United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

February 2003 

 

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Summary

Wasatch-Cache

National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 

Table of Contents 

Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................2

Needs for Change ...............................................................................................................2 

Issues ...................................................................................................................................5 

Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................6 

Mapped Forest Management Direction...........................................................................6 

Management Prescription Categories..................................................................6 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.......................................................................7 

Scenery Management System ...............................................................................8 

Description of Alternatives................................................................................................9 

Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences.................................13 

Watershed Health ................................................................................................15 

Vegetation .............................................................................................................16 

Botanical Resources.............................................................................................18 

Terrestrial Wildlife ..............................................................................................19 

Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Resources.................................................................20 

Timber Suitability and Production ....................................................................21 

Rangeland Suitability and Livestock Grazing ..................................................22 

Recreation.............................................................................................................24 

Scenery Management...........................................................................................26 

Trails .....................................................................................................................27 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management...........................................................28 

Road Management...............................................................................................29 

Oil and Gas Leasing.............................................................................................30 

Special Designations.............................................................................................32 

Fire Management.................................................................................................34 

Economic and Social Effects ...............................................................................35 

Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................................36 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 

Introduction 

This section summarizes the key content of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for 

Forest Plan Revision for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. It can also be used with access to 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest website (www.fs.fed.us/wcnf) where the entire documents 

are posted along with numerous maps showing where the forest management being described 

would occur. 

Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1) 

The Proposed Action 

The Forest Service proposes to revise the Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter 

referred to as forest plan) for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in order to meet legal and 

regulatory requirements, and to address changes, issues, and concerns that have arisen since the 

forest plan was originally released in 1985 (USDA Forest Service 1985). 

Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a revised Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan that will: 

1) guide all natural resource management activities on the forest, 2) address changed conditions 

and direction that have occurred since the original plan was released, and 3) meet the objectives 

of federal laws, regulations, and policies. Specifically the revised forest plan will provide 

management direction for identified revision topics and forest-wide management direction in a 

framework of ecosystem management and sustainability. 

In 1992, the Forest Supervisor determined that revision was needed because significant changes 

had occurred in conditions and demands. The conclusion was based on results published in the 

forest-wide monitoring report (USDA Forest Service 1992). This report found “serious 

weaknesses” which when taken in aggregate, resulted in a conclusion that a forest plan revision 

should be initiated. 

Needs For Change 

In the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation Summary (USDA Forest Service 1999) 

each resource area was examined along with the 1992 monitoring results and specific needs were 

identified where management should be changed or is required to be changed during revision. 

Ten areas were identified and are referred to as revision topics. In addition there is a need to 

change the basic framework and organization of the plan to reflect the integrated nature of 

ecosystem management. An ecosystem framework broadens the perspective from that of 

sustaining commodity outputs to that of sustaining ecological processes and a wide variety of 

goods, services, conditions, and values. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 

1. Watershed Health. Management direction for watershed health and condition is needed to 

maintain or restore the integrity of watersheds and soil quality. Healthy watersheds meet the 

needs of sustainable terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and supply values for people such as 

clean drinking water, recreation and commodity uses. The riparian and water quality guidance in 

the 1985 plan sets limits on management. A more proactive approach that describes the desired 

watershed conditions to be achieved will provide a basis for needed management protection. 

2. Biodiversity and Species Viability. There is a need to update vegetation management 

direction to provide for short- and long-term sustainability, including direction for restoration, 

management and maintenance of plant communities, as knowledge and understanding of human 

impacts grows. People have substantially affected ecological processes and biodiversity and will 

continue to do so. As the human population continues to grow, there will be ever increasing 

pressures on the remaining open space and on the quality and diversity of terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat. There is a need to integrate management direction for all resources to maintain viable 

populations within the context of overall multiple use objectives. This means that for any given 

land area, the set of objectives must reflect a compatible blending of uses and values with the 

capability of the land. 

3. Road and Access Management. Management direction for an integrated transportation 

system that serves multiple functions is needed as a primary component of the desired future for 

a management area. A forest scale roads analysis is needed to comply with the National Forest 

System Road Management Rule (January 2001). The intent of the rule is to develop a sciencebased forest transportation system that meets the needs of the public, yet minimizes or reverses 

the environmental impacts often caused by roads. 

4. Recreation and Scenery Management. Those areas where recreation will be emphasized 

need to be identified as the first step to provide guidance for managers dealing with increasing 

conflicts in uses as population and demands continue to grow. The population of the state of 

Utah is projected to grow by 65% by the year 2020 with most of the growth expected along the 

urban Wasatch Front. Because of this, settings of this forest will become even more valuable for 

the unique opportunities they provide. Current dispersed recreation use levels in some areas of 

the forest are so high that resource degradation is occurring. Direction is needed to provide for 

future desired recreation settings while sustaining ecosystem health. Updated mapping of 

recreation opportunity classes is needed to provide guidance on how to manage recreation across 

the forest. The outdated visual quality objectives contained in the current forest plan need to be 

replaced with guidance based on the more integrated Scenery Management System. 

 

5. Special Designations. This revision topic includes protection of eligible Wild and Scenic 

stream and river segments, designation of additional Research Natural Areas and the designation 

of Special Interest Areas. The eligibility inventory required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

was completed in August 1999. Thirty-three segments were found eligible. Until suitability 

determinations are made, there is a need to protect the resource values and free-flowing character 

identified for each eligible segment during both ongoing activities and new proposals. 

In 1998 an analysis of Research Natural Area (RNA) needs was completed for the national 

forests in Utah. These needs were defined as vegetation types that occur on National Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4 

system lands that are currently lacking in existing RNAs in Utah. There is a need to identify 

areas of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that have potential to contribute to the diversity 

within the RNA system on National Forest system lands in Utah. 

