lauren m. rule (isb # 6863) advocates for the west p.o. box … · 2007-01-03 · 10. my resume is...

DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN CARTER -- 1 1

Lauren M. Rule (ISB # 6863) Advocates for the West P.O. Box 1612 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208) 342-7024 (208) 342-8286 (fax) [email protected] Laurence (“Laird”) J. Lucas (ISB # 4733) P.O. Box 1342 Boise, Idaho 83701 Telephone: (208) 424-1466 Fax: (208) 342-8286 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Western Watersheds Project And Randall Hermann MD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, and ) RANDALL HERMANN MD ) ) CIV. No. 05-189-E-BLW Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, ] DECLARATION OF JOHN ) CARTER, PhD. ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

I, John G. Carter declare as follows:

1. I reside in Mendon, Utah. The following declaration is based on my personal

knowledge, and if called as a witness I would and could truthfully testify thereto.


I. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY.

2. I am a professional scientific consultant, specializing in the ecology of the Interior

West. I have substantial experience and expertise in assessing livestock grazing management

systems and grazing impacts upon ecological values, including uplands, riparian, and aquatic

systems. As part of this expertise, I am very familiar with the range management concepts of

“capability” and “suitability,” and how they have been applied – or more typically, not applied –

by the U.S. Forest Service in its Intermountain Region (which includes the Sawtooth National

Forest).

3. I have been asked by Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project to review the grazing

management systems that have been approved by the Forest Service for sheep grazing on the

four North Sheep allotments at issue in this matter (i.e., Baker Creek, Fisher Creek, Smiley

Creek, and North Fork-Boulder allotments), and to assess what the ecological impacts of

continued grazing under the existing systems will be, as part of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction.

4. As I explain in detail below, proper grazing management in the Interior West –

and the Sawtooth National Forest allotments here are no exception – requires that stocking rates

be properly determined and grazing systems designed to limit grazing only to “capable” areas,

i.e., taking into account factors including steepness of slopes, distance to water, erosion potential,

and native vegetative production. Otherwise, if stocking rate determinations do not exclude

“non-capable” areas, and if grazing management systems allow (or require) livestock grazing

upon non-capable lands, serious and irreparable ecological harms will occur, including soil

erosion, degradation of streams and aquatic habitat, loss of native vegetation species

productivity, and associated harms to wildlife habitat and populations.


5. As the Court found in its January 2006 decision, and as the record for the North

Sheep allotments confirms, my review concludes that the Forest Service has failed to base its

existing grazing authorizations for the North Sheep allotments upon a proper analysis of the

allotments’ capable lands. In failing to set stocking rates based on the capability analysis, and in

authorizing grazing to occur on non-capable lands within these allotments – which the best

available information shows to me constitutes the vast majority of the four allotments – the

Forest Service is thus not following sound range management principles; is allowing serious

overstocking of the allotments to occur; and the results are seen in the record, in the form of the

Forest Service’s own documentation of erosion, sedimentation, impairment of aquatic habitats,

loss of native vegetative productivity, and associated harms to wildlife habitats and populations.

6. My conclusions are supported by abundant scientific literature and data from a

wide variety of disciplines – including range management science, and ecological sciences –

showing that overstocking semi-arid lands in the Interior West results in direct, and often

catastrophic, irreparable ecological harms of many sorts. This is particularly true when

overstocking occurs in lands, such as those seen in the North Sheep allotments, which feature

steep, erosive slopes and soils. Again, first and foremost among these irreparable harms is

accelerated soil erosion, caused by grazing impacts. Moreover, the erosion results in various

further adverse impacts, including excessive sedimentation of streams (harming fisheries and

aquatic resources), and reduced productivity of native vegetation (thus harming wildlife, birds,

and other living organisms that rely on the vegetation for food and habitat).

7. In my professional opinion, and based on my knowledge of the relevant science

and the conditions of the four North Sheep allotments, these same types of irreparable ecological


harms are already occurring on the North Sheep allotments, and will certainly occur looking

forward from the present, if the existing or proposed grazing management systems are allowed to

continue.

8. Further, in light of the extensive portions (75%+) of these allotments that are not

“capable” of grazing (under the Forest Service’s criteria and best available data), my opinion is

that the allotments probably cannot ever be responsibly managed for livestock grazing, without

causing continued irreparable ecological harms to soils, streams, vegetation, fish and wildlife.

At a minimum, closing these allotments to livestock grazing during the period while the Forest

Service undertakes new, and scientifically supportable, grazing management systems is

appropriate in order to prevent further such damage and allow existing damaged areas to begin

the process of recovery.

9. I explain the science and facts supporting these opinions below, after addressing

my qualifications and experience.

II. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE.

10. My resume is attached hereto, and describes my educational and work experience

in detail.

11. To summarize my educational and professional background, I obtained a

Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1966; and I am

licensed to practice engineering in the state of Utah. I received my Master of Business

Administration from Georgia State University in 1972. For many years in the late 1960’s and

early 1970’s, I worked as a professional engineer in the South.


12. In 1980, I received my PhD in Ecology from Utah State University. I also served

as a Teaching and Research Assistant in Plant Taxonomy, Plant Physiology and Botany at Utah

State from 1976-80. Since receiving my PhD, I have published numerous articles and studies, as

noted in my attached resume.

13. Since 1980, I have worked as a professional consultant in the areas of ecology and

biology in Utah, Idaho, and the surrounding region. I currently have an environmental

consulting firm, Environmental and Engineering Solutions, LLC (EES), which serves as an

environmental consultant for industry, government, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens.

I provide scientific expertise regarding human-induced impacts to watersheds and wildlife; and

in design and implementation of corrective actions. In addition to Advocates for the West and

other conservation groups, my clients have included the Colorado Attorney General, Denver

Water Board, National Park Service, Forest Service, PacifiCorp, Bonneville Pacific Power,

Kennecott Corporation, Sun Oil, Phillips Petroleum, Sohio, Union Oil, Envirocare of Utah,

Browning Arms, and Nucor Corporation.

14. Through both my Ph.D educational program, and in the course of my consulting

business since receiving my Ph.D., I have devoted substantial time in collecting, studying, and

assessing scientific literature and data relating to livestock grazing management and its effects on

plants, soils, watersheds and streams. I have extensively reviewed grazing management systems

to assess their effectiveness; and I have helped design grazing management systems for clients. I

also conducted numerous surveys and studies of my own, addressing various aspects of range

management and the ecological impacts of grazing. I have published papers relating to my own

work; and provided extensive scientific information and data to the Forest Service, BLM and


other agencies or environmental organizations in the form of reports, comments, and analysis

relating to livestock grazing management and grazing impacts.

15. Some examples of projects I have conducted include surveys of watershed

condition (soils and vegetation), stream habitats, and water quality in numerous watersheds in

the Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests in Utah; the Caribou National Forest in Idaho;

the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona; BLM lands in Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming;

Canyonlands National Park; and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.

16. In addition to my private consulting business, in 1996 I founded Willow Creek

Ecology, Inc. (WCE) and served as its President for several years. WCE was a not-for-profit

organization dedicated to the conservation and preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat and

for protection of public health and the environment in the Intermountain West, including the

National Forests and public lands in Utah and Idaho. WCE worked to achieve its goals using

scientific approaches.

