P A G E 1

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

 Just in Case You Were Wondering... ...................................................................... 3

 Public Comment: What We Have Heard................................................................. 3

 What Happens to My Comment?............................................................................ 6

 The Latest on the Roadless Area Conservation Rule............................................. 6

 U S D A F O R E S T S E R V I C E

Forest Plan Update

J u n e 2 0 0 2Forest Plan Update

Welcome to the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan revision update. This update provides a brief description of public comments 

we received on the proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), along with a projected timeline for completion. While it has taken longer than expected, we remain on schedule 

to release the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 

Record of Decision (ROD) by the end of 2002. 

When I came to the forest last June, the first thing I did was attend 

a series of public meetings to hear comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and proposed Forest Plan. Since 

those meetings, we have 

continued to meet with 

interested publics and 

have received over 3700 

formal comments on the 

draft EIS and plan. 

We have heard from a 

cross section of interests evidenced by comments on a broad range of issues facing the forest. I continue to be 

impressed with the degree of substance and energy that have gone 

into these comments. 

In general, the comments are fairly polarized and fall roughly into 

two groups: those who tend to emphasize preservation and protection of the forest, and those who tend to emphasize motorized

continued on page 2

Greetings
P A G E 2 

with a balanced framework to guide WCNF 

management for the next 10-15 years.

I want to thank you for efforts and willingness to remain engaged in the planning process. If you have further questions or need 

additional information, please call our office 

at (801) 524-3900 or visit our website at: 

www.fs.fed.us/wcnf. 

Sincerely,

THOMAS L. TIDWELL

Forest Supervisor

continued from page 1

access and traditional use of the forest. Both 

perspectives are valid and demonstrate strong 

desires for how they would like to see the 

forest managed in the future. 

Over the next few months, we will continue 

to validate your comments and make changes 

to the draft EIS to reflect your concerns. We 

also will be reviewing the draft EIS and draft 

revised forest plan to ensure that we do not 

over commit-- but rather display realistic 

expectations based on realistic budgets. This is 

one of the criticisms of our current plan–projected accomplishments and monitoring were 

based on budgets that never occurred.

Several factors weigh into the deliberation 

when making our recommendation to the 

Regional Forester on future management of 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF): 

environmental, economic, social and legal. 

Some of these factors have clear sideboards 

while others are more loosely defined. Your 

comments help us better understand the 

sentiment behind particular viewpoints and 

values, reveal new information previously not 

considered, and provide clear understanding 

of the implications of any decisions for various interests. Ultimately, the decision is one 

of balancing the needs and desires of current 

generations with the capability of the lands, 

the requirements of the law, and the potential 

needs of future generations.

Where it is not possible to meet all the conflicting uses and desires for the forest, through 

your input, I do feel that we will conclude 
P A G E 3

Just in Case You Were 

Wondering....

In the fall of 2000, the Forest Service published a new 

planning rule to guide the forest planning process. The 

National Forest Management Act regulation – published 

in the Federal Register November 9, 2000 – revised the 

1982 land and resource management planning rules and 

modified requirements for implementation, monitoring, 

evaluation, amendment, and revision of land and resource 

management plans. Because we began our revision in 1999, 

we are revising our forest plan using the 1982 regulations.

Under direction of the US Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) a Forest Service review of the 2000 planning rule 

found that it was neither straightforward nor easy to implement. The Forest Service therefore, decided to revise and 

improve the rule. It’s important to note the Forest Service 

is not starting over; the essential concepts and philosophy of the 2000 rule – science-based, collaboration and 

sustainability are being used for the revised rule. A draft 

revised rule is expected this summer and will include a 

public comment period. 

Requirements of a new rule would be integrated into the 

Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan in future amendments. 

Public Comment: What We 

Have Heard 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) 

received 3,762 responses during public review of 

its draft revised Forest Plan and accompanying 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Responses 

were received in a variety of forms including letters, postcards, faxes, e-mail, petitions and public 

hearing transcripts. A comprehensive 700-page 

report with a 27-page Executive Summary capturing these comments has been prepared. The 

following material is drawn from the Executive 

Summary.

In general, those who comment on the draft documents 

fall roughly into two groups: those who tend to emphasize 

preservation and protection of forest natural resources, 

and so request greater restrictions on various human uses; 

and those who tend to emphasize motorized access to 

and traditional use of forest lands, and so request either 

fewer or at least no additional restrictions. The distinction 

between these two groups is not absolute. The former 

group also values access and use; while the latter group 

also expresses concern for forest protection. Virtually 

everyone who comments on the Forest Plan and Draft 

EIS cares about the condition of the WCNF and about 

the value it has to users of all types. The difference is one 

of emphasis, and this often revolves around each group’s 

perception of the nature and degree of impacts caused by 

human activities, especially recreational activities. These 

different perspectives drive the comments people offer on 

virtually every topic.

The full report and its Executive Summary describe 

public comments on a broad range of topics: the planning 

process itself, the planning documents, public involvement and collaboration, the relationship of local planning 

documents with national efforts, the range of alternatives, 

adequacy of analysis, and so forth. 