Special Interest Areas can be designated to manage and protect an area’s special characteristics 

or unique values. There is a need to identify areas on the Forest that merit this special attention 

and management. 

6. Roadless Areas/Wilderness Management. This is one of the required items included in the 

planning regulations. The roadless area inventory was updated in 1999. There is a need to 

determine whether any of these areas should be recommended to Congress for designation as 

Wilderness. If lands are recommended, the revised plan will provide that these lands be 

protected and managed accordingly. 

The Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule (RACR, January 12, 2001) established prohibitions 

on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on 

National Forest System lands. Its intent is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless 

areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management. Long-term 

management and protection of roadless areas as directed by Forest Service Manual Interim 

Directives 1920-2001-1, 2400-2001-3, and 7710-2001-2,3 needs to be addressed in the Forest 

Plan revision while court and administrative proceedings regarding the RACR are completed. 

There is a need to determine the appropriate balance of lands that allow development and those 

that do not. 

7. Suitable Timberlands. This is one of the required items included in the planning 

regulations. It is also an important finding from the 1992 Monitoring Report. There is a need to 

identify those lands where the management direction will provide for timber production and 

where maintenance or restoration of properly functioning forest conditions may yield marketable 

timber products. 

8. Rangeland Capability, Suitability and Forage Production. These are required items 

included in the planning regulations. There is a need to identify the acreage and estimated forage 

production outputs of areas suitable for grazing livestock as one of numerous uses that may be 

appropriate for a capable land area. There is also a need to modify current management 

direction for assigning value classes to riparian areas. Range management direction will be 

determined to ensure compatibility of this use with sustainable ecosystems and social values 

primarily incorporating direction from the 1996 Rangeland Health Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

9. Oil and Gas Leasing. The forest plan was approved prior to the passage of the Federal 

Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987. This Act changed the role of the Forest Service in the 

leasing process and required additional analysis to determine which lands are available for oil 

and gas leasing and under what conditions. Because of this, leasing direction in the 1985 forest 

plan is no longer valid. The forest plan was amended in 1994 to allow leasing on a portion of the 

north slope of the Uinta Mountains. A portion of the Uinta Mountains was specifically excluded 

from the 1994 decision through an appeal settlement decision (Levere and Heaton, 1994). There 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 5 

is a need to make the leasing decision in the forest plan revision for this portion since there are 

suspended leases in the area that need to be acted upon and oil and gas industry continues to 

express interest in exploring the area. 

10. Fire Management. There is a need to update fire management direction to address new 

national fire policy. In the past 15 years, we’ve grown to understand fire’s role in shaping our 

ecosystems and the problems inherent in excluding fires from the landscape. The Forest Plan 

needs to address fire as an integral part of healthy ecosystems and to emphasize treatment efforts 

in ecosystems that are outside of properly functioning condition. It also needs to address how to 

manage fuels to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic, high-intensity wildland fire, especially in the 

urban-wildland interface. 

Issues 

The following issues were developed from public comments on the September 1999 Proposed 

Action- a first cut of the Forest Service’s approach to forest plan revision. 

Issue 1 – Recreation Use Conflicts/Access Management 

How should increasing conflicts between and among users of motorized/mechanized vehicles 

(ATV’s, snowmobiles, helicopters for skiing, and mountain bikes, ski area expansion into 

adjacent areas) and non-motorized recreation be addressed? How much and where is access 

appropriate for each of these groups? What user densities should we manage for in the future 

and where? 

Issue 2 – Roadless Areas Management 

How much and where should additional acreage be recommended for wilderness designation? 

How much, where, and how should inventoried roadless areas be protected from development? 

How much and where should inventoried roadless areas be available for which types of 

development and uses? 

Issue 3 –Biodiversity and Species Viability 

What are the key factors to emphasize and what is the proper balance of management and land 

use activities that can maintain biodiversity on the forest? Which areas need what kind of 

management direction to support overall biodiversity as well as viability of species? 

Issue 4 – Concerns About Continued Economic Contributions and 

Personal/Social Benefits of the Forest 

What will be the effects on traditional and current economic outputs and social benefits of the 

forest? These include forage for livestock, timber for harvest, production of oil and gas, 

recreation related services and all of the accompanying “quality of life/lifestyle” benefits 

obtained from the forest? Where and how much of these outputs and benefits can be expected in 

the future? 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 6 

Issue 5 – Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts of Uses 

How will we ensure that impacts of uses to watershed conditions, terrestrial, riparian and aquatic 

wildlife and fish habitats, recreation settings and scenery, and local quality of life are kept within 

acceptable limits? Uses include livestock grazing, timber harvest, recreation, oil & gas 

development, and road and trail management. 

Issue 6 – Appropriate Types and Amounts of Facility Development for 

Wildland Settings in the Forest

How much more recreation related facility development, where and of what types, should be 

allowed in the future? 

Alternatives Considered (FEIS Chapter 2) 

The FEIS explores the differences among 7 management alternatives for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. These were developed to provide a range of options for management of the 

forest over the next 10 to 15 years. They are responsive to the needs for change (‘Topics’) and 

significant issues listed above. However, given that some of the issues are polarized, no one 

alternative fully resolves all of them. A set of maps with associated forest management direction 

accompanies each alternative. 