17. In May 2001, WCE joined Western Watersheds Project. (WWP), is also a

nonprofit 501c3 corporation. I have personally been a member and supporter of WWP (or Idaho

Watersheds Project, as it was previously known) for many years. Since WCE joined with WWP,

I have served as the Utah Director for WWP under contract through my consulting business,

EES. I also currently serve on WWP’s Board of Directors.

III. BASIS FOR TESTIMONY.

18. In forming my opinions as expressed in this declaration, I have relied upon:

(a) my professional education, training and work experiences; (b) my knowledge of scientific

literature relating to range management science, ecology, biology, and other disciplines; (c) my


knowledge of academic and agency (including Forest Service) range management requirements,

techniques, and publications; (d) my review of Forest Service documents in the Administrative

Record relating to the North Sheep allotments; and (e) my personal knowledge of the area.

19. Among the record documents I have reviewed and relied upon in preparing my

testimony are the following: North Sheep Final Environmental Impact Statement (NSEIS) and

Records of Decision (RODs); prior Forest Service allotment management plans (AMPs) for the

respective allotments; various monitoring and other data reflected in the Forest Service reports in

the record; and the revised Sawtooth Forest Plan and related documents (particularly on

capability and suitability issues). I have also reviewed the Declaration of Paul Mitchell, filed in

this matter, visually depicting the Forest Service’s capability data from the Forest Plan for the

North Sheep allotments; and other declarations filed by the Forest Service relating to the

capability analysis and data.

20. I am very familiar with the ecology and landscape of the Sawtooth National

Forest and surrounding region, both because of my professional work and my own personal

experiences. For example, I have regularly visited the Sawtooth National Forest and Upper

Salmon basin region regularly since 1959, when my parents first moved to the West. Beginning

in the mid-1970s, when I began my Ph.D studies at Utah State, I camped, floated and fished in

the region every spring for many years. I have also frequently visited these areas for professional

purposes, including monitoring and studying resource conditions and the effects of management

activities, such as livestock grazing.

21. In the following sections, I discuss in detail my review of the existing grazing

systems for the North Sheep allotments, and their scientific and management inadequacies; and


explain my conclusions regarding the irreparable ecological harms posed by continued grazing

on the Fisher Creek, Smiley Creek, Baker Creek and North Fork-Boulder allotments under the

current systems. The specific topics I address below relate to (a) grazing management science,

under which establishing proper stocking rates based on consideration of capability criteria is an

essential component; (b) the erosion and impairment of soils, caused by overstocking and

grazing on non-capable lands, (c) the impairment of native plant communities, traced to erosion

and over-grazing; and (d) the impairment of wildlife and fisheries habitats and populations, also

traced to erosion and over-grazing.

22. Throughout this discussion, I have taken care to address the voluminous scientific

literature and data relating to proper grazing management and the ecological impacts that

unsound grazing causes, so that the Court can understand how well-established are these

principles and the ecological harms that flow from improper grazing management systems, such

as are currently seen on the North Sheep allotments.

IV. THE FOREST SERVICE HAS FAILED TO DETERMINE A SUSTAINABLE STOCKING RATE.

23. I have studied the North Sheep EIS and ROD along with other documents relating

to sheep grazing in these four allotments. The conclusion I have reached is that continuation of

sheep grazing as now practiced or as proposed in the RODs both result in substantial impairment,

and irreparable harm to watersheds, native plant communities, fish and wildlife in these

allotments. This conclusion is based on the Forest Service’s failure to take into account basic

principles of range science and ecology as well as its own history of management, resulting in its

failure to determine a sustainable stocking rate for grazing on the North Sheep allotments.


A. Importance of Capability And Other Factors In Proper Range Management.

24. Leading range management textbooks, and the principles taught in range

management courses today, underscore the fundamental point that proper grazing management

must start with determining a proper stocking rate. Failure to set a proper stocking rate results in

overstocking of allotments, which is not sustainable and causes long-term harms and impairs

productivity of the land.1

25. The textbooks also teach – and they are confirmed by extensive scientific

literature – that determining a proper stocking rate requires taking into account the size of the

area that is “capable” of livestock grazing, meaning those lands on which sustained livestock

grazing will not cause impairment of soils and native productivity. Factors to consider in

assessing capability typically include steepness of slope, erosion potential, distance to water,

ground cover, and productivity of native vegetation.2

26. Establishing a sustainable stocking rate also requires, after the “capable” lands

have been identified, properly calculating the available forage that will be used by livestock,

again without causing impairment of plant productivity, soil erosion, or other harms. This

calculation requires consideration of various factors including rates of forage production (a

combination of existing plants, precipitation, growth patterns, and other factors); amounts of

forage to be allocated to livestock versus other uses (e.g., wildlife, watershed protection,

maintaining the vigor of the plants); the amounts consumed by livestock (a function of livestock

1 Holechek, Jerry L., Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbel. 2001. Range Management Principles and Practices Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall. 587p. 2 Galt, Dee, Francisco Molinar, Joe Navarro, Jamus Joseph and Jerry Holechek. 2000. Grazing capacity and stocking rate. Rangelands 22(6):7-11.


weights, feeding habitats and needs, and other factors), and other considerations. (See Holechek,

supra). Again, failure to properly assess and account for these factors will result in setting

inappropriate stocking rates, leading to overgrazing of the lands in question.

27. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that sound grazing management

requires analysis of the lands that are “capable” of grazing; and that these other precepts must be

followed as well. In my experience, however, most range managers fail to adhere to these

scientific precepts in practice; and the North Sheep allotments are a vivid illustration of this

problem.

28. In 1964, the Regional Forester for the Forest Service’s Intermountain Region

(which includes the Sawtooth National Forest) issued a “R4 Range Analysis Handbook,” of

which I have a copy.3 The Handbook established a systematic and quantitative process for

capability analysis that was supposed to be used by the Sawtooth and other National Forests in

Region 4 to determine proper stocking rates for grazing allotments, by incorporating factors such

as slope, ground cover, risk of soil erosion, distance to water, and production of forage. This was

done in order to provide for “sustained yield… without impairment of the productivity of the

land,” in order to comply with the Multiple Use And Sustained Yield Act, passed in 1960. The

Handbook also detailed the process for determination of range condition, trend and utilization. It

recognized the importance of these measures in ensuring soil stabilization and sustained-yield of

forage by limiting livestock use levels.

