[ BACK ]

 

CHAPTER 3 - CURRENT CONDITIONS IN THE MONUMENT

 

In order to adequately analyze grazing impacts in the Monument and evaluate the current and proposed future grazing program, the DEIS staff must take a hard look at the current conditions in the Monument.  This entails performing rangeland health evaluations for both uplands and riparian areas across the Monument (the Monument staff have been completing these evaluations over the past 2-3 years), and then comprehensively considering the results of these evaluations, always with an eye towards cumulative impacts.  It means going through all the relevant files for the Monument grazing allotments, and studying everything from historic stocking levels to current permitted use and actual use, to years of trend data and utilization levels for those allotments.

 

The authors of this report have begun to analyze the completed rangeland health assessments and the various grazing-related data mentioned above.  Based on thisinitial review, below we outline the chief problems related to resource degradation that are obvious in the GSENM (Section 3.1), such as loss of riparian and spring water sources, the spread of exotic plants, the decline of native and rare species, and changes in plant community composition, structure and productivity.

 

Then, we explain why the above problems are real (Section 3.2) – not just degradation that we suspect has occurred or which we think we see when we visit the Monument.  Rather, the level of degradation of these resources is adequately captured by various studies and data collected over the years, chiefly by the BLM but also by other researchers working in the Monument.

 

Based on the current conditions in the Monument in which rangelands fail to meet the rangeland health standards, an initial assessment of the various causes of degradation should be made, before the formal process of determinations in undertaken.  We make the case that, in general, most of the biotic resource degradation evident in the GSENM can be tied in one way or another to livestock grazing (Section 3.3, however, often livestock grazing impacts act in close conjunction with drought, or poor soils, and in these cases the true impacts of grazing are more difficult to tease out).  However, we also make the case that problems with monitoring, data collection and even the rangeland health assessment methods themselves and how they are performed and results analyzed can further cloud the issue of what exactly is leading to resource degradation (Section 3.4).  Similarly, various problems we see with grazing management in the Monument can compound impacts caused by livestock grazing in GSENM (Section 3.5).

 

 

3.1 Ecological Health: identifying compromised habitat

 

When the Monument was founded in 1996, the President made clear that one of the fundamental values for which the National Monument was established was to protect its outstanding biological diversity.  The management plan reinforces the objective to manage so as to prevent damage to the GSENM’s biological resources (Plan at pgs 3-5). 

 

            Unfortunately, there are many examples where the natural resources, natural processes, and biological diversity of the Monument are being compromised.  Specifically, we see four areas where habitat condition has been severely compromised over time: loss of riparian and spring water sources and habitat, the spread of exotic plants, the decline of native and rare species, and overall changes in plant community composition, structure and productivity.

           

 3.1.1  Loss of riparian and spring habitat, and consequences.   The Monument’s management plan is direct in terms of the importance of maintaining riparian zones and wetlands in good health.  The plan states, “the overall objective with respect to riparian resources within the Monument is to manage riparian areas so as to maintain or restore them to properly functioning conditions and to ensure that stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate to the local soil type, climate and landform” (Plan at pg 20).  The plan also states, “the BLM will place a priority on protecting riparian and water resrouces as they relate to fish and wildlife” (Plan at pg 12).

 

                              Yet, based on the most current field research conducted by the Monument staff,[1] there are currently 71 springs and seeps within the Monument that are either Functioning At Risk (FAR) with a downward trend, or Not Functioning (NF) at all.  In addition, 48 riparian areas are in the same poor shape (NF or FAR with downward trend).1  Moreover, recent vegetation research conducted in the Monument hasfound that rare habitats, such as aspen, wet meadows, and riparian areas, are the most heavily invaded habitats by aggressive exotic plants (NREL 2002).  