Mapped Forest Management Direction 

The National Forest Management Act requires us to develop management direction for each 

National Forest. This “direction” is to be expressed through goals, objectives, standards, 

guidelines, management prescriptions, desired future conditions, and monitoring and evaluation 

requirements for the forest. Some direction logically can be applied to an entire national forest, 

while other direction should apply only to specific areas of the forest. For this reason, maps are 

used with this FEIS to show where particular direction would apply by alternative. Management 

prescriptions, recreation opportunities (summer and winter), scenery management, and oil and 

gas leasing availability are mapped for each alternative analyzed in detail. These maps, along 

with the narrative descriptions later in this Chapter (under “Alternatives Considered in Detail”), 

are the basis for describing the key choices made in each alternative and displaying important 

differences between the alternatives. 

Management Prescription Categories (MPC) 

Eight major categories are listed in Table 1. These provide a sense of the management or 

treatment of the land that is intended to result in a particular condition being achieved or value(s) 

maintained. The MPC category numbers correspond to the numbers on Management 

Prescription Maps for each of the seven alternatives. However, prescription categories do not 

stand alone. They are one part of a management direction that also includes Desired Future 

Conditions, Goals, Objectives, Standards, Guidelines, and Monitoring and Evaluation 

Requirements. Where an activity is allowed by Prescription, standards and guidelines provide 

specific parameters within which the activity must be managed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 7 

For Alternative 7 only, several new subcategories of prescriptions have been added to address 

comments. In Alternative 7 only, 3.1 is subdivided into Aquatic Habitat (3.1A) and Watershed 

Emphasis (3.1W) and 3.2 is subdivided into Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis Undeveloped (3.2U) 

and Developed (3.2D). 

In addition, for Alternative 7 only, the prescription for recommended wilderness (1.5) allows two 

activities not allowed in other alternatives under this prescription. These are 1) prescribed fire to 

return fire dependent vegetation types to properly functioning conditions, and 2) existing 

snowmobiling until such time as Congress acts, to balance needs for closing other areas. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a system of inventory and mapping of different 

types of recreation settings. These range along a scale from least developed (facilities, etc.) and 

most remote to most developed and least remote. Listed below is a brief explanation of the eight 

classes applied to each alternative in this analysis. Maps in the FEIS show where these 

recreation settings for summer are located and how they vary by alternative. FEIS Appendix D 

provides a more detailed description of these classes. 

Wilderness/Primitive - Designated Wilderness; very high probability of solitude; closeness to 

nature; self-reliance, high challenge and risk; little evidence of people; Natural Evolving 

Landscape Character Theme 

Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized - Designated Wilderness; high probability of 

solitude, closeness to nature, self-reliance high and moderately high challenge and risk; some 

evidence of others; Natural Evolving Landscape Character Theme 

Recommended Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized - Recommended Wilderness; high 

probability of solitude, closeness to nature, self-reliance high and moderately high challenge and 

risk; some evidence of others; Natural Evolving Landscape Character Theme 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized - High probability of solitude, closeness to nature, self-reliance, 

high to moderate challenge and risk; some evidence of others; Natural Appearing Landscape 

Character Theme. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized - Moderate probability of solitude, closeness to nature, high degree 

of challenge and risk using motorized equipment; evidence of motorized equipment on trails and 

primitive roads, and by audible motor sounds; Natural Appearing Landscape Character Theme. 

Roaded Natural - Moderate evidence of human sights and sounds; moderate concentration of 

users at campsites; little challenge or risk; Natural Appearing and Developed Natural Appearing 

Landscape Character Themes. 

Rural - Opportunity to be with people is accepted and desirable as is facility convenience, little 

challenge or risk except for activities like downhill skiing; high interaction among users; 

Developed Natural Appearing and Resorts Natural Setting Landscape Character Theme. 

Urban - Opportunity to be with others is very desirable as is facility convenience; challenge and 

risk are unimportant except for competitive sports, high interaction among people; Resort 

Natural Setting / Water Recreation Rural Appearing Landscape Character Theme. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 8 

Winter Recreation Classes 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is using Winter Recreation Classes as a management tool to 

describe and map outdoor winter recreation areas. Winter Recreation (WR) is one of four 

mapped management direction elements used in FEIS. Four classes were defined for winter 

recreation. These are Wilderness, Non-Motorized, Motorized, and Heliski. These winter 

classes are also shown on maps and vary by alternative. (Appendix D of the FEIS includes 

detailed descriptions of the Winter Recreation classes.) 

Scenery Management System (SMS) 

The Scenery Management System (SMS) is an inventory and classification system for 

identifying landscape character themes and setting objectives for management of scenery. Listed 

below is a brief explanation of six “landscape character themes”. These were assigned to the 

various areas of the forest by alternative. “Scenic integrity” is simply a qualitative measure of 

how well the landscape matches its character theme. High integrity means that given the 

character theme, for example “natural appearing”, management actions, such as facility 

construction or vegetation treatment, should not result in obvious deviations from the expected 

appearance. Low integrity on the other hand would allow for some significant deviations from 

the expected appearance. Integrity objectives are assigned to areas of land on maps in the FEIS 

map packets. These vary by alternative primarily based on management prescriptions. FEIS 

Appendix D provides a more detailed description of the Scenery Management System. 

 

Natural Evolving - The natural evolving landscape character originates primarily from natural 

disturbances and succession of plants, with subtle changes due to indirect human activities. The 

existing landscape character generally continues to change gradually over time through natural 

processes. 

Natural Appearing - The existing landscape character has been influenced by both direct and 

indirect human activities, but appears natural to the majority of viewers. Natural elements such 

as native trees, shrubs, grasses, forbs, rock outcrops and streams or lakes dominate the views. 