29. The capability analysis process prescribed in the Handbook recognized that the

inherent soil properties – which determine soil erosion hazards – have to be considered along

3 Iverson, Floyd. 1964. R4 Range Analysis Handbook.


with slope and ground cover. These are also recognized in the Universal Soil Loss Equation,4

which also recognizes that soil loss is directly related to ground cover as well as slope and other

factors. That equation provides: “A = R•K•L•S•C•P,” where:

A = Soil loss R = Rainfall factor measuring the erosive force of a specific rainfall event K = Soil erodibility factor, or measure of resistance to erosion L = Length factor S = Gradient or slope factor C = Cover factor P = Erosion control practice factor. 30. Other fundamental range management principles, taught in range science classes

today, underscore the need to collect range condition data, to include soil and plant status at

intervals of no more than five years to determine trend, and capacity surveys at no more than ten

year intervals.5 The collection of utilization data is necessary to determine moves of livestock

between pastures and at end of season to prevent loss or depletion of sensitive native grasses and

flowering plants.6

B. The North Sheep Grazing Systems Are Not Based On Proper Range Management Considerations.

31. My review of the North Sheep and Sawtooth National Forest grazing management

documents and other records confirms that the agency has failed to follow virtually every one of

these basic precepts for sound livestock grazing management. The result is that current grazing

authorizations allow gross overstocking of the allotments, resulting in irreparable harms of many

4 Ruhe, Robert V. 1975. Geomorphology. 246p. 5 Galt, Dee, Francisco Molinar, Joe Navarro, Jamus Joseph and Jerry Holechek. 2000. Grazing capacity and stocking rate. Rangelands 22(6):7-11. 6 Holechek, Jerry L., Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbel. 2001. Range Management Principles and Practices Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall. 587p.


sorts including soil erosion, sedimentation of streams, loss of native plant productivity, and

harms to wildlife.

32. One of the most glaring problems, as the Court found in its January 2006

decision, is that the Forest Service has failed to predicate the North Sheep grazing systems upon

a proper analysis of “capable” lands.

33. The Forest Service’s North Sheep EIS (NSEIS) acknowledges that “suitable”

range on these allotments is patchy and interspersed with large blocks of non-suitable range; and

that capacity “becomes an estimate based on the amount of time required for the band to

traverse the various routes in the allotment”. (NSEIS at §3.2.1). Further, analysis of the Forest

Service data demonstrated that only small portions of these allotments contain land that is

considered “capable” of livestock grazing, based on the characteristics used by the Forest Service

of slope, distance to water, erodibility of soils and forage production (Mitchell Decl.).

Specifically, according to the Forest Service’s capability data used in connection with the revised

Sawtooth Forest Plan, these allotments include only small amounts of capable land, with Baker

Creek at 12%, Fisher Creek at 25%, Smiley Creek at 13%, and North Fork-Boulder at 15%. (Id.)

34. While the ROD eliminates a few high elevation areas from sheep grazing as being

“unsuitable,” there is no indication whatsoever that the Forest Service has based its stocking rate

on analysis of capability, despite the long-standing instruction of the 1964 Handbook to do so.

Indeed, the NSEIS notes that the capacity determination was made following an initial capability

analysis at the Forest level, and then the amount of forage available for livestock grazing was

determined on each allotment. (NSEIS at §3.2.2). The NSEIS did not specify if that

determination was made for the capable acres or the entire allotment or when it was made,


although inspection of the administrative record indicates it was probably done in the early

1960’s during the time frame when other Forests were doing these initial determinations

following publication of the 1964 R4 Range Analysis Handbook reference above.

35. The fact that only a small percentage of the allotments qualifies as “capable”

under the Forest Service criteria – at least according to the Forest Plan data and analysis, which

is the best information currently available – reveals that existing stocking levels can be presumed

to be too high, probably by orders of magnitude. As a result, one would expect to see the results

from such gross overstocking of the allotments, in the form of erosion, sedimentation, loss of

productivity, and other impacts.

36. In fact, the Administrative Record confirms that these impacts are occurring, as

documented by the Forest Service itself in identifying erosion problems, sedimentation, loss of

native vegetative communities and productivity, and other harms that are occurring. For

example:

A. The NSEIS describes the alpine and subalpine communities in the Baker Creek,

Fisher Creek, Smiley Creek and North Fork Boulder allotments as currently in a degraded

condition (NSEIS §3.7.1.1).

B. The NSEIS describes sagebrush communities as: “Late brood-rearing habitat for

sage-grouse has been impacted by livestock grazing in sagebrush communities and adjacent

riparian areas where suitable grouse habitat is present. Species composition of the vegetation

has been simplified resulting in a reduction of the quantity and quality of forbs for food and for

attracting insects for juvenile grouse, as well as a reduction in escape cover.” (NSEIS

§3.2.2.3.2, emphasis added).


C. The NSEIS describes these communities as either losing productivity as for the

riparian and sagebrush areas described above, while aspen is described as a minor component of

lower elevation forested areas and dying out due to fire exclusion and grazing. (NSEIS §3.8.1).

37. The record further reflects that the Forest Service has long recognized numerous

problems in implementing its grazing systems as intended, which is another sign that those

systems are not sustainable. For example:

A Among the problems identified in the Smiley Creek allotment were: inability to

maintain once-over grazing; failure to keep sheep off stream banks after August 1; and non-

compliance with the one-night bedding practices. (NSEIS at §3.2.2.2).

B. Problems identified in the North Fork Boulder allotment included similar

difficulties in maintaining once-over grazing and one night bedding practices. (NSEIS at

§3.2.2.3).

C. The Baker Creek allotment was changed from fixed dates for pasture moves in

1998 to once-over grazing without specific dates because it “was found to be impractical”.

Problems identified included an inability to maintain once-over grazing and one night bedding.

Also, the system required “a number of different routes” to manage the grazing system of

deferment and rest. “Areas of concern exist where once-over grazing is not occurring or where

sheep are allowed to stay in one area too long. These areas include portions of the East Fork of

Baker Creek, Newman Corral, wyethia-dominant areas in Quadrant Gulch/Dooley Creek, and

other areas throughout the allotment where canyons are too narrow for sheep to graze and

return, or forage is lacking…. During the grazing season it is also unknown exactly where the

bands graze and for how long.(emphasis added)” (NSEIS at §3.2.2.4). This is further reinforced


by the statement in Desired Condition for rangeland resources (NSEIS at §3.2.3) that “The

topography of the allotments is the main issue. Many areas that currently support grazing lie in

narrow canyons where useable forage occurs intermittently, making it difficult to properly graze

the allotted forage base without harming the areas that lie between the islands of forage.”

38. In these statements, the NSEIS documents the failure of the existing management

system. Yet remarkably, the Forest Service has simply continued these same systems in the

RODs. While the RODs eliminate a few high elevation areas from sheep grazing, and minimally

reduce sheep numbers to reflect that reduction, they adopt the prior “once-over light” grazing

practices combined with a so-called “adaptive management” approach, to resolve grazing

problems that resulted in admitted degradation.

39. I am struck by the fact that the Fisher Creek allotment management plan (AMP)

was approved in April 1966; the Smiley Creek AMP was approved in March 1967; the North

Fork-Boulder Creek AMP was approved August 1979; and the Baker Creek AMP was approved

in December 1980. Depending on the allotment, the Forest Service has thus had between 25 and

40 years to adaptively manage these allotments to correct problems in the grazing systems; but

has failed to do so. Now, with only cosmetic changes, the agency seeks to repeat that process.

Its failure to recognize that these systems and “adaptive management” have not succeeded

confirms my analysis that the existing grazing is not sustainable, and will continue to cause

irreparable ecological harm if allowed to continue.


V. IMPAIRMENT OF SOILS FROM CONTINUED SHEEP GRAZING.

40. One of the most troubling problems with the Forest Service’s current grazing

systems for the North Sheep allotments is the impairment of soils that is already occurring, and

which will certainly continue if the grazing is not halted.