The following focuses on public response to ten planning 

topics identified early in the revision process. The topics 

serve as a framework for the decisions to be made in the 

revised plan. 

The greatest detail is provided for topics on which respondents held contrasting views.
P A G E 4 

Watershed Health

People asked the WCNF to provide detailed strategies 

regarding water management in the final Forest Plan, and 

to more adequately analyze watershed condition and the 

impacts of various activities on watershed health.

Biodiversity and Viability 

Management 

Most of the comments on these topics address wildlife or 

aquatic habitat management. Some respondents 

ask the WCNF to preserve 

wildlife habitat corridors 

in a variety of ways. On 

the other hand, some ask 

the WCNF not to manage 

for wildlife corridors, due 

to perceived conflicts with 

current use. Other comments under the topics of 

biodiversity and viability 

address non-native species, big game species, 

predators (especially 

lynx), and native cutthroat 

trout. The management 

of management indicator 

species and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

was also mentioned. Finally, people offer a wide variety of 

suggestions regarding vegetation management to achieve 

objectives ranging from the maintenance of old growth, to 

the reversal of aspen decline, to the prevention of noxious 

weed spread.

Road and Access Management

Although some respondents favor road construction to 

correct poor alignments, or temporary roads for management purposes, others favor the prohibition of new road 

construction-especially in roadless areas. While opinion is 

divided over road construction, there is a general consensus that existing roads should be better maintained. Most 

people who address the topic of road closure/removal/

obliteration either request that the WCNF close and 

reclaim roads under certain conditions or that it convert 

roads into trails. Most motorized recreationists, however, 

strongly object to road closures.

Several people ask the WCNF to expand the motorized 

trail system, and to provide more motorized loop trail systems. Others urge the WCNF not to expand the motorized 

trail network on the grounds that there is already sufficient 

motorized recreation trail access.

Recreation and Scenery 

Management

Recreation is the most frequent topic of comment on the 

WCNF Draft EIS and Forest Plan. General concerns deal 

with the need for the WCNF to: manage recreation use 

responsibly, treat all user groups fairly, disperse recreational 

users, and not restrict access. Quite a few ask the WCNF 

to conduct a carrying capacity analysis, especially in the 

Tri-Canyon Area. Some people say the WCNF should 

educate the public on proper use of the land and increase 

enforcement, particularly before imposing further restrictions.

Motorized recreation advocates cite heritage, self-reliance, 

and adventurism along with the importance of off-highway vehicle (OHV) access for families, safety, emergency 

response, and the elderly or disabled. Opponents of 

motorized recreation cite environmental concerns, including disturbance to wildlife, erosion, noise, and air pollution. They also point out that motorized recreation affects 

non-motorized users’ quality of experience. Proponents 

and opponents of snowmobiling and helicopter skiing 

cite concerns similar to those raised about off-highway 

vehicle use. Proponents of non-motorized recreation say 

that certain areas, including many roadless areas, should be 

restricted to non-motorized uses only. In general, motorized recreationists oppose segregation of uses while nonmotorized users favor segregation to deal with conflicts.
P A G E 5

Roadless Area/Wilderness 

Management

Many people ask the WCNF to protect roadless areas, 

primarily to preserve environmental values. People ask 

more specifically that many (or all) roadless areas remain 

roadless, and that development and motorized recreation 

also be prohibited. Others object to the designation of 

areas as “roadless.” Those people object most strongly to 

the implications that motorized access to roadless areas 

would be further restricted or prohibited. 

Many respondents say that the WCNF should not only 

protect roadless areas, but also recommend many of those 

areas for wilderness, primarily for environmental reasons. 

Those people cite multiple ecological, social, and economic 

benefits to be gained from additional wilderness on the 

WCNF. A number of other respondents ask the WCNF 

not to recommend any more areas for wilderness designation. Although wilderness opponents do not generally propose intensive or widespread development, they support 

the active management of vegetation and motorized access 

that would not be allowable under wilderness designation.

Suitable Timberlands

Some respondents ask the WCNF to allow timber harvest, 

primarily with an objective of improving forest health. 

Others say the WCNF should restrict timber harvest, 

primarily to preserve environmental values. Some urge 

the WCNF not to use the concept of forest health as a 

justification for its timber commodity program; Those 

respondents consider “disease, decline, and decay (as) vital 

processes in any natural system,” and take issue with the 

assumption that a healthy forest would be free of insects 

and diseases.

Rangeland Capability, 

Suitability, and Forage 

Production

Several respondents urge the WCNF to continue to allow 

grazing, for various environmental and socioeconomic reasons. Many other respondents, however, urge the WCNF 

to restrict, reduce, phase out, or prohibit grazing, primarily 

for environmental reasons.

Special Designations

The proposed designation of new research natural areas 

and special interest areas received general public support; 

some respondents suggested more such areas than the 

WCNF proposed. There was both support for and opposition to Wild and Scenic River designations.

Oil and Gas Leasing

A few respondents state that oil and gas leasing should be 

encouraged. Others say it should be prohibited in roadless 

areas.