While there is evidence of human influence from historic use, campgrounds, small organization 

camps, rustic structures and management activity, it would appear to be part of the landscape to 

the majority of viewers. 

Developed Natural Appearing - This landscape character theme is characteristic of National, 

National Forest and State scenic byways with development, and developed and dispersed 

recreation facilities visible up to about 1/2 mile. In these areas, the roadway, recreation 

amenities, and development are anticipated features in the landscape. For users these amenities 

are part of the valued natural appearing landscape. Users of these amenities are attracted to the 

natural appearing landscape but desire a moderate to easy interaction with the landscape through 

the use of these amenities. 

Resort Natural Setting - This landscape character theme is characteristic of developed 

recreation facilities such as ski resorts, and recreation resort communities. In these areas 

recreation amenities are the main attraction for people and why they come to an area. Facilities 

are designed and constructed to harmonize with the natural setting, rather than to contrast with 

that setting. While the facilities in the base areas are dominant, that dominance declines as it 

transitions onto the mountainsides up to the ridgelines. Likewise, recreational opportunities 

provided in base areas rely more heavily on constructed facilities, while those higher on the 

mountain become increasingly oriented toward the natural setting. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 9 

Water Recreation Rural Appearing - This theme is characteristic of the Pineview Reservoir 

recreation complex. The scenic qualities of Ogden Valley attract visitors, and maintaining rural 

character is important to many landowners in this areas. In these areas recreation amenities are 

the main attraction for people and why they come to an area. The cultural setting of farms, 

fields, and pastures influences development on the private lands. Housing, businesses, roads and 

other developments dominate some views. 

Natural (Alternative 4 uses the outdated visual management system) - Under this system, the 

natural landscape character originates primarily from natural disturbances and succession of 

plants, with subtle changes due to indirect human activities. The existing landscape character 

generally continues to change gradually over time through natural processes. The degree of 

visual alteration is measured in terms of visual contrast with the surrounding natural landscape. 

Description of Alternatives

Alternative 1 addresses concerns about a need for very strong emphasis on allowing nature to 

take its course, minimizing human interference with natural processes, maintenance of roadless 

landscapes, and restrictive approaches to sustainability forest-wide, given many unknowns. By 

“restrictive” we mean that human uses are only allowed when and where they are consistent with 

this emphasis. Current levels of development are maintained, but not increased. No timber 

harvest is allowed nor is any road construction or reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas. 

Specific activities needed to reduce impacts of existing development (for example realignment of 

eroding trails) are allowed. Expected commodity outputs compared with other alternatives are 

lower. Recreation opportunities are managed to allow a diversity of settings consistent with 

Forestwide Goals for watershed health, biodiversity and species viability, and ecological status, 

benchmarks, and reference areas. Winter motorized use is more restricted than currently. 

Snowmobiling is not allowed in inventoried roadless areas and where special habitat needs are 

present. Snowmobile routes on roads that have been cherry stemmed into roadless areas are 

open. Within inventoried roadless areas, summer motorized recreation is allowed on routes 

designated as open in current Travel Maps except for those within areas recommended as 

wilderness. User densities are managed (potential permit systems) in ROS classes primitive and 

semiprimitive. This alternative maintains all areas that currently meet criteria for semiprimitive 

and primitive recreation opportunities. 

Alternative 2 addresses concerns about a need for strong emphasis on biodiversity, mimicking 

or restoring natural processes with active human management, conservation of large roadless 

areas, and moderate approaches to sustainability given many unknowns. Uses are allowed when 

and where they are compatible with achieving restoration emphasis or maintaining properly 

functioning conditions. In inventoried roadless areas, no road construction or reconstruction is 

allowed and timber harvest is strictly limited consistent with the National Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. Expected commodity outputs may be irregular in their timing with possible 

spikes of high and low outputs. Recreation opportunities are managed to improve critical 

habitat, recover rare species, and where possible, provide for some increasing demands 

consistent with Forestwide Goals for watershed health, biodiversity and species viability, and 

ecological status, benchmarks, and reference areas. An overall diversity of recreation settings is 

maintained. Where inventoried roadless areas are recommended for wilderness or are next to 

existing wilderness, snowmobiling is not allowed. Snowmobile routes on roads that have been 

cherry stemmed into inventoried roadless areas are open. Within inventoried roadless areas, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 10 

summer motorized recreation is allowed on routes designated as open in current Travel Maps 

except for those within areas recommended as wilderness. This alternative maintains 90 percent

of the currently mapped primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

Alternative 3 was originally developed as the “Proposed Action” for Forest Plan revision and 

was provided for public comment in September, 1999 and again as part of the five Preliminary 

Alternatives provided for public comment in September 2000. Public comment suggested that 

increased access for recreation did not necessarily belong only in Alternative 5 with increases in 

commodity uses even though those uses could inherently increase access through road building. 

In response we modified Alternative 3 from earlier versions to respond directly to providing 

increased recreation access in response to increasing demands, especially for winter motorized 

use. Alternative 3 provides a mix of uses and protection/restoration activities. It incorporates 

results of monitoring, project analyses and area assessments with some aspects of evolving 

policy such as the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule, although it does not apply this rule 

in its entirety. This alternative emphasizes adjusting management activities to ensure emphasis 

on ecosystem functioning and sustainability while providing some commodity outputs and a 

variety of recreation opportunities. 

 

Alternative 4 is formally the “No Action” alternative required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act. It can also be described as the “continuation of management under direction of the 

1985 forest plan” alternative. It represents the 1985 plan as written and amended, however, to 

contrast the direction of the 1985 plan with needs for change identified since 1992, other sources 

of management direction that have been applied, but not incorporated into the 1985 forest plan, 

are not included. The 1992 5 Year Monitoring Report found “serious weaknesses” which when 

taken in aggregate, resulted in a conclusion that a forest plan revision should be initiated. 