 

                        Wetlands, including both riparian areas and springs, are key to the maintenance of biodiversity within the Monument. The Management plan readily acknowledges this, stating, “riparian areas, though totaling less than 1% of the total lands in the Monument, are some of the most productive [and] ecologically valuable…areas” (Plan at pg. 13).  In addition to supporting rich endemic floras, wetlands are the most productive communities in the arid southwest landscape, with riparian areas in particular providing essential habitat for wildlife breeding, wintering, and migration (Ricketts et al. 1999,Stevens et al. 1977).  Riparian habitats in the Southwest are home to the North American continent’s highest breeding bird density (Carothers et al. 1974)and more than one hundred state and federally threatened and endangered species (Johnson 1989).  As such, these riparian areas are therefore crucial for much of the Monument’s wildlife. Although most terrestrial vertebrates in the Monument use a large range of habitats, most are dependent on stream, riparian and other wetland habitats during either seasonal migrations or seasons and years when surrounding habitats are dry and unproductive.   Riparian corridors are essential not only to migratory vertebrates but to fishes and small terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates, which are distributionally restricted to these unique habitats (Davidson 1999).  Two of seven recognized centers of endemism for fishes of the western United States are within the Monument, and these organisms clearly rely on functioning streams and rivers (Belnap 1998, Davidson et al. 1996).

 

                        Some of the rarest species in the Monument and the most spectacular biotic assemblages are those associated with the springs and seeps that dot the landscape within the Grand Staircase- Escalante region (Rushforth 1999).  Just as areas with distinctive soil types are inhabited by their own special floras, the uniqueness of spring and seep habitats usually translates into unusual species communities.  Isolation may lead as well to genetic differentiation, in which particular sub-populations of plants and animals have adapted to local conditions in a given spring or seep (EDF 1995, Davidson 1999).  Moreover, because of the relative isolation of these sites from other areas of similar habitat, their recovery from any form of disturbance is likely to be impeded markedly by the difficulty of recolonization from similar habitats that may be miles away. 

 

                        When springs and riparian areas are degraded and not functioning properly, a myriad of secondary effects ripple through the ecosystem and biotic communities.  For example, one symptom of degraded riparian zones is a lowered water table, which in turn reduces the capacity for water storage in the system, and ultimately reduces or eliminates perennial flows (Chaney et al. 1993,EPA 1993).  Degraded streams tend to see accrual of sediments in the channel, alteration of channel substrates, transformation of pools to riffles, widening of the channel, and channel incision.  This type of loss in stream channel integrity and diversity is a deleterious modification of aquatic habitat (EPA 1993), with potentially profound effects on aquatic organisms (Platts 1991).   Functioning-at-Risk and Non-Functioning riparian zones also have less plant cover to absorb rain and protect the soil from wind and rain erosion (Ellison 1960), and to trap sediment in the stream channel (Carter 2000).  Degraded streams also experience increases in stream temperatures through lower summer flows, widening of the stream channel (thus exposing more water surface to solar radiation), and increased solar exposure due to reduced shade from streamside vegetation and to loss of undercut streambanks (Belsky et al. 1999).   Increased temperatures can in turn impact fish populations, because of decreases in dissolved oxygen levels triggered by the higher temperatures. 

 

As stated previously, life forms relying on healthy aquatic habitats on the Colorado Plateau include invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals.  Birds are often referenced as one of the significant suites of species relying on healthy riparian zones.  Participants in studies at the High Desert Ecological Research Institute state that “the loss of riparian habitats has been suggested as the most important cause of population decline among land bird species in western North America” (Dobkin et al. 1998).  Degradation of riparian habitats, in terms of simplification of riparian habitat structure and composition, and invasion of riparian zones by exotic weeds, has negative repercussions for wildlife, especially neotropical migrants.

 

3.1.2 Significant changes in vegetation composition, structure and biomass,  and consequences.  The Monument’s Management Plan emphasizes the importance of ensuring that vegetative communities – including cryptobiotic soils – are in a natural, functioning state.  The Plan underscores the importance of managing for potential natural communities of native vegetation types: “the Monument will be managed to achieve a natural range of native plant associations.  Management activities will not be allowed to significantly shift the makeup of those associations, disrupt their normal population dynamics, or disrupt the progression of those associations” (Plan at pg 22, emphasis added).

