Monitoring 1, Western Watersheds 0

Here is another reason to start monitoring. On October 31, 2017, Judge Bush dismissed the case of Western Watersheds vs. the U.S. Forest Service over the grazing allotments in the Copper Basin in central Idaho. The judge dismissed the case because the Forest Service had been scientifically monitoring over many years. The act of monitoring was able to dispute the claims that Western Watersheds had made against the Forest Service.

The claims against the U.S. Forest Service included that the agency failed to consider a set riparian recovery standards that the Forest Service adopted in 1995 and 2015 AOI decisions were arbitrary. The argument against Western Watersheds was that the standards did not apply to the Copper Basin because not all watersheds could meet these standards nor have they ever met these standards in the past. The standards were supposed to be temporary and to be later refined to better reflect different watersheds but never were. The temporary nature the standards meant that they were not absolute but were benchmarks to gage progress.

The U.S. Forest Service monitored the condition of woody species, the ecological status of streamside vegetation, sediment levels, and bank stability. The fact that the Forest Service did monitoring every year and their monitoring methods were scientifically based means that the agency did not ignore GM-1. The Forest Service was able to address the concerns of the GM-1 via monitoring.

The sediment issue in the streams of the Copper Basin was not necessarily due to grazing. Monitoring the sediment levels reflected the presence of sediment in the streams, but did not reveal the source. The Forest Service did acknowledge that livestock grazing does \ impact sediment loads in streams but the agency had already determined the dirt roads were the main culprit in the Copper Basin.

Lastly, the Western Watersheds’ case depended on a PIBO study they commissioned in the Copper Basin and in similar ecosystems. The U.S. Forest Service did not receive the results of the study until long after the release of 2015 AOI decisions. While the Forest Service would have been required to look further into the impacts of livestock grazing on the Copper Basin if the agency had received the PIBO on time, the PIBO study may have not impacted the Forest Service’s decision.

The PIBO study did find the Copper Basin streams had room for improvement but there were flaws. The study did not identify any statistically significant trends in the Copper Basin streams. In addition, only one out of the five streams grazed in the study showed signs that it needed rest. As well as, the weather interfered with the data collecting and the sample size was small. The data collected was during and after an early spring storm. The weather and sample size challenged the scientific reliability of study.

Of course defending yourself against groups like Western Watersheds should not be your sole reason behind developing a monitoring system. However, it is nice knowing, that your monitoring can defend you. To read the court case, click on the link below.

Western Watersheds vs. Forest Service