Alternative 4 assumes management direction to include: 

a. All Forest Plan amendments (#1-35). Examples of amendments which affect large areas: 

Rangeland Health Amendment, Goshawk Amendment, Utah Fire Amendment 

b. Current Travel Management Plans 

c. Conservation strategies NOT requiring plan amendment applied project by project. 

d. Conclusions from 1992 5-Year Monitoring Report (Section V. pgs. 106-115) that have been 

incorporated into subsequent plan implementation: Resource Inventories, Recreation 

Program Management, Riparian Management, Timber Objectives, Water Quality 

Monitoring, Biodiversity, Budget/Target Issues, and Monitoring Requirements. 

e. 1985 Standards and Guidelines as amended. 

Alternative 4 implements general direction from the 1985 plan emphasizing various outputs but 

with project-by-project application of ecosystem approach and findings from the 1992 5-Year 

Monitoring Report. Except where project analyses have resulted in other combinations of 

multiple use emphasis based on integration of resource management needs, forested vegetation is 

managed for growth and yield on suited timberlands and suited rangelands are managed 

primarily for livestock forage. Outputs are dependent on investments (for example- Forest Plan 

pages IV – 355-373, Range Improvements- fences, water developments, noxious weed control, 

plowing, seeding, spraying, sagebrush burning, stock trail construction) and thus are contingent 

on actual budget allocations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 11 

This alternative emphasizes improved facilities for recreation and accommodation of increased 

demands for recreation through additional facility construction, again contingent on budgets. 

Expansion of developed and dispersed summer and winter recreation is envisioned. Project 

decisions have addressed expansion of winter developed recreation for some ski-based resort 

areas. Other decisions about ski-based resort development are based on Master Development 

Plans completed or in progress.

 

Alternative 5 addresses the concern that the Forest can and should be used to directly benefit 

economies, livelihoods, and utilitarian traditions of families and local communities through 

predictable sustained outputs while allowing a variety of other non-exclusive uses and 

minimizing restrictions or requirements that drive up operating costs. While this alternative was 

developed to respond to concerns that often might be associated with rural communities, 

constituents who reviewed the Preliminary Alternatives package pointed out that many rural 

communities adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have a wide diversity of views and 

values regarding appropriate forest management. This alternative does respond to the desires of 

people (rural, urban, or otherwise) who would like to see continuation of many historic and/or 

traditional uses of the forest, sometimes even for new purposes, but with restrictions only as 

necessary to meet legal requirements. This alternative strives to accommodate a variety of uses 

within the same areas to avoid need for separation or restriction. Alternative 5 assumes active 

management for sustained yields can be used to improve productivity and health of the forest. 

Access plays a major role in the ability to use the land. Timber management to prevent insect, 

disease, and wildfire outbreaks is envisioned in this alternative. Livestock grazing tied to yearround local ranching operations is supported on forest by vegetation management to increase 

forage production. Grazing is also viewed as a tool to reduce fine fuels and competition with 

regeneration of young trees. This Alternative takes a restrained approach to sustaining species 

and their habitat. By restrained we mean striving to prevent listing but minimizing rather than 

assuming as necessary, restrictions on resource uses given the many unknowns about rare 

species. Forage for livestock, timber for harvest, oil and gas leasing, and recreation related 

services and opportunities are emphasized while actively managing all of these uses together to 

reduce or avoid conflicts and achieve improved productivity of the land and resources. 

Recreation opportunities in this alternative are increased over existing in the rural and roaded 

natural classes as a result of development of inventoried roadless areas for timber harvest and oil 

and gas exploration and development. Recreation is expected to be coordinated with other uses 

in the same areas in such a way that conflicts are minimized or avoided. More total recreation 

capacity is available because of increased numbers of facilities, allowance for higher user 

densities, and increased access. 

Alternative 6 was identified as the DEIS Preferred Alternative. It addresses concerns about 

needs for emphasis on biodiversity, by mimicking natural processes in some areas with active 

human management while restoring natural processes to other areas with minimal human 

intrusion. Conservation of large roadless areas, highlighting of substantial areas for emphasis on 

sustaining important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and concentrating activities in areas where 

they can be managed sustainably provides the basis for this alternative. Uses are allowed and 

mitigated to maintain ecosystem functions in some areas while in other areas uses are restricted 

to achieve restoration or protection of properly functioning ecosystem conditions. In inventoried 

roadless areas, no road construction or reconstruction is allowed and timber harvest is strictly 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 12 

limited consistent with the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Expected commodity 

outputs are lower than recent years with some areas providing a limited but continual supply and 

others removed or reduced from commodity production to sustain other important wildland 

values (such as watershed functioning, ecological reserves and biodiversity corridors, 

opportunities for solitude, and special designation of reference benchmarks for learningRNA/SIA). Recreation opportunities are managed intensively in some areas to meet increasing 

demands, especially in the wildland/urban interface. Areas further from major population bases 

are managed for a wider variety of recreation opportunities including substantial areas of 

primitive and semiprimitive classes. Winter recreation uses are separated in key areas to provide 

both motorized and non-motorized opportunities with access and parking. Total area available 

for snowmobiling is less than current but high and moderate use areas are maintained as open. 

Summer motorized recreation is allowed on routes designated as open in current Travel Maps. 