 

3.1.2.1 Structural/Functional health of GSENM plant communities: Based on the most current field research conducted by the Monument staff,[2] 63 different upland rangeland health assessment sites representing 26 allotments received failing scores (1 or 2) for Upland Health Indicator #12 (Functional and Structural Groups), indicating that these sites are far from a natural state of normal function and structure for those vegetative communities.  This indicates a substantial alteration of structure and function of native vegetation communities in the Monument, and is alarming given the weight the Monument’s management plan puts on maintaining these resources in a healthy state. 

 

                  The structural changes in the plant communities in the Monument have profound impacts on native wildlife and their habitat.  While many would not consider grasslands to have naturally high structural diversity, grasslands do have a vertical structure that develops over time, both within a growing year and from one year to the next, and which is essential to the functions performed by grasslands.  Live and dead standing plants together with fallen dead plant material create the structural diversity and the microclimates necessary to support essential soil microorganisms as well as many species of wildlife (Feller and Brown 2000).

 

                  Indeed, loss of structural diversity has many negative repercussions for rangeland wildlife.  For example, low structural diversity of desert vegetation has been linked to low diversity of the native rodent assemblage (Rosenzweig and Winakur 1969).  A lack of structural diversity at the ground cover layer can affect the nesting success and chick survival for ground-nesting birds such as sage grouse that require low-statured sheltering near the nest (Hein et al. 1980, Webb 1993).  A diverse shrub and ground cover layer is important for shading many animals in the desert heat, as well as providing a thermal cover that moderates both high and low temperature extremes (Feller and Brown 2000).  A lack of litter can impact other ground-nesting animals such as harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis) that require litter for their nests (Jones 2000).  Structural diversity of vegetation in riparian zones has shown to be of paramount importance to various species of birds ranging from neotropical migrants (Hubbard 1987, Taylor and Littlefield 1986) to Mexican spotted owls (Rinkevich 1991, Willey and Van Riper 1993).  Riparian structural complexity allows more options for foraging, allows riparian birds to avoid detection by avian predators such as northern goshawks and great horned owls, and is also important for creating cool microsites for somewhat “heat intolerant” bird species (Stacey and Hodgson 1999). 

 

3.1.2.2  Another measure of structure - Cryptobiotic Soils: Cryptobiotic soils provide yet another structural component of vegetative communities in the desert southwest.  The Management Plan states, "the overall objective with respect to soil resources within the monument is to manage uses to prevent damage to soil resources and ensure that the health and distribution of biological soil crusts is maintained or improved"  (Plan at pg 21).  The Monument staff has made it clear that they fully understand the considerable problems caused by loss of cryptobiotic soils, as evidenced in their treatment of these important crusts in the EAs that analyzed whether it was appropriate to retire AUMs on a handful of Monument allotments (i.e. Clark Bench, Willow Gulch allotments).   In these analyses the EAs debunk Alan Savory’s suggestion that the presence of well-developed biological soil crusts are indicative of poor range condition (BLM 2002a), and acknowledge that the Monument “ha[s] the potential to support a near-continuous cover of cyanobacteria-dominated crusts in interspaces among rocks and vascular plants” (BLM 2002a, p. 13-14, BLM 2002b, p.12).  These EAs also documented that at some sites, cryptobiotic soils were “moderately reduced relative to potential” (i.e. at two assessment sites – E0068 and E0069 on the Clark Bench allotment, BLM 2002a).

