water temperature and other water quality parameters as well as macroinvertebrate communities that indicate water quality meets aquatic objectives.

In all the EAs, BLM has failed to present monitoring data, failed to rely on current science where data is lacking to determine whether livestock impact water quality and aquatic biota and has universally claimed that water quality meets standards. The RMP documents that water quality is deteriorated from impacts directly related to livestock. Assertions in the EAs that beneficial uses are met on all 208 springs and 16 streams are not based on monitoring data and do not comply with the requirements of State water quality regulations and the Clean Water Act. Direct evidence from Red Willow Research (2001) shows livestock waste fouling water sources and dewatering occurring from destruction of riparian zones.

Further, Executive Order No. 12088 requires Federal agencies to comply with local standards and limitations relating to water quality. These standards and criteria were not discussed other than the above assertion, without any supporting data or evidence of monitoring, that standards are met. In fact, EA No. UT-020-01-112 stressed that additional water quality and macro-invertebrate monitoring programs are warranted.

The reader has no idea what the measurement of “utilization” entails nor how existing data to the extent it exists can identify “trends”. Despite the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 to 4370d (NEPA), requirement of well informed decision-making based on updated information, the BLM fails to determine the current condition of uplands, vegetation, wildlife, riparian areas, wetlands and water quality. This failure violates BLM’s obligations under NEPA and 40 C.F.R. § 4180 to determine the actual condition of the grazed lands and to protect ecosystem values threatened by grazing practices. To the extent that BLM produces assessments, their reliance on visual upland and riparian assessments is inadequate to determine compliance with the Fundamentals and Standards and Guidelines (43 C.F.R. § 4180; BLM, 1996). This is because these assessments focus on the physical condition of the land and the watershed and do not include adequate assessment of ecological processes or wildlife habitat and ignore sensitive soils in their analyses. Without this analysis, the BLM cannot determine if the condition of the land within these allotments is meeting the required conditions and therefore the BLM cannot fulfill its regulatory obligations. Furthermore, these assessments are overly subjective and fail to fully evaluate the current condition of the land based on comparisons with intact ecosystems or DPC. No review of scientific literature or presentation of monitoring data is provided to justify the Findings of No Significant Impact.

The EAs fail to satisfy BLM’s obligations under the Standards and Guidelines to determine a Desired Plant Community (DPC) and assess the impacts of livestock grazing on the DPC. As part of a determination of DPC, the BLM must ascertain the condition and quantity of native plants and microphytic soils necessary to achieve the DPC and to achieve and sustain properly functioning ecological processes on the land. Because the EA does not include this necessary analysis, it is inadequate to serve as the basis for well informed decision-making and fails the BLM regulatory obligations.