Alternative 7 is the FEIS preferred alternative and was developed after public comments on the 

six alternatives described in the draft environmental impact statement had been reviewed, 

categorized, and analyzed. The purpose was to improve resolution of issues raised in public 

comments and to adapt the final preferred/decision alternative to current policy. Some 

components of the DEIS Preferred Alternative 6, were retained while other components were 

adjusted in response to comments and in response to recent policy regarding roads analysis and 

roadless area management. 

Key changes made to the DEIS preferred alternative to develop this alternative include: 

• Evaluation of individual roadless area values (FEIS Appendix C2) and identification of 

roadless areas or portions of roadless areas to be 1) recommended as wilderness, 2) 

maintained as roadless or undeveloped, or 3) where timber harvest, road construction or 

other development would be allowed. 

• Clarification of intent with regard to allowed activities for management prescription 

categories 3.1 and 3.2 by 1) Dividing 3.1 into two subcategories- 3.1A specifically for 

riparian/aquatic emphasis and 3.1W specifically for upland watershed emphasis; and 2) 

Dividing 3.2 into two subcategories- 3.2U for terrestrial wildlife habitat not allowing 

development (primarily roading and timber harvest) and 3.2D for terrestrial wildlife 

habitat allowing this type of development (See also Tables of Allowed Activities for 

Alternative 7, and Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4A.5, Management Prescriptions). 

• Clarification of intent in all prescriptions for allowing new trail construction (See Tables 

of Allowed Activities). 

• Identification of fuel treatment needs in wildland urban interface areas and mapping of 

management prescriptions that allow mechanical fuel treatment on these areas 

(Prescription 2.6 does not allow this). 

• Identification of additional areas of the North Slope Uinta Mountains where bighorn 

sheep habitat could be emphasized in the future should livestock grazing permits be 

voluntarily waived without preference. 

• Adjustment of outputs and activities projections with improved information. 

• Changes in prescription mapping, recreation opportunity class mapping, and winter 

recreation mapping for specific areas in response to public concerns. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 13 

Alternative 7 addresses concerns about needs for emphasis on biodiversity by attempting to 

balance human impacts and uses with maintenance of overall ecological integrity. This 

Alternative proposes actively managing (primarily vegetation treatments) some areas of the 

forest to restore ecological functioning and reduce hazardous fuels, allowing continued 

production of commodity resources for human use in many areas, and in other areas, allowing 

natural processes to proceed with less human intrusion. This management approach emphasizes 

conservation of most (75% of total) roadless areas and their values by maintaining them as 

undeveloped (with application of management prescriptions 1.5, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1A, 3.1W, 3.2U, 

4.1, 4.2- see Maps). It highlights substantial areas for emphasis on sustaining important 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats through active management with uses restricted, to achieve 

restoration or protection of properly functioning ecosystem conditions (prescriptions 3.1A, 3.2U 

and D- see Maps). This Alternative concentrates human uses and commodity production 

activities in areas where they can be managed sustainably, i.e. mitigated to maintain primary 

ecosystem functions (prescriptions 2.5, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1- see Maps). Expected total 

commodity outputs are slightly lower than in recent years with some areas providing a limited, 

but continual supply and others removed or reduced from commodity production to sustain other 

important wildland values (such as watershed functioning, ecological reserves and biodiversity 

corridors, opportunities for solitude, and special designation of reference benchmarks for 

learning such as RNA/SIA). 

Recreation opportunities are managed intensively in selected areas to meet increasing demands, 

while recognizing the importance of watersheds especially in the vicinity of current and future 

urbanization. Areas further from major population bases are managed for a wider variety of 

recreation opportunities including substantial areas of primitive and semi-primitive classes. The 

popularity of recreation (especially camping) outside developed sites is recognized and specific 

actions to provide for this use while protecting watersheds and vegetation are proposed. Winter 

recreation uses are separated in several areas to provide both motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities with access and parking. Recognizing the distances that can be covered and 

growing demand, total area open for snowmobiling is 540,700 (44% of the Forest, 61% of the 

area not congressionally designated closed). New areas closed to snowmobiling for providing 

quality non-motorized winter opportunities total 7,500 acres or.8% of total forest acres and 

190,700 acres of critical big game winter range (15% of total Forest). Summer motorized 

recreation is allowed on routes designated as open in current Travel Maps and several areas for 

potential future expansion of designated motorized routes are identified. 

Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 

(FEIS Chapters 2 and 3) 

The following estimates and comparisons of environmental consequences by alternative are 

based on key differences in potential effects. They assume that Standards and Guidelines 

contained in the revised Forest Plan apply to all alternatives except 4. Alternative 4 is the “No 

Action” which assumes continued application of the 1985 Plan as amended. In many cases 

standards and guidelines provide mitigation of activities, reducing or eliminating potential 

negative environmental effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 14 

A key difference between alternatives is how Management Prescription Categories (MPC) are 

mapped and the relative amount of each category. Table 1 provides a comparison of acres by 

prescription by alternative. However, acres alone do not provide the basis for conclusions about 

environmental effects because between alternatives, MPCs are not necessarily located in the 

same areas of the forest, allowed activities for the same MPC may vary between alternatives, and 

other management direction such as standards and guidelines applies forest-wide. 