41. The NSEIS (§3.1) describes the effect of the Proposed Action and alternatives on

soils as, “Grazing (vegetation removal, manure and urine, hoof action, etc.) can affect soils and

soil productivity in various ways, some negative (e.g., increased erosion, loss of topsoil, and

decreased productivity) and some positive (e.g., increased organic matter, increased water

infiltration, and increased seedling establishment).” The NSEIS got it right regarding the

negative effects.7,8 However, in claiming benefits from grazing, the Forest Service relied on

flawed science flowing from the short-duration grazing strategy promoted by Allan Savory that

has been refuted by scientific studies.

42. I have collected soil samples from grazed and ungrazed areas in northern Utah

sagebrush and conifer forests, as well as areas grazed at differing levels of use. These samples

show long-term declines in soil nitrogen and carbon with increases in grazing intensity. Soil

pits dug at the sample sites showed soils in long-term ungrazed areas had ground cover greater

than 90% and well-defined organic horizons with root masses holding the soil together. In

grazed areas, ground cover was greatly reduced, the soil horizon had become depleted of organic

matter, destabilized and lacked root structure, making the soil more susceptible to erosion.9

7 Belsky, A.J., 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. 8 Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology, 8(3):629-644. 9 Carter, John G. 2003. North Rich Allotment Draft Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Comments. Report of Western Watersheds Project.


Other studies in Utah have shown declines of 60–70% in surface soil C and N in grazed sites

relative to never-grazed sites.10

43. The claims that livestock grazing results in increased organic matter, increased

water infiltration, and increased seedling establishment have also been refuted. The claim of

increased organic matter is false as a basic ecological proposition. Livestock remove forage that

contains carbon and nitrogen, expending energy as they graze. They gain weight and excrete

urine and manure. When they leave the allotment, their weight gain accomplished by the

consumption of forage goes with them. Nearly all the nitrogen in animal feces and urine is lost

by volatilization to the atmosphere.11 This energy expenditure from grazing and exporting of

weight gains results in a net loss of carbon and nitrogen from the allotment.

44. Forage contains approximately 1.7% nitrogen (Holechek et al. supra). In the

Baker Creek allotment, using weight estimates at the low end for sheep, I calculated the current

annual forage consumption by sheep at about 1,900,000 pounds. This indicates an annual

removal rate of nitrogen of over 32,000 pounds from the allotment. This means that over the

history of grazing on these allotments there has been a constant export of nitrogen through

livestock consumption of forage, weight gain and export in addition to major losses by soil

erosion. Like growing corn in the same field for 100 years without fertilizer, these constantly

grazed lands have gradually declined in productivity through direct loss of the vegetation

community coupled with the loss of topsoil and nutrients. Under continued grazing, they will

continue to do so, regardless of the grazing system.

10 Neff, J. C., R. L. Reynolds, J. Belnap, and P. Lamothe. 2005. Multi-decadal impacts of grazing on soil physical and biogeochemical properties in Southeast Utah. Ecological Applications 15(1):87-95. 11 West, Neil E. 1981. Nutrient cycling in desert ecosystems. In: Arid Land Ecosystems: Structure, Functioning and Management, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press.


45. A recent study from Oregon State University compared riparian areas that had

been rested from livestock grazing for 9 – 18 years to those continuing to be grazed. Below

ground biomass of roots was 50% higher in the rested areas. Nutrient cycling rates of nitrogen

were 32- to 149 times greater in the rested areas than in those continuing to be grazed.12

46. The claim in the NSEIS (§3.3), that sheep grazing improves soil infiltration rates

is also false. Hoof action has not been demonstrated to improve infiltration; in fact, the opposite

is true. In a review of short-duration grazing systems in North America, it was shown that

grazing a large number of animals on an area for a short period of time reduces infiltration,

increases erosion and reduces soil organic matter and nitrogen.13 In the Oregon State study cited

above, infiltration rates in ungrazed wet meadows were 233% higher and in dry meadows 1300%

higher than in grazed areas. “The combination of grazing and trampling reduces grass cover,

availability of water and air to the roots and grass species can change from perennial to annual

and from deep-rooted to shallow-rooted. Removal of plant biomass by grazing and lessened

production can reduce the fertility and organic matter content of the soil”. 14

47. Similarly, the claim in the NSEIS that seedling establishment is increased by

livestock grazing is false. At the most basic level of consideration, the plants on these allotments

are grazed during the growing season with the result that flowers and seeds are consumed along

with the plants, thus sheep grazing reduces the seed pool at its source. Plant communities

12 Kauffman, J. Boone, Andrea S. Thorpe, and E.N. Jack Brookshire. 2004. Livestock exclusion and belowground ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications 14(6):1671-1679. 13 Holechek, Jerry L., Hilton Gomez, Francisco Molinar, Dee Galt, and Raul Valdez. 2000. Short-duration grazing: the facts in 1999. Rangelands 21(5):18-22. 14 Trimble, Stanley W. and Alexandra C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent – a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233-253.


occurring on soils with compacted surfaces and lowered water holding capacity from grazing or

other uses decline and are inherently more likely to provide reduced seed germination.

48. The NSEIS (§3.3.1) describes soil properties in the four allotments by the various

land types. Productivity ratings are low for 15 of 20 types; fertility ratings are low for 17 of 20

types and erodibility is high for 10 of 20 types. Many of these soils are granitic. (NSEIS Table

3-2). The 1964 R4 Range Analysis Handbook cited earlier specifically discussed the dangers of

grazing on granitic soils. The Handbook states, “Coarse soils from sandstones and granitic

parent rock are often so loose that livestock grazing over the slopes will cause them to slough

downhill, which results in burying of plants and exposure of roots. Some plants are even pulled

up or trampled out of the ground. It is almost impossible for seedlings to become established on

such slopes under grazing use.” (Emphasis added).

49. That Forest Service Handbook, based on research by Forest Scientists, also

required that a minimum of 60 – 70% ground cover was necessary to protect slopes from

excessive runoff and erosion from moderately high summer thunderstorms. I have reviewed that

research and other published studies. These and the Universal Soil Loss Equation make clear

that increased runoff and accelerated erosion begin at any level below potential ground cover.

Dr. Paul E. Packer, who conducted these studies in the early 1950’s, provided me with a recent

manuscript that included the graphs of his data from those studies. These are shown in Figure 1

below and show the effects of increased storm intensity and reduced ground cover at different

slopes on runoff and erosion. I have seen no evidence that the SNF has considered ground cover

in its analysis of capability or erosion.


Figure 1. Runoff and Soil Erosion as a Function of Ground Cover15

50. The steep watersheds and drainages in the North Sheep allotments are subject to

high snowmelt and overland flow; and as noted in the NSEIS, “high intensity thunderstorms

occurring in this same time period can create flash flooding and damage to streambanks from

channel erosion.” (NSEIS at §3.3.3). I have observed flash flooding in watersheds continuing

to be grazed by sheep in the Uinta Wilderness from just light thunderstorms, while intense

thunderstorms in the ungrazed drainages are absorbed into the watershed with small changes in

flow.

