Acting Assistant Field Office Manager

June 17, 2001

Mr. Curtis Warrick

Acting Assistant Field Office Manager

Salt Lake Field Office VIA Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

Bureau of Land Management

2370 South 2300 West

Salt Lake City, Utah 84119

Re: Protest: PD, FONSI and EA for Stansbury Island North, Stansbury Island South, Stansbury Island SE, Grantsville SCS, Vernon and Faust Rest Area Allotments.

Dear Mr. Warrick:

I have completed a review of the Proposed Decision, Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment for the Stansbury Island North, Stansbury Island South, Stansbury Island SE, Grantsville SCS, Vernon and Faust Rest Area in the Salt Lake District. I am submitting these protest comments on behalf of the Western Watersheds Project, Inc. a 501c3 non-profit corporation and its members and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, also a 501c3 corporation and its members. We are protesting the decision to renew these grazing permits under 43 CFR 4160.2. The documents fail to meet the intent of NEPA to analyze a ful range of alternatives. In fact, no alternatives are analyzed. The two alternatives presented were (1) the Proposed Action and (2) No Grazing. As stated on page 8 of the EA, “Issue identification only determined the need to consider two alternatives, the Proposed Action and the No Grazing Alternative. This is partially because the SLFO has little information on these allotments, and issue identification did not result in new or unknown issues.” The Proposed Action is the status quo without change and the No Grazing Alternative was not analyzed. Therefore, the Resource Manager and Interested Public were not presented with a reasonable range of alternatives and analysis as required by NEPA. Analysis of the No Grazing Alternative vs. the Proposed Action would have provided a benchmark against which to compare the impacts of the Proposed Action. To claim a basis for not analyzing the No Grazing Alternative citing the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, PRIA and 43CFR4100 using the rationale that Livestock grazing is a customary and allowable use of renewable forage resources on public lands is to ignore the statutory authority under these acts and regulations to determine those lands chiefly valuable for livestock grazing as well as to deny BLM authority for canceling or modifying grazing permits and leases for a number of reasons including resource damage, permit or lease non-compliance.

The documents fail to provide a site-specific analysis, fail to fully disclose the impacts of livestock grazing on the multitude of resources present or potentially present, do not meet the intent of the 1990 Pony Express RMP and fail the intent of FLPMA and NEPA and the Taylor Grazing Act. I have provided a summary of the provisions of the RMP on the following pages and have briefly provided comments (bullets) pointing out those provisions that have not been adequately addressed in the proposed action.

The Tooele Grazing EIS reiterated the BLM’s legal responsibility to manage public land to protect the land and resources; stabilize the livestock industry; and provide for orderly use, development, improvement, and rehabilitation of land for livestock grazing within a multiple use, sustained yield program. The objectives were to maintain and enhance vegetation, livestock grazing, recreation, wildlife, and watershed resources. In the Purpose and Need for Proposed Action (EA page 4), you state, “BLM is responsible for ensuring that all management actions on public land conform with the appropriate land use plans, that site specific effects are assessed, and use is balanced between competing resource values.” Also on page 4, you state that “The fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43CFR4180) including watersheds, ecological condition, water quality, and Threatened & Endangered Species habitat have been analyzed and are included in other sections of this document (i.e. condition and trend, water quality, Speical Status Species).” Yet, other than assertions, no site-specific data is presented to document the current and historical management or conditions of the resources in these allotments, livestock stocking rates, the suitability of grazing livestock or to evaluate trends in condition. Without presenting quantitative data and a context for analysis for these resources and their condition, neither the Interested Public nor the Resource Manager can make an informed decision. Where is the documentation that in the nearly 20 years since the Tooele Grazing EIS, BLM has in fact enhanced vegetation, livestock grazing, recreation, wildlife and watershed resources?

The Record of Decision for the Pony Express Resource Management Plan[1] (“RMP”) addressed resource concerns and provided management program direction for management of public lands and resources in Tooele County, Utah. Numerous provisions in the RMP have bearing on the consequences and suitability of livestock grazing in the Pony Express Resource Area. These are summarized in the following paragraphs with comments regarding whether or not the Proposed Decision, Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) and environmental assessment (EA) for the Stansbury Island North, Stansbury Island South, Stansbury Island SE, Grantsville SCS, Vernon and Faust Rest Area Allotments meet the intent of the RMP. Each paragraph refers to the program element and page number from the RMP.

Monitoring (RMP-p1): Directs the establishment of an overall monitoring plan to set priorities and track the implementation of decisions. In the annual activity planning for each resource program, BLM will outline the necessary on-the-ground monitoring for determining whether the RMP objectives are being met.

·  The EA presented no monitoring data with which to determine whether RMP objectives are being met.

Minerals Program (RMP-p23-29): In these pages, BLM delineates crucial habitat areas for mule deer (69, 543 acres), raptor nesting sites (79,300 acres), bald eagle roosts (15,188 acres), sage grouse (16,900 acres), elk (13,615 acres) and pronghorn (9,965 acres). Seasonal limitations on activities were provided based on the needs of the species. These were provided in Table 5 of the RMP and included No Activity for the species of concern during the critical periods. These were: mule deer crucial winter range (December 1 to April 15); elk crucial winter range (December 1 to April 15); elk calving (May 1 to June 30); within 0.5 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds (March 15 to June 15); mule deer fawning (April 15 to July 31); crucial deer summer range (April 15 to July 31); bald eagle roosts (November 1 to March 31) and within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sties (March 1 to July 15). The intent expressed in the RMP is to avoid activities that disturb wildlife or habitat values.