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Acres1

 by Management Prescription 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

1.0 Wilderness

1.1 Existing Wilderness - 

Opportunity Class I 178,000178,000178,000 61,900 178,000 143,200143,200

1.2 Existing Wilderness – 

Opportunity Class II 105,800105,800105,800 98,300 105,800 139,400139,400

1.3 Existing Wilderness – 

Opportunity Class III 25,100 25,100 25,100 19,600 25,100 26,200 26,200

1.4 Existing Wilderness - No Class 0 0 0 129,200 0 0 0 

1.5 Recommended wilderness 388,900145,900 51,500 0 0 69,400 73,500

2.0 Special Management Areas

2.4 Research Natural Areas 5,600 5,600 4,600 6,200 5,300 5,600 5,600 

2.5 Scenic Byways 20,600 20,600 20,600 22,000 23,100 22,800 21,100

2.6 Undeveloped Areas 197,900192,000 85,000 0 2,000 88,500 111,200

2.7 Special Interest Areas 

and Special Areas 17,100 32,500 900 0 1,000 16,600 18,600

3.0 Protection, Maintenance or Restoration of Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity

3.1 Aquatic Habitat/Watershed Emphasis 138,200181,500158,600106,400 70,400 186,000 0 

3.1a Aquatic Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,300

3.1w Watershed Emphasis 0 0 0 0 0 0 154,600

3.2 Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis 86,800 138,200201,600 11,500 24,600 218,300 0 

3.2d Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis – 

developed 0 0 0 0 0 0 89,200

3.2u Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis – 

undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 0 122,300

4.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Recreation Needs and Opportunities 

4.1 Backcountry Non-motorized 

Recreation Settings 3,200 30,000 56,700 126,700104,000 19,900 13,000

4.2 Dispersed Non-motorized 

Recreation Settings 4,500 3,600 3,200 3,900 20,500 20,000 3,500 

4.3 Backcountry Motorized Recreation 

Settings 16,000 25,000 30,600 1,800 17,300 32,600 27,100

4.4 Dispersed Motorized Recreation Settings 30,900 38,300 41,700 16,600 78,200 49,100 53,800

4.5 Developed Recreation Areas 12,200 13,100 12,300 13,800 22,200 11,900 12,000

 

1

 Rounded to nearest 100 acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 15 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

5.0 Forested Vegetation Management Needs and Opportunities 

5.1 Maintain/Restore Forested 

Ecosystem Integrity 0 69,800 56,100 41,600 100 73,500 81,100

5.1/6.1 Mixed Forested/Rangeland 

Ecosystem Integrity 200 200 88,700 0 0 17,300 17,300

5.2 Manage Timber for Growth and Yield 0 0 43,800 251,000182,100 34,800 34,500

5.2/6.2 Mixed Manage for Timber/Forage 0 0 0 0 186,000 0 0 

6.0 Rangeland Vegetation Management Needs and Opportunities 

6.1 Maintain/Restore Rangeland Ecosystem 

Integrity 5,300 31,300 35,500 61,000 54,300 60,000 60,000

6.2 Manage for Livestock Forage Production 0 0 36,300 264,700137,600 1,600 1,600 

8.0 Concentrated Development Areas 

8.1 Mineral and Energy Development 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 

 

Watershed Health 

Recently, there has been substantial legal and administrative emphasis on the importance of 

protecting and sustaining stable watershed conditions as the foundation for all other resources 

and uses. Watersheds and water-bodies that do not meet desired conditions have been identified 

over the last few years through inventory work. Table 2 shows that all alternatives in the FEIS 

except Alternative 1 implement soil and water improvement projects at about the same pace to 

protect watershed values. 

Table 2: Projected Projects to Improve Watershed Health 

For 10 year planning period

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Soil and Water Improvement Projects 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 

Aquatic Resources Improvement Projects 0 50 15 20 10 25 25 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 have the greatest potential to affect soil productivity through an 

irretrievable commitment of soil resources for timber harvest and vegetation treatment road, and 

oil and gas roads and facilities. Alternative 2 has the highest potential to cause short-term 

adverse affects to soil productivity because of the large amount of prescribed fire use in aspen 

and aspen/conifer mixed. Alternative 1 has the least short and long-term cumulative effects on 

soil productivity because of the small amount of project activities and outputs, and it has the 

greatest amount of land that is allocated to recommended wilderness and roadless protection 

where active management is very limited. When properly implemented, activities such as timber 

harvest and fire use have very little long-term commitment of soil resource. Only a fraction of 

those acres affected by timber harvest or fire use will actually suffer detrimental soil impacts 

such as displacement, compaction, or severe burning. Very few detrimental impacts to soils are 

expected from timber harvest (excluding roads, skid trails, and landings) and mechanical 

treatments for fuels reduction because these activities will leave adequate ground cover to protect 

soils and compaction is limited to a small amount of designated area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 16 

New roads represent an irretrievable commitment of soil resources. On the WCNF, the longterm use of roads for new timber harvest and new roads and development for oil and gas 

activities will occur mainly in the Eastern Uintas Management Area. On lands adjacent to the 

WCNF in this management area, timber harvest and oil and gas development has occurred in the 

past and is continuing with activities that may affect soil and water resources such as road 

building and facility development. OHV and ATV use has been increasing on the WCNF and 

has had adverse effects to soils, particularly in specific areas where use is concentrated. In the 

long-term, education, enforcement, and on the ground management on and off the WCNF should 

help to reduce the adverse effects to soil productivity from these activities. 

The short-term effects to water quality are similar to those described in the cumulative effects for 

soil productivity. This is because ground disturbing activities that have an adverse effect on soil 

productivity, usually have the potential for adverse effects on water quality, particularly in 

disturbance area that are close to water bodies. In the long term cumulatively, management 

activities on and off the WCNF should improve water quality through road decommissioning 

that will reduce erosion and sedimentation; vegetation treatments that will improve ground cover 

and reduce potential for wildfire; revised grazing guidelines that include bank trampling review 

during allotment management plan updates and annual operating permit review; and state and 

local environmental programs that assess water quality and plan actions for the improvement of 

impaired waters. 