 

                  Tom Stohlgren and his team from the Natural Resource Ecology Lab at Colorado State University have been recently conducting a comprehensive and ongoing (5 year) landscape-scale assessment of vegetative cover in the Monument, and have established 367, 1 km2 modified-Whittaker vegetation plots throughout the Monument.  This team has found that when averaging cryptobiotic crust cover across these 367 plots, average cover of crusts was only 24.4% (Stohlgren et al. 2001).  Other studies of crust cover in relict sites reveal that anywhere between 38% to near 100% cover of cryptobiotic soils is typical in the soil types typical of the Monument (e.g. West 1983c;  John Carter, unpublished data collected in GSENM, 2003). 

 

                  The substantial loss of cryptobiotic soil cover in GSENM is of great concern.  Cryptobiotic crusts, which were historically widespread in western arid lands, are being rapidly depleted across rangelands today.  These crusts increase the stability of otherwise easily erodible soils, create excellent microsites for native seed germination, increase water infiltration in a region that receives limited precipitation, and increase fertility of xeric soils often limited in essential nutrients such as Nitrogen and Carbon (Johansen 1993, Belnap et al. 1994). 

 

3.1.2.3 Plant community productivity:  As evidenced elsewhere in this document, the Monument’s vegetative communities are clearly suffering from a drastic loss of forage productivity over the years.  Loss of productivity, or overall vegetative biomass, can have many negative repercussions for ecological processes and biological health of rangelands.  Natural levels of plant productivity ensure appropriate levels of cover necessary to provide forage and cover for native wildlife, as well as preventing unnatural levels of soil erosion. 

 

                  Measures of productivity are required by law.  As we point out in Chapter 2, these are binding standards that may make continued resource productivity one of the very highest management criteria for GSENM.

 

                              In closing, we wish to draw to the BLM’s attention that some of the vegetation communities in GSENM are far worse off than others.  Below (Figure 3.1), we have graphed the ratio of sites with “poor” Rangeland Health Assessment ratings (at least one of three land-health attributes are 3 or below) to those with “high” Rangeland Health Assessment ratings (all land-health attributes rated 4 or above) for each of the seven chief community types in GSENM.  One would hope that most ratios would hover around a “1” (or, 1:1 ratio) or below, or that there are not more “poor” sites than “high” sites in any community type.  Unfortunately, as Figure 3.1 shows, all community types but one are above the 1:1 ratio, and semidesert grassland and seeded pasture are well above the line, indicating that these vegetative communities are currently faring much worse than most.  Indeed, it seems that only pinyon juniper communities are faring well.

 


Figure 3.1 Preliminary Ranking of Community Types by Degree of Diminished Land Health, GSENM, Using a Low:High Land-Health Ratio*

*Ratio = (assessments with ‘low’ ratings) / (assessments with ‘high’ ratings)

‘low’: at least one of three land-health attributes rated as 3 or below

‘high’: all land-health attributes rated 4 or above

 

 

3.1.3  Spread of exotic plants, and consequences.  The Monument’s Management Plan states, “the BLM will place a priority on the control of noxious weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive species” (Plan at pg 22).  In addition, E.O. 13112 on exotic species states that federal agencies shall “prevent the introduction of invasive species.”  The Monument staff has made it clear that they fully understand the considerable problems caused by exotic plants, as evidenced in their treatment of exotics in the EAs that analyzed whether it was appropriate to retire AUMs on a handful of Monument allotments (i.e. Clark Bench, Willow Gulch allotments, BLM 2002a and 2002b). 

 

                              The Monument is currently suffering a significant and persistent invasion of exotic weeds.  A comprehensive and ongoing (5 year) landscape-scale assessment of exotic plant diversity in the Monument, conducted by Stohlgren et al. from the Natural Resource Ecology Lab, have found exotic frequency and coverage to be a considerable problem within the Monument (NREL 2002).  So far, this team has documented 44 non-native species on the Monument, seven of which were found to be highly invasive (Bromus tectorum, Erodium cicutarium, Poa pratensis, Salsola iberica, Tamarix spp., Taraxacum officinale, and Tragopogon dubius).  Over the past 5 years, the team has established 367, 1 km2 modified-Whittaker vegetation plots throughout the Monument.  The most recent data collected shows that cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is the 3rd most common plant on the plots – occurring on exactly two thirds (66.5%) of the 367 plots (NREL 2002).   Stohlgren’s team also found that rare habitats, such as aspen, wet meadows, and riparian areas, are the most heavily invaded habitats by exotics.