51. A 20 year study by the U. S. Geological Survey in Colorado evaluated the

difference in sediment yield and runoff in watersheds grazed by livestock and afterwards when

grazing was halted. Complete grazing exclusion resulted in a reduction of 40% of runoff over

the 20-year period, and sediment yield decreased by 63 percent.16 Another study in Arizona

15 Packer, Paul E. undated. Current Manuscript of Watershed Research in Utah and Idaho National Forests. 16 Lusby, Gregg C. 1979. Effects of Grazing on Runoff and Sediment Yield from Desert Rangeland at Badger Wash in Western Colorado, 1953 – 1973. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1532-1.


found sediment yield 20-fold higher in a grazed watershed when compared to an ungrazed

watershed.17

52. The NSEIS also described various other limitations and problems in these

allotments. High elevation uplands in the Fisher Creek allotment were described as being

exposed to high amounts of runoff that lead to high surface erosion and mass failures. Slopes of

30 – 60% occur there. (NSEIS at §3.3.1.1).

53. The NSEIS described the Smiley Creek allotment as having sensitive areas such

as Wet Alluvial Lands that are saturated with water during parts or all of the year. Heavy

grazing in this landtype leads to trampling damage, which decreases productivity and increases

streambank erosion. Other soils are granitic in origin, some with slopes of 50 – 80% where

“most uses can be detrimental, with soil and hydrologic impacts”. (NSEIS at §3.3.1.2 and

3.3.1.3).

54. The NSEIS described the Baker Creek allotment as having soils that are “very

sensitive to management activities and uses,” including volcanic lands “adjacent to Anderson

Creek, Butterfield Creek, Logged Canyon, tributaries of Baker Creek (Lost Shirt Gulch, Newman

Creek, East and South Forks of Baker Creek, and Alden Gulch), lower sections of Oregon and

Adam’s Gulches, [that] have been severely impacted by grazing and other management

activities. … Forage production in non-forested lands in this area have been reduced

significantly as a result of the loss of productive topsoil.” (NSEIS at §3.3.1.4).

17 White, Richard K., Robert W. VanKeuren, Lloyd B. Owens, William M. Edwards and Roberty H. Miller. 1983. Effects of livestock pasturing on non-point surface runoff. Project Summary, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA-600/S2-83-011. 6p.


55. The North Fork Boulder allotment was described as containing lands “in

proximity to Silver Creek, Snow Creek, Easley Creek, and Boulder Creek … . Soil depth and

productivity have been reduced greatly in these areas, as a result of historic management

activities, particularly the sheep driveway and overgrazing…. Mountain slope lands adjacent to

Leroux Creek, Eagle Creek, Neal Canyon, and upper and middle sections of Dip Creek. … Only

a few areas within these lands maintain natural erosion rates. … The removal of large amounts

of topsoil from these lands has lead to the reduction of productivity potential and water holding

capacity.” In the lower sections of Deep Creek, “Historic grazing has led to the removal of

most of the topsoil in this area.” (EIS at §3.3.1.5).

56. The detrimental soil disturbances that impair soil productivity in these allotments

are claimed in the NSEIS to be limited to sheep bedding, nooning areas, stream crossings, and

other localized activities such as roads and dispersed camping. Sheep graze the Baker Creek

allotment for about 120 days. Assuming the herders follow the one-night-bedding rule, this

means there are 120 separate bedding, nooning and watering places, or a total of 360 places

detrimentally disturbed by these activities alone in only one season. One must multiply this by

the years past and going forward to gain a true perspective of the growing damage by these

practices in addition to the trailing and grazing. In the NSEIS, detrimentally disturbed soils are

given as <5% for the Fisher Creek, Smiley Creek, and Baker Creek allotments with no value

provided for the North Fork Boulder allotment. The NSEIS does not assess the detrimentally

disturbed soils as a percent of the capable acres where it claims sheep are grazing. Instead, the

percentages are derived by using the area of the entire allotment. If, for example, the

approximately 5% detrimental soil disturbance in the Baker Creek allotment was adjusted to


account for the fact that only 12% of the land in the allotment is capable, the detrimental soil

disturbance would be 33%, far in excess of the 15% allowable in an activity area that is claimed

in the NSEIS. If the SNF had included the other areas of soil loss, inadequate ground cover,

steep slopes and erodible soils in these allotments, the detrimental soil disturbance would have

been much higher. After all, accelerated erosion is a detrimental disturbance in itself.

57. All of these factors demonstrate that current grazing on the North Sheep

allotments has resulted in, and will certainly continue to cause, soil erosion and impairment

through various processes. There can be no doubt that these harms are “irreparable” either.

Native soils have been formed during the past hundreds to thousands of years where physical and

chemical weathering has acted on geologic materials.18 When the glaciers retreated

approximately 12,000 years ago, they left fresh parent material for soil formation.19 The soils in

these allotments have developed over these thousands of years post-glaciation. Their loss

requires long periods without grazing to recover; and that will not be achieved by continued

sheep grazing on these steep and highly erodible landscapes.

VI. IMPAIRMENT OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES BY CONTINUED SHEEP GRAZING.

58. Impairment of soils and erosion on the North Sheep allotments from continued

sheep grazing is not only irreparable harm in itself, but it also leads to impairment of native plant

communities, as the scientific literature and the record here again demonstrate.

59. The NSEIS (§3.7) describes the effects of sheep grazing on plant communities as

a result of “sheep’s dietary preferences, trampling, hoof impact on soils, bedding, nooning and

18 Sencindiver, J.C., J. C. Skousen, and J. M Gorman. 2000. Soil horizon development on a mountaintop surface mine in Southern West Virginia. West Virginia University Extension. Green Lands Magazine, Summer 2000. 19 http://www.soils.wisc.edu/courses/SS325/formation.htm#time


watering habits.” Grazing effects to special status plant species were characterized as:

“potentially impact such species directly (e.g. by actual consumption or trampling) or indirectly

(e.g. soil compaction, loss of pollinator habitat, changes in species composition, altering actual

or potential habitat.” There are dozens of special status species on these allotments. Noxious

weeds are also raised as a concern, and while the NSEIS (§3.7.3.1) claims weeds are “not

expanding in size,” in the very next paragraph states, “Specifically, the expansion of non-native

plants within the Forest is outpacing containment and control efforts.”

60. The NSEIS (§3.2.1) states that, “Combined with rest and/or deferred rotation,

once-over grazing allows the vegetative resource to fully recover from the impacts of grazing

before the next season of scheduled grazing use.” While the NSEIS and RODs reiterate “once-

over light use” as the goal, they do not define “light use.” Inspection of the capacity survey data

from the record indicates this may be 40% utilization. (Administrative Record NS02306). Forty

percent is not light use, which studies have determined to be 32%20

61. Even if “light use” could be achieved, the NSEIS does not take into account the

well-known principles that the 1964 Handbook addressed. This was the concept of Desirable,

Intermediate and Least Desirable forage plants. The more desirable plants are preferentially

selected and decrease under grazing pressure. These are known as “decreasers”.21 This basic

concept was enunciated in 1949 and explains the replacement of sensitive native plant species by

non-natives or less palatable plants under continuing grazing pressure.

