Utah Environmental Congress

2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

2008 Results of the UEC Forest Monitoring Program

In 2008 the UEC commented on 109 Forest Service projects; filed 9 administrative appeals; filed 1 new lawsuit and signed on to a national lawsuit representing the state of UT on failure to properly analyze the reauthorization of public lands grazing permits; and continues as a plaintiff in ongoing litigation over the proposed changes to the NFMA Regulations.

Feb 2008 Mt. Dutton Litigation

The UEC filed a lawsuit against the Dixie National Forest over the proposed Mt. Dutton timber sale. UEC originally stopped this project through an administrative appeal but the Forest Service modified the project and brought it back. The UEC is litigating the decision because the Forest Service only prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) instead of a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that would have analyzed the cumulative impacts from the project on watershed quality. The Forest Service set a prescribed fire a few years ago that got out of control and literally destroyed a genetically pure population of rare Bonneville cutthroat trout. The proposed logging in the burned area will only further degrade the aquatic habitat and prevent the area from recovering on its own.

April 08 2008 NFMA regs

The UEC has been a plaintiff in the litigation challenging revisions to the 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations since the original proposed revision back in 2000. Since that time, there have been additional proposed revisions in 2005 and 2008. Last year a California Court held that the USDA that governs the Forest Service violated NEPA for failing to analyze cumulative effects, the ESA for failing to analyze threats to listed species and their habitat, and the Administrative Procedures Act, in promulgating the 2005 Rule, and enjoined the Forest Service from implementing or utilizing it. The Court ordered the USDA to conduct further analysis and evaluation of the impact of the 2005 Rule in accordance with those statutes.

In typical Bush Administration fashion, the USDA issued a new “proposed rule” (2008) that is essentially identical to the 2005 Rule. It entirely failed to analyze or disclose the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed rule on the environment. It included a six-page “biological assessment” that concluded the 2008 Rule would have no direct or indirect effect on threatened, endangered, or proposed species or to designated or proposed critical habitat. The USDA also didn’t obtain written concurrence on its “no effect” determination for the 2008 Rule from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by the ESA. In short, the DOJ continues the same arguments for the 2008 Rule as it did for the 2005 Rule. We have prevailed in all previous litigation and strongly believe we will do so again.

May 08 Multi-Grazing Allotment Lawsuit

UEC joined a lawsuit filed by Western Watersheds Project and Advocates for the West on a lawsuit challenging the use of Categorical Exclusions by the Forest Service to renew grazing permits. 

In the 2005 appropriations bill, the Republican Congress passed a rider that allowed the Forest Service to categorically exclude grazing renewals from requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under certain conditions, thereby allowing the agency to reauthorize livestock grazing on Forest Service land without analyzing the impacts of that decision in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).  The rider gave the Forest Service authority to categorically exclude (CE) up to 900 grazing allotments between fiscal years 2005 and 2007.  To date, the Forest Service has issued CEs for 730 allotments across the United States, with the bulk of them in western states. The rider expired at the end of FY 2007 (Sept. 30, 2007), but Congress extended it in the FY 2008 appropriations bill for an additional year to allow the Forest Service to CE another 170 allotments and reach the target of 900 allotments. 

While the CE decisions themselves vary slightly in language, they all reauthorize grazing on Forest Service land without an EA or EIS by claiming the decision meets the three criteria of the rider, and also state that the decisions are not subject to appeal under 36 C.F.R. Part 215, which are the regulations that normally allow environmental groups to administratively appeal NEPA decisions. 

Over the course of the last several months, various groups have sent out a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking the project records for numerous grazing CE decisions.  After reviewing these project records, the attorneys believe there are grounds to challenge a large number of these CEs for failing to comply with one or more of the rider criteria.  This lawsuit involves multiple states and over a dozen conservation groups. The UEC is representing Utah in the lawsuit for the portion involving grazing permits on National Forest lands in Utah.

May 2008 SITLA Grazing Permit

UEC placed a bid on an approximately 3,300 acre SITLA (State Institutional Trust lands) grazing permit in the Bear River Range. The permit includes 550 AUM’s (Animal Units per Month) inside the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in an area with known livestock over-grazing problems. SITLA allows anyone to bid on their livestock grazing permits – not just ranchers. UEC has been trying for years to get a grazing permit in an area that is causing damage to wildlife and their habitat. When the UEC places a bid on a permit, the current permittee (rancher) is noticed and has 60 days to match our bid or lose the permit. Thus far the rancher has always met UEC’s bid thereby paying more for the privilege of grazing his livestock on state lands than he otherwise would. When our bid is matched the money is refunded to UEC. UEC sees it as a win-win program. If the rancher meets UEC’s competitive bid then he pays more for the privilege of grazing his livestock on public lands, and UEC receives its money back to try again the following year. If UEC ever wins a permit no livestock grazing will be allowed and the UEC will initiate a volunteer program with our members and the public to rehabilitate the land for primary use by native wildlife in the area. The permit is good for 10 years.

September 2008 – Pocket Timber Sale Appeal Successful

Located on the Aquarius Plateau portion of the Dixie National Forest, between the towns of Torrey and Escalante, this 19 million board foot timber sale was the second largest to be proposed in the state since UEC formed 10 years ago.  With over 4,000 acres of combined logging units and about 10 miles of road construction, this timber sale would have destroyed one potential wilderness area and would have severely impacted a second. UEC staff met with the Dixie Supervisor in the field and the good news is that he agreed to rework the project from the bottom up with roadless area protection in mind, as well as legitimate forest restoration.

October 2008 – Center Creek Salvage sale stopped

Located on the Cedar City Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest, this sale was pulled in response to UEC’s appeal. Located about five miles northeast of Cedar Breaks National Monument, this timber sale would have harmed four Forest Service Sensitive species (Northern goshawk, Three-toed woodpecker, Townsend’s Big-eared bat, Spotted bat) according to the Wildlife Biologists report. There also would have been some harm to a potential wilderness area adjacent to the project that was overlooked by the Forest Service, which is a failure to meet obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Protecting Proposed Wilderness

During the last months of 2008 Forest Service staff contacted the UEC stating they are actively making changes to two projects following UEC’s specific recommendations. On the Ashley National Forest they will avoid logging impacts inside UEC-proposed wilderness on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. The second instance is on the Manti-La Sal NF and involves a reduction in logging in a ponderosa pine restoration project to preserve a potential wilderness area.