·  The EA provided no detailed analysis of the status of the wildlife species mentioned, overlap with livestock in areas or seasons of use or forage amounts present and their ability to provide for the needs of wildlife as expressed in the RMP. How does the Resource Manager or the Interested Public know if there is sufficient vegetation to support wildlife, protect watersheds and provide forage for livestock? Holechek et al (1998)[2] provide equivalent forage amounts where: 1 Cow = 1.0 AU; 1 Sheep = 0.15 AU; 1 Deer = 0.15 AU; 1 Elk = 0.7 AU. It is evident that grazing hundreds of cattle and sheep in these arid environments offsets tremendous numbers of wildlife by denying forage that could be used by wildlife. Holechek et al (1998) also provide recommendations for retention of forage for watershed protection (50%), wildlife (25%) and livestock (25%). The EA fails to present data for annual plant production that delineates total production of desirable species, the amount removed by livestock or the impacts of variations in precipitation and livestock numbers. Therefore, the Resource Manager and Interested Public have been presented no basis to evaluate the significance of the Proposed Action to watersheds, wildlife and native plant communities. A more detailed analysis of these points is provided below.

·  There is no recognition of the loss of wildlife species due to livestock. A recent review article by Fleishner (1994)[3] documented the loss of biodiversity and loss of ecosystem resiliency and sustainability that is resulting from livestock grazing in the western United States. In her review, Jones (2000)[4] showed through quantitative analysis of data from peer-reviewed, published scientific papers that effects of livestock grazing could be demonstrated in a statistically significant way to have many detrimental effects on arid ecosystems. These analyses showed the following changes in ecosystem characteristics in grazed versus ungrazed comparisons. Rodent and vegetation diversity was higher in ungrazed areas. Total vegetation cover and biomass was greater in ungrazed areas. Seedling survival was greater in ungrazed areas. Cryptogamic crust cover was greater in ungrazed areas. Litter cover and biomass were greater in ungrazed areas. Soil bulk density was less, the infiltration rate greater and soil erosion was less in ungrazed areas.

The RMP also delineates 1200 foot protection zones around riparian and municipal and non-municipal watershed areas totaling 55,863 acres. The RMP specifically states that no surface disurbance will be allowed within 1,200 feet of live water. The intent is clearly to protect stream habitat, wetlands and water quality.

·  Other than the Critical Elements table on page 5 of the EA, which stated, “Water bodies are not on Utah’s 303(d) list of impaired waters”, the EA provided no documentation or data so the Resource Manager or Interested Public could make an informed decision regarding the extent of surface water, wetlands and riparian areas in these allotments or their condition. It is probable that no water quality data has been collected on the springs and other surface waters in these allotments, so here BLM has taken the usual position of “no documentation, therefore, no impact”. Belsky et al (1999)[5] documented the impacts of livestock on riparian areas, stream habitat and water quality. The impacts are predictable. The omission of any descriptive data or analysis for riparian areas does not meet the requirements of NEPA. Certainly the assertion provided in the Critical Elements table does not meet the intent of NEPA for a hard look and site-specific analysis. This lack of information and analysis denies the Resource Manager and Interested Public any knowledge with which to determine whether these resources are degraded or potentially impacted by the proposed action. There are water sources in these allotments and if small, they and their associated wetlands and riparian areas may be of even greater significance due to their scarcity.

Soil, Water and Air Program (RMP-p30-32): In this Section, BLM clearly states that they are required by law to comply with the Clean Water Act, Soil Conservation Act and Clean Air Act. Decision 1 of this Section clearly states that, “All actions that would involve soil, water and air resources will continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Evaluations will consider the impacts of any proposed actions to soil, water, and air resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to ensure compatibility of actions with soil, water, and air resource management and compliance with applicable Federal and State soil, water or air implementation plans. Soils will be managed to maintain productivity and tolerable erosion levels. Water quality will be maintained or improved in accordance with state and Federal standards, including consultation with State agencies on proposed actions that may significantly affect water quality.”

·  The RMP clearly states an intent to analyze and determine impacts of proposed actions on these resources. The grazing of livestock and activities associated with grazing can denude the soil exposing the surface to wind and water erosion. Tooele County is a Class II Visibility area and the release of dust particles into the air can increase the concentration of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP), hazardous Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). EPA[6] publishes emission factors for wind-blown dust that take into account the surface exposure, particle sizes and wind speed as well as other factors. There is potential for large quantities of dust to impair visibility and create cumulative impacts related to permitting of other activities in Tooele County as well as neighboring counties, including Salt Lake County and Utah County. BLM must address these impacts in analyzing the proposed action. The following table and analysis presents data from the Soil Survey of Tooele Area[7] for the soils in the Stansbury Island North Allotment. This analysis is illustrative of the type of analysis BLM should undertake. It shows that data and information currently exist with which BLM could analyze impacts and the suitability of livestock grazing.

Stansbury Island North Allotment Soil Erosion Characteristics

Soil Type / Erosion Hazard / Erosion Factor Kf / Erosion Factor T / Wind Erodibility Index
Amtoft-Rock outcrop complex 30% - 70% slope - Unit 4 / Severe for water erosion, slight for wind erosion / 0.37 / 1 / 48
Dynal sand, 2% to 15% slope – Unit 17 / Severe wind erosion hazard, slight for water erosion / 0.10 / 5 / 220
Hiko Peak gravelly loam, 2% to 15% slope – Unit 21 / Moderate for water erosion, slight for wind erosion / 0.37 / 5 / 56
Timpie Silt Loam, saline 0% to 3% slope – Unit 67 / Slight for water erosion, moderate for wind erosion / 0.43 / 5 / 86

Kf = Susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion without considering rocks. Values range from 0.02 to 0.69 with the higher number indicating higher risk.