20 Holecek, Jerry L., Hilton Gomez, Francisco Molinar, and Dee Galt. 1999. Grazing studies: what we’ve learned. Rangelands 21(2):12-16. 21 Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Condition and management of range land based on quantitative ecology. Journal of Range Management 2:104-115.


62. The scientific literature explains how impairment of soil productivity (as

discussed above) leads to declining and lost plant community productivity, as seen in these four

allotments. West (1983) indicated that by 1930, due to livestock grazing, the loss of palatable

herbaceous vegetation in the sagebrush-steppe had reduced forage capacity by 60 to 90%.22 This

section deals with the effects of grazing systems on plant communities and their productivity to

demonstrate that continued grazing of these allotments will not allow for “moving toward”

Desired Future Conditions, let alone maintain native plant communities. As I have described

earlier, millions of pounds of forage are removed annually under current sheep numbers. The

NSEIS itself describes various deferment and rotation schemes it has tried with their resultant

failures and problems, demonstrating decades of inability to manage grazing on these allotments.

63. Numerous long-term studies of grazing systems such as deferment and rest-

rotation have been reviewed and the results published. In a study in big sagebrush range in

Nevada, “Rest and deferment were not sufficient to overcome the effects of periodic heavy use on

primary forage plants when rest-rotation grazing was applied on big sagebrush range in

northern Nevada.” In an Arizona study comparing winter-spring grazing with summer-fall rest

to continuous grazing, the rotation scheme was inferior to the year-long system from the

standpoint of perennial grass density and production. Perennial grass production was closely

associated with the degree of use and was highest where grazing use was lowest. In a Vale,

Oregon study, lasting over 20 years at moderate grazing intensity, rotational grazing showed no

advantage over season-long grazing in improving range condition or forage production. “The

22 West, Neil E. 1983. Western Intermountain Sagebrush Steppe. In Temperate Deserts and Semi-deserts, edited by N. E. West. Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Amsterdam. P351-373.


key factor in range improvement appeared to be the reductions in grazing intensities that were

applied when the project was initiated...”.23

64. Results from 18 western grazing system studies found that adjustment of livestock

numbers, or stocking intensity was more important than implementing grazing systems to

improve herbage production.24 Forest Service research scientists recognized almost 20 years

ago that “… although grazing systems have great intuitive appeal, they are apparently of less

consequence than once thought. In fact as long as good management is practiced so that there is

control of livestock distribution and grazing intensity, the specific grazing system employed may

not be significant.”25

65. A critical omission in grazing management today is the failure to provide

adequate rest in order to maintain sensitive native plants such as perennial bunchgrasses or

important flowering plants that fix nitrogen and serve pollinators. The original guidance for rest-

rotation grazing was provided by Forest Service scientists and was based on intensive field

studies that documented the losses of these sensitive native plants under grazing pressure.26 The

authors stated, “While the idea of incorporating rest in grazing management is not new, the

concept of longer rest periods than have heretofore (been) recommended, at least for mountain

bunchgrass ranges, and of closer correlation of resting and grazing with plant growth

requirements, is new.”

23 Holechek, Jerry L., Hilton de Souza Gomes, Francisco Molinar and Dee Galt. 1998. Grazing intensity: critique and approach. Rangelands 20(5):15-18. 24 Van Poollen, H.W. and J. R. Lacey. 1979. Herbage response to grazing systems and stocking intensities. Journal of Range Management 32:250-253. 25 Clary Warren and Bert Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. Intermountain Research Station, Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-263. 26 Hormay, A. L. and M. W. Talbot. 1961. Rest-rotation Grazing – A New Management System for Perennial Bunchgrass Ranges. USDA Forest Service Production Research Report No. 51.


66. That study determined that even with the rest-rotation system, some areas were

more heavily used than others. Their clipping studies, which simulated grazing, demonstrated

that plant regrowth was minimal on clipped specimens, and clipping during active growth

reduced total herbage yield during that year. A single season of clipping reduced basal area of

forbs and grasses the next year. Four consecutive seasons of clipping reduced the basal area of

Idaho fescue 80%, bottlebrush squirreltail 62%, longspur lupine 91% and wooly wyethia 16%.

Four years’ rest after four years’ clipping resulted in little or no recovery of Idaho fescue, wooly

wyethia and longspur lupine, a plant important in fixing atmospheric nitrogen.

67. They also found that cool-season grasses such as Idaho fescue varied in

production by a factor of three due to changes in annual precipitation, while the beginning of

growth varied by up to a month with similar variations on time to flowering and seed ripening.

The basic principle enunciated by these scientists, based on their quantitative research, was to

require adequate years’ of complete rest (emphasis added) from grazing to allow the native

plants to recover their vigor before again being grazed. They determined that three years’ rest

out of five would be necessary to maintain plant vigor and that it was important to include

adequate monitoring of each grazed unit or pasture to ensure that these rest periods were

sufficient to maintain or restore production.

68. Additional research emphasized that rest requirements for key species of native

bunchgrass can be critical for recovery. Grazing effects on bluebunch wheatgrass, a key native

grass occurring in different plant communities on these allotments, are described in a BLM

publication. “Effects of growing season defoliation injury are well documented: basal area,

stem numbers and both root and forage yields are reduced and mortality can be high. …


Defoliation to very short stubble heights during the boot stage has been reported to essentially

eliminate plants within as few as three years. … Vigor recovery has been found to require most

of a decade, even with complete protection from grazing.” (emphasis added). A one-time

removal of 50% of the shoot system during active growth may require six years’ rest even in an

area with 17” precipitation.27

69. A paper by a Forest Service research scientist showed that another native

perennial bunchgrass occurring on these allotments, Idaho fescue, of moderately low vigor

required 3 years of rest for recovery, and plants of bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue in

very low vigor may require 8 years and 6 years of rest, respectively, for recovery.28

70. Studies at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory

(INEEL, now INL) in central Idaho, following exclusion of livestock, demonstrated that

recovery of perennial grasses was slow, but nevertheless it gradually occurred. Basal area of

perennial grasses increased from 0.28% to 5.8% over 25 years29. It was also documented that

cheatgrass was less competitive and less able to establish in areas where native perennial grasses

were thriving.30, 31

27 Anderson, Loren D. 1991. Bluebunch wheatgrass defoliation, effects and recovery – A Review. BLM Technical Bulletin 91-2, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 28 Mueggler, W.F. 1975. Rate and pattern of vigor recovery in Idaho fescue and Bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 28(3):198-204. 29 Anderson, Jay E. and Karl E. Holte. 1981. Vegetation development over 25 years without grazing on sagebrush-dominated rangeland in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Range Management 34(1):25-29. 30 Anderson, Jay E. and Richard S. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in plant species abundance and biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over 45 years. Ecological Monographs 71(4):531-556. 31 Heady, H.F. and R. D. Child. 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Westview Press, San Francisco, California.