 

                              Based on the most current (2000 through 2002) research conducted by the Monument staff, 46 different upland rangeland health assessment sites representing 25 allotments received failing scores (1 or 2) for Upland Health Indicator #16 (Invasive Plants), indicating that these sites are far from a natural state for these native vegetative communities, which should be virtually free from exotic influences.

 

                        Once they are established weeds negatively impact western arid ecosystems in numerous ways.  Weed infestations can lead to major changes in community composition (Bock et al. 1986), which often results in reduced biodiversity (Randall 1996) when weeds out-compete and displace certain native plants such as grasses (Rosentreter 1994), and restrict new natives from germinating and spreading.  Increased annual exotics in a community, such as cheatgrass, can increase fire frequency by providing much more flammable cover between shrub interspaces than existed historically (Esque 1999, Brooks et al. 1999).  Other secondary effects from the invasion of exotics ensue, including altered soil microclimate (Evans and Young 1984), expedited loss of topsoil in xeric environments (Lacy et al. 1989), reduced effectiveness of wildlife habitat  (Davidson et al. 1996, Knick and Rotenberry 1997), and ultimately, such profoundly altered ecosystems that nutrient cycling is disturbed and various disturbance regimes are altered (Mack and D’Antonio 1998).

 

3.1.4.  Imperilment of native species.   There 46 federal and state-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species known to reside in the Monument.  In general, these listed species often have low reproductive potential, restricted geographic ranges, and either persist in small populations or typically experience substantial variation in population size (Terborgh and Winter 1980, Diamond 1984, Pimm et al. 1988, Belovsky et al. 1994).   Of course, all of the TES species have specific habitat needs unique to those species.  While some of these species (especially plants) are intrinsically rare due to the unique features of this part of the Colorado Plateau such as climate, position along migratory routes, and distinctive geologic history and unique substrates (Welsh 1978), many of these species are listed because of the undeniable impacts of humans on their habitats over the decades (i.e. sage grouse, which used to be incredibly prevalent across sagebrush step systems throughout the intermountain West).  In general, the mere fact that there are so many imperiled and listed species within the Monument’s boundaries should be cause for concern for the BLM.   

 

 

3.2  Supporting evidence of ecological conditions in the Monument

 

3.2.1  GSENM assessments. Some of the most telling information we have, which paints the clearest picture of the state of the resources in the Monument, is the data, assessments, and evaluations collected and performed by Monument staff.  As we outline below, the BLM’s data makes it clear that many of the Monument’s biotic resources are degraded or impaired.

 

3.2.1.1  PFC assessments: Based on the most current field research conducted by the Monument staff, [3] there are currently 71 springs and seeps within the Monument that are sufficiently impaired to the point where the Monument must take reparative action: 46 of the springs and seeps were found to be Functioning at Risk (FAR) with a downward trend, and fully 25 of these rare springs were found to not be functioning at all.  A striking indication of the very poor shape these seeps and springs are in is that 71 out of 143 (or, 50%) springs assessed are degraded to the point where corrective action must be taken immediately.  Moreover, the most recent PFC assessments for riparian zones in the Monument[4] revealed that 48 riparian areas within the Monument are sufficiently impaired to the point where the Monument must take reparative action: 27 of assessed riparian zones were found to be Functioning at Risk (FAR) with a downward trend, and fully 21 riparian areas were found to not be functioning at all.  Table 3.1 shows the number of lotic and lentic PFC assessment reaches, per allotment, which are not in Properly Functioning Condition.