Fire Management

Some respondents assert that the WCNF should more 

fully utilize timber harvest and grazing in conjunction with 

prescribed burns-to avoid wasting resources, to maintain 

a healthy forest, to avert fire risk, to bring the forest back 

into historic range of variability, and to maintain the viability of local economies. Others, however, say the WCNF 

should reevaluate timber harvesting and mechanical 

treatments as means to meet forest goals-because of their 

inability to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, because of the 

role of standing dead timber in forest wild fires, because 

mature trees are needed for wildlife habitat, because young 

trees have high fuel load values, because timber harvesting 

cannot replace the role of fire in the forest, and because 

harvested areas show a strong association with increased 

rate of spread and flame length.

If you would like a copy of the entire 27-page Executive Summary, please call Kelli Green at 801-524-3906 or 

e-mail kagreen@fs.fed.us. The full document (700 pages) 

may be reviewed at our office.
P A G E 6 

WHAT HAPPENS TO MY 

COMMENT?

So what do we do with all of these responses? 

We use a technique called content analysis that 

is a systematic method of compiling, categorizing and capturing the full range of public 

viewpoints and concerns about the DEIS and 

Proposed Forest Plan. Content analysis helps 

us clarify, analyze and be responsive to information the public provides to us. 

Content analysis is not a vote-counting process. It is designed to read each response, capture the meaning of the comment, and provide 

it to the public and decisionmaker in a clear and 

understandable form. 

Each response is assigned a unique identifier. 

We then read each comment, highlight the substantive content, and code it by subject area. 

Similar concerns are grouped together and 

responded to in the Final EIS. Established direction provides that comments be responded to in 

a variety of ways. Possible responses are to: 

1) modify alternatives, 

2) develop and evaluate alternatives not 

previously considered by the agency, 

3) supplement, improve, or modify the 

analysis, 

4) make factual corrections, and 

5) explain why the comments do not warrant further response.

The Latest on the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule

Many of you have been involved with the roadless area 

conservation initiative since it was introduced in fall of 

1999. After a final EIS was released and much public 

debate about the merits of the initiative, the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule, was published in the Federal Register 

on January 12, 2001. This new policy restricted logging and 

road building activities in 58.5 million acres of National 

Forest System lands. Its effective date was delayed until 

May 2001, as newly-appointed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials reviewed it.

On May 4, 2001, Secretary Veneman announced that the 

USDA would implement the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. However, acknowledging concerns raised by local 

communities, tribes and states impacted by the rule, the 

Secretary indicated the Department will move forward 

with a responsible and balanced approach to re-examine 

the rule. In response to this, the Department requested 

comments from the public on key issues that have been 

raised regarding the protection of roadless areas. The 

agency received 850,000 responses. 

At the same time, a total of nine lawsuits challenging 

the roadless rule have been filed in six judicial districts 

and four federal circuits. The U.S. District Court for the 

District of Idaho on May 10, 2001, preliminarily stopped 

the Department from implementing the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. 

For now, the Chief has instructed forests to ensure that 

Forest Plan revisions consider, as appropriate, the longterm protection and management of unroaded portions of 

inventoried roadless areas. This may include a determination that some roadless areas be recommended for wilderness protection. He believes this will provide full and fair 

consideration of local conditions, cumulative effects, and 

other critical information affecting roadless values. Our 

final environmental impact statement will consider the 

values of each inventoried roadless area individually.
P A G E 7

NOTICE OF INTENT

September 1999

SCOPING

Public meetings

in key communities

DEVELOPMENT &

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Public review

August 2000

Draft ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT &

 PROPOSED REVISED

FOREST PLAN

Released for review

& comment May 2001

PUBLIC

COMMENT PERIOD

until

November 1, 2001

Meetings and hearings

in key communities

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS

February & March 2002

RESPONDING TO PUBLIC 

COMMENTS & ADDITIONAL 

ANALYSIS

Summer 2002

RECORD OF DECISION

Final EIS

December 2002

YOU ARE HERE
P A G E 8

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large 

print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington D.C., 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer.

Have you received duplicate mailings?

Let Kelli know by phone at (801) 524-3906

or e-mail at kagreen@fs.fed.us

WE’RE ON THE WEB

www.fs.fed.us/wcnf 

Do you have suggestions about

improving the planning website? We’re

interested in hearing them! Send your

comments to kagreen@fs.fed.us.

Salt Lake Ranger District

6944 South 3000 East

Salt Lake City, Utah 84121

(801) 733-2660

Kamas Ranger District

50 East Center Street

P.O. Box 68

Kamas, Utah 84036

(435) 783-4338

Evanston Ranger District

1565 Highway 150 South, Suite A

P.O. Box 1880

Evanston, Wyoming 82931-1880

(307) 789-3194

Mountain View Ranger District

321 Highway 414

P.O. Box 129

Mountain View, Wyoming 82939

(307) 782-6555

Logan Ranger District

1500 East Highway 89

Logan, Utah 84321-4373

(435) 755-3620

Ogden Ranger District

507 25th Street, Suite 103

Ogden, Utah 84401

(801) 625-5112

WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST

8236 Federal Building

125 South State Street

Salt Lake City, Utah 84138

(801) 524-3900

website: www.fs.fed.us/wcnf