71. Another study found it took between 20 to 40 years for bunchgrasses to fully

recover from poor to excellent condition under complete rest.32 Eighteen years of livestock

exclusion of an area heavily grazed for 50 years resulted in a decrease in unpalatable forbs and

shrubs, while grass cover, herbage yield, litter cover and water absorption were greater in the

protected areas than in those areas that continued to be grazed.33

72. A study of long-term riparian exclosures compared to adjacent areas that

continued to be grazed found that, after 30 years, willow canopy cover was 8.5 times greater in

livestock exclosures than in adjacent grazed riparian areas. Grasses were 4 to 6 times greater in

cover within the exclosure than outside. Mean peak standing crop of grasses within the

exclosure was 2,410 Kg/Ha, while outside the grazed area in caged plots, mean peak standing

crop was 1,217 Kg/Ha, or a loss of half in productivity by continued livestock grazing.34

73. The North Sheep allotments have been grazed for decades, apparently without

rest during drought and below normal precipitation years. Since we know that plant production

varies in response to those conditions of reduced precipitation, with reduced production, failure

to adjust stocking rates during times of low precipitation will result in light grazing becoming

“heavy” grazing, and this will be accompanied by loss of productivity.35

74. I have analyzed precipitation data at the Ketchum Ranger Station. This data

shows that 17 of 32 years since 1973 were below normal in precipitation, leading to a resultant

32 McLean, A. and E.W. Tisdale. 1972. Recovery rate of depleted range sites under protection from grazing. Journal of Range Management 25:178-184 33 Evanko, Anthony B. and Roald A. Peterson. 1955. Comparisons of protected and grazed mountain rangelands in southwestern Arizona. Ecology 36(1):71-82. 34 Schulz, Terri T and Wayne C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43(4):295-299. 35 Galt, Dee, Greg Mendez, Jerry Holechek and Jamus Joseph. 1999. Heavy winter grazing reduces forage production: an observation. Rangelands 21(4):18-21


lowering of production36. A graph for the period of record showing drought years is provided in

Figure 2 below.37 For the 110-year period of record, 24 years were drought years. During the

past 25 years, 13 years have been classified as drought years, or over 50%.

75. A Utah study in 1953 recommended that 25 – 30 % use of all forage species by

livestock was proper use. Due to lowered plant productivity in below normal precipitation years,

they recommended this level because routinely stocking at capacity would result in overgrazing

in half the years. Even with this system, they recognized that complete destocking would be

needed in 2 or 3 out of ten years due to drought.38 The North Sheep allotments would have been

destocked in half of the past 25 years if these principles were followed.

76. The analysis I have provided in the preceding paragraphs shows that grazing has

been conducted in a manner that has inevitably lead to continuing losses in soil and plant

36 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?idketc 37 http://www.weatherperspectives.com/Idaho/id4-1.JPG 38 Hutchings, S.S. and G. Stewart. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production on Intermountain winter ranges. U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular 925. 63p


productivity. The failure to control utilization of sensitive native plants, to adequately measure

that use, to provide adequate rest to protect these populations from decline, and the failure to

account for drought have lead to irreparable losses in soil and native plant productivity. Even

though the Forest Service has had decades to properly manage these allotments to restore and

maintain productivity, it has not done so and the existing research I have cited shows that long-

term rest is needed to begin the recovery process.

VII. IMPAIRMENT OF STREAMS, FISH, AND WILDLIFE.

77. NSEIS § 3.8 describes the general conflicts between special status terrestrial

wildlife species and sheep grazing as “disturbance/displacement, feeding competition, or

physical impacts to habitat.” Predator control efforts for coyotes, mountian lions and black

bears are described, mischaracterizing black bears as predators when their diet is 97% plant

material.39 While the use of the allotments as winter range for elk is mentioned, forage

competition with elk during the spring, summer and fall is not mentioned. Bighorn sheep effects

are limited to transmission of disease from domestic sheep. No analysis of the forage and habitat

competition between domestic sheep and wildlife is provided to show the potential losses of wild

animals caused by direct loss of their forage base or displacement of wildlife from favored

habitats. Likewise, no analysis of the effects of sedimentation on fish populations has been

made, even though this was described in the NSEIS as the most important factor for fish habitats.

The following sections analyze these impacts to illustrate continuing harms and losses of wildlife

and fish populations.

39 UDWR. 2000. Utah Black Bear Management Plan. Black Bear Discussion Group. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication No. 00-23.


A. Impairment to Terrestrial Wildlife Populations

78. The NSEIS acknowledges that many species of wildlife rely on these allotments

for food and habitat. “Habitat for big game species including antelope, elk, and mule deer

occurs throughout the allotments, from high to low elevation in forested and non-forested areas.

Sage grouse were once common in the sagebrush habitats but have declined and potentially been

extirpated from the Upper Salmon River Valley. Much of the area within the allotments provides

nesting and foraging habitat for migratory land birds and general habitat for wide-ranging

mammals such as wolverine, elk, bears, mountain lions, and wolves.”

79. The NSEIS admits problems with habitat. For example, “Many aspen stands are

dying out or being replaced by conifers due to fire exclusion. Drought and grazing impacts are

also contributing toward the decline in aspen. Of note, the declining condition of sagebrush

habitats has reduced the quality of sage-grouse habitat in all allotments.” (NSEIS 3.8.1) NSEIS

§3.8.2.1.2 states, “Elk, mule deer, and antelope occur in the allotments during the spring,

summer, and fall, and some elk use portions of the Fisher Creek and North Fork–Boulder

allotments during the winter. These species provide prey opportunities for wolves. Livestock

grazing has reduced foraging opportunities for large ungulates to some degree in localized

areas within the allotments, although the overall impact to the forage base in the allotments is

likely minor given the current practice of once-over grazing. Grazing has affected regeneration

of willow and aspen in portions of the allotments and has reduced the quantity and diversity of

forb species in sagebrush and meadow habitats, which has in turn reduced browse and forage

for big game and subsequent prey opportunities for wolves.”


80. The NSEIS noted that Canada lynx, “once occurred throughout the Salmon River

watershed and recent sightings have occurred.” Lynx analysis units (LAU) occur in the

allotments, comprising significant acreages of the allotments. The NSEIS gives the percentages

of LAUs accessible to sheep as: Fisher Creek (98%), Smiley creek (91%), North Fork Boulder

(74%), Baker Creek (91%). Lynx and goshawk rely on small mammals such as snowshoe hare

for prey. (NSEIS §3.8.2.1.1). But, the SNF provided no analysis of the loss in prey species

through direct forage competition with sheep.

81. I will use the example of forage consumption by domestic sheep to illustrate

losses in potential wildlife numbers by forage competition with sheep. There is a large degree of

dietary overlap between bighorn sheep, pronghorn, deer, elk, bears, sage grouse, pygmy rabbits

and many of the wildlife species occurring in these allotments. (Holechek et al, Supra)

82. As long ago as 1962 it was determined that heavy grazing of mule deer winter

range resulted in a serious reduction or near elimination of perennial grasses and forbs which

created a serious forage deficiency in early spring and summer when deer rely on the new

growth. During fawn rearing, the combination of inadequate forage on overgrazed spring range

coupled with poor winter range was found responsible for heavy fawn mortality. The depletion

of herbaceous species by livestock, especially perennial forbs on summer range, limited

reproduction in does.40

83. Sage grouse rely on flowering plants and insects for food as well as grass and forb

cover during nesting and brood rearing, which occur in spring and summer.41

40 Julander, Odell. 1962. Range management in relation to mule deer habitat and herd productivity in Utah. Journal of Range Management 15(5):278-281 41 Connelly, John W., Michael A. Schroeder, Alan R. Sands and Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.


84. I have calculated the forage needs for domestic sheep based on current USDA

published weights for ewes and lambs. Adult domestic sheep weigh from 165 to 440 pounds,42

and lambs about 129 pounds.43 A low-end estimate of the weights of a sheep and two lambs

grazing on these allotments would be 400 pounds (200 pounds for the ewe and 100 pounds each

for two lambs). The forage consumption rate for sheep given in the 1964 R4 Range Analysis

Handbook cited above was 3.3% of body weight per day consumed as air dry forage weight.

Using these estimated weights of mature sheep (ewes) and lambs with two lambs per ewe and a

total weight of 400 pounds would result in forage consumption of 13.2 pounds per day for each

mature sheep with two lambs, or 6.6 pounds per day for a mature ewe weighing 200 pounds.

85. Forage consumption rates for large wildlife species present on the four allotments

are: elk (14 lb/day), bighorn sheep (3.6 lb/day), deer (3 lb/day) and pronghorn (2.4 lb/day)3.

(Holechek et al, Supra). It can be seen that each ewe and lamb pair consumes forage equivalent

to about 1 elk, 4 bighorn sheep, 4 deer or 5 pronghorn. If you multiple these numbers by the

numbers of domestic sheep grazing these allotments, their annual forage consumption is

equivalent to the needs of thousands of each of these species of wildlife. Small mammals and

birds such as sage grouse and snowshoe hares, being much smaller, would be depleted at an

order of magnitude or more by forage competition with sheep. These forage competition effects

are additive to the habitat degradation described in the NSEIS and constitute an irreparable loss

of wildlife.

42 http://www.wildlifeprairiestatepark.org/animalpages/domestic_sheep.htm 43 http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr04/04_ch7.pdf


B. Impairment of Streams and Fish Populations.

87. The NSEIS (§3.3) describes the general effects of grazing on streams as, “grazing

can reduce soil stability on upland and riparian sites as well as streambanks. This in turn can

increase the sediment loads in streams, and sediment deposited in gravel stream bottoms can

clog and cover gravel beds.” The NSEIS (§3.3.3) also describes the other uses and problems in

riparian areas including roads, road crossings, dispersed camping, residential home construction,

diversions, localized grazing impacts, watering places, bank trampling, high-intensity

thunderstorms delivering high flows and large sediment loads to the streams (annual snowmelt

not mentioned), historic overgrazing, mining, firewood gathering, and concentrated use of

riparian areas by sheep that has, “…minimized vegetative cover on channel banks and upslope

areas, resulting in soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams.” (NSEIS §3.3.2.4).

88. The individual stream descriptions also include documentation of gully erosion,

channel instability, loss of bank cover, wide width-depth ratios, sediment loads that exceed

transport capacity, and user-created roads. (NSEIS §3.3.4) The NSEIS (§3.4) states that,

“Sedimentation of gravel spawning beds is a key concern.” Finally, the NSEIS (§3.4.3) under

its Desired Condition for aquatic habitats states that “No trend data is available, but habitat

conditions are believed to be generally improving based on a significant reduction in grazing

impacts compared to historic levels.”

89. The NSEIS (§3.3.3) notes “Surrogate measures of sediment concentration are

used by the IDEQ to determine support of beneficial uses. Depth fine measurements exceeding

28 percent are generally considered to be unhealthy for salmonid species.” The NSEIS provides

data for sediment fines for the upper Salmon River allotments, Fisher Creek and Smiley Creek. I


have analyzed these sediment data to determine the percent survival of salmonid species from

egg to emergence using research from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Research Unit44. This and

other research on the effects of fine sediments on salmonid species is reviewed in great detail in

a recent Western Watersheds Project report.45 The graph provided in Figure 3 shows the

relationship between percent sediment fines and survival of fish eggs.

Trout Survival Percent vs Sediment Fines <6.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Sediment Fines %

Egg

to E

mer

genc

e S

urvi

val %

Figure 3. Trout Survival v. Sediment Fines <6.4%

90. Figures 4 and 5 below show the sediment fines data given in the NSEIS for

streams in the North Sheep allotments that support a number of threatened and sensitive

salmonid species. These include threatened Chinook Salmon, Snake River Steelhead, Columbia

River Bull Trout, and sensitive Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Figure 4 shows that 12 of 14 streams

in the Fisher Creek and Smiley Creek allotments, for which sediment fines data have been

collected, exceed the 28% sediment fines criterion.

44 Irving, J.S., and T.C. Bjornn. 1984. Effects of substrate size composition on survival of kokanee salmon and cutthroat and rainbow trout embryos. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Technical Report 84-6, Moscow, Idaho.


Upper Salmon River Streams Fisher Creek and Smiley Cr Allotments

0102030405060708090

100

Fish

er C

r 1

Fish

er C

r 2

Fish

er C

r 3

Sm

iley

Cr

1S

mile

y C

r2

Sm

iley

Cr

WF

Sm

ilery

Cr

EF

Cab

in C

r 1

Cab

in C

r 2

Vat

Cr

Fren

chm

anC

r 1Fr

ench

man

Cr 2

Bea

ver C

r1

Bea

ver C

r2

Perc

ent S

edim

ent F

ines

Percent Fines Criteria Percent Fines

Figure 4. Percent Sediment Fines in Upper Salmon River Streams on Fisher and Smiley Creek Allotments

91. Figure 5 below summarizes the mortality of fish eggs in these streams using the

relationship in Figure 3. This analysis clearly shows that these threatened and sensitive species’

ability to reproduce is eliminated in some streams and significantly reduced in others by the

sedimentation of these streams coming from the widespread effects of sheep grazing combined

with other localized ground disturbing activities.

92. Finally, it is clear that, regardless of grazing management, at the most elemental

level, wildlife populations are suffering impairment of productivity and irreparable loss in

numbers when only forage consumption by domestic sheep is considered. They will continue to

suffer these losses while sheep grazing continues. Habitat loss further compounds this problem.

45 Ratner, Jonathan. 2004. McNeil Sediment Core Sampling of 18 Critical Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Spawning Streams. Western Watersheds Project Report.


Fish habitat is substantially impaired and populations of special status fish are suffering

irreparable harm because of the sedimentation is being generated from sheep grazing.

Upper Salmon River StreamsFisher Creek and Smiley Cr Allotments

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Fish

er C

r 1

Fish

er C

r 2

Fish

er C

r 3

Sm

iley

Cr

1S

mile

y C

r2

Sm

iley

Cr

WF

Sm

ilery

Cr

EF

Cab

in C

r 1

Cab

in C

r 2

Vat

Cr

Fren

chm

anC

r 1Fr

ench

man

Cr 2

Bea

ver C

r1

Bea

ver C

r2

Per

cent

Sur

viva

l to

Emer

genc

e

Figure 5. Predicted Mortality of Fish Eggs in Upper Salmon River Streams in Fisher and Smiley Creek Allotments

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 16, 2006, in Mendon, Utah.

Dr. John G. Carter

Attachment: CV.

lauren m. rule (isb # 6863) advocates for the west p.o. box … · 2007-01-03 · 10. my resume is...

Documents