For the most part the detailed descriptions of effects from different activities indicate that effects 

to watershed under any alternative are manageable and relatively small given the relative areas of 

projected activities in the Forest, and the application of protective measures (standards, 

guidelines, and best management practices) during project implementation. Under all 

alternatives, no irreversible effects should occur from the proposed activities because no soil or 

water resources are affected where these resources cannot be returned to their previous condition. 

Of the management activities that occur on the WCNF, only Timber Harvest/ Vegetation 

Treatment activities have the potential to substantially effect water yield. Utah and Wyoming 

are experiencing an increase in timber harvest on private lands in response to declining sales on 

public lands. This will cause an increase in water yield from private lands that are harvested. 

Between alternatives, water yield increase is assumed to be greatest with alternatives 4 and 5, 

which have the greatest amount of suited lands and would most likely have treatments proposed 

on them in addition to private land holdings. In all alternatives, most of the water yield increase 

would occur in the eastern Uintas, north part of the western Uintas, and Bear management areas 

and in private lands adjacent to these areas. 

Vegetation 

Of the vegetation cover types that currently have the highest deviations from historic ranges 

(aspen, Douglas-fir, oak, pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, tall forb and riparian), the key differences in 

effects on vegetation by alternative can be summarized based on the degree to which vegetation 

is treated. Table 3 shows acres of several types of treatment for the priority vegetation types. 

The amount of vegetation that would be moved toward properly functioning condition within the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 17 

10-year planning period would be greatest in Alternative 2. Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 are second 

greatest with about 60% as many acres as Alternative 2 treated. Alternatives 4 and 5 are third 

greatest with about 29% as many acres as Alternative 2 treated. Alternative 2 also treats the 

most sagebrush with prescribed fire to decrease sagebrush canopy and increase forbs and grasses. 

Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 treat about half as many acres of sagebrush and Alternatives 4 and 5 treat 

about one-quarter of the acres in Alternative 2 primarily because of the need to find alternative 

forage for livestock both prior to and after burning. The primary reason for treating oak is to 

reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface. All alternatives do this except 4 because 

the 1985 plan did not place emphasis on this. Alternatives 4 and 5 allow road construction and 

manage significantly more conifer vegetation for commercial growth and yield (prescription 5.2) 

than Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7. In Alternative 1, given that no prescribed fire or other vegetation 

treatment is allowed, the degree to which vegetation would move toward properly functioning 

condition is unpredictable. It would depend on natural processes such as insect, disease, wind 

and wildland fire. 

 

Table 3. Comparison of treatments (prescribed fire, harvest, and mechanical fuels treatment) for 

each alternative over a 10-year period 

 

Alternatives 

Treatment Vegetation 

Type Total 

Acres 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

PRESCRIBED FIRE 

Aspen & 

Aspen/Conifer 205,600 0 80,000 32,000 7,200 7,200 32,000 32,000 

Douglas-fir 87,500 0 4,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000 

Sagebrush and 

Pinyon-Juniper 266,500 0 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 

Prescribed Fire 

Oak 90,800 0 40,000 20,000 8,000 20,000 20,000 8,000 

Total Acres Treated by Prescribed 

Fire 650,400 0 164,000 74,000 25,200 37,200 74,000 72,000 

HARVEST AND MECHANICAL TREATMENT 

Timber 

Harvest 

Aspen and Conifer 

Harvest 556,600 0 6,500 7,500 12,500 15,500 5,000 8,500 

Mech. 

Treatment Oak (fuels treatment) 90,800 0 16,000 8,000 0 8,000 8,000 20,000 

TOTAL ACRES TREATED 

Total Acres Treated 

(Harvest, Prescribed Fire, & Mechanical) 0 186,500 89,500 37,700 60,700 87,000 100,500

PERCENTATGE OF THE ACRES TREATED BY FIRE, HARVEST, AND MECHANICAL METHODS 

Of the Acres Treated, 

Percent Treated by Prescribed Fire 0% 88% 83% 67% 61% 85% 72% 

Of the Acres Treated, 

Percent Treated by Timber Harvest 0% 3% 8% 33% 26% 6% 8% 

Of the Acres Treated, 

Percent Mechanically Treated 0% 9% 9% 0% 13% 9% 20% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 18 

The differences between alternatives and their probability of reaching properly functioning 

condition are shown in Table 4. Alternative 2 shows the greatest likelihood for all cover types 

except Douglas-fir for reaching PFC within 10 decades. Alternative 5 shows the least 

accomplishment in reaching PFC because most vegetation treatment is by timber harvest which 

does not affect vast amounts of acres as fire. Proper functioning would mean less susceptibility 

to insect or disease epidemics, noxious weed invasion, or uncharacteristic wildfire and would 

prevent type conversions such as aspen being overtaken by conifer. 

Table 4 Cover types in the Uinta Mountains and Overthrust Mountains Sections reaching Properly 

Functioning Condition within 10 Decades 

Cover Types ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 ALT 6 ALT 7 

Sagebrush1 Yes Yes No No No No Yes 

Oak No Yes Yes No Yes3 Yes Yes 

Aspen No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 

Douglas-Fir No No No No No No No 

Mixed Conifer 

Lodgepole 

Yes 2 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 

Spruce Fir No Yes No No No No No 

1

Modeled outside VDDT 

2

Uinta Mountain section only 

3

Overthrust Mountain section only 

Botanical Resources 

Botanical resources are very important, particularly the most rare elements of the flora, those that 

are classified as Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) plant species. Table 5 provides a 

list of those species that have state or federal status as Threatened or Proposed. Additionally