 

3.2.1.2  Upland rangeland health assessments: In terms of the uplands in the Monument, the BLM’s 2000-2002 assessment results for these areas (using the Indicators of Rangeland Health assessment process), indicates that 44 upland assessment sites received average scores (when the scores for the three functional categories are averaged) of less than 3, thus indicating that these 44 sites are not meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health.  Figure 3.1 depicts the number of Rangeland Health Assessment sites, per allotment, which received a score of 3 or less for any of the three main functional assessment categories (soil stability, hydrologic

Table 3.1  The number of times an URH assessment site received a rating of 3 or less for any for any of the three functional categories, and the number of times a riparian area was rated not PFC, for each allotment in GSENM

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

ACRES

Number of RLH sites with rating of <=3 for any of 3 functional categories

Number of lentic & lotic sites not PFC

Alvey Wash

6001

52347

10

2

Antone Flat

9999

95971

none conducted

none conducted

Big Bowns Bench

6003

18585

14

2

Big Horn

6002

58551

5

2

Black Ridge

6006

11644

0

n/c

Black Rock

24008

10639

3

n/c

Boot

14009

3105

n/c

n/c

Boulder Creek

6004

3085

0

0

Bunting Well

25026

10375

n/c

n/c

Calf Pasture

24018

2837

n/c

0

Cedar Wash

6005

12190

8

n/c

Circle Cliffs

6007

37898

22

4

Clark Bench

15003

25480

6

0

Cocks Comb

25055

3957

n/c

n/c

Collet

6008

15903

n/c

n/c

Cottonwood

15004

103897

26

17

Cottonwood Springs

24027

7304

n/c

n/c

Coyote

5327

15427

25

0

Coyote

25034

32415

n/c

n/c

Death Hollow

6009

19492

2

2

Deer Creek

6010

17467

2

2

Deer Range

25005

12219

6

n/c

Deer Spring Point

24030

34105

n/c

n/c

Dry Valley

25006

7149

7

n/c

Escalante River

6011

36306

n/c

0

First Point

24041

2961

n/c

n/c

Fivemile Mountain

24043

18356

0

n/c

Flood Canyon

24044

13472

0

0

Ford Well

24047

9389

n/c

n/c

Fortymile Ridge

6012

56349

n/c

4

Franks Resevoir

5325

7126

n/c

n/c

Granary Ranch

24055

2058

n/c

n/c

Hall Ranch

6036

34

0

n/c

Haymaker Bench

6013

3180

0

n/c

Headwaters

15011

164789

44

19

Hells Bellows

24060

2521

n/c

n/c

Johnson Canyon

4121

3845

n/c

n/c

Johnson Point

24065

2327

n/c

n/c

Jonson Lakes

24064

10920

3

n/c

King Bench

6014

54943

0

0

Lake

6015

20585

10

19

Last Chance

6016

257555

8

9

Little Bown Bench

6022

3486

0

n/c

Little Desert

6035

2826

n/c

n/c

Lockeridge

14071

5392

n/c

n/c

Lower Cattle

6017

81224

7

2

Lower Hackberry

25014

19912

0

3

Lower Sink Valley

4112

2697

n/c

n/c

McGath Point

6018

3141

n/c

n/c

Meadow Canyon

24081

4546

n/c

n/c

Mill Creek

24082

17592

n/c

n/c

Mollies Nipple

24083

103672

42

0

Moody

6019

43947

0

0

Mud Springs

25016

15922

10

n/c

Muley Twist

99999

45928

n/c

n/c

Neaf

14086

1323

n/c

n/c

Nipple Bench

25018

30805

19

3

Pet Hollow

9999

13833

0

0

Phipps

6024

10505

0

0

Pine Creek

6023

5104

n/c

0

Pine Point

4102

9420

n/c

n/c

Rock Creek- Mudholes

6020

73231

0

11

Rock Reservoir

5345

10320

n/c

n/c

Round Valley

25020

11189

8

n/c

Roy Willis

25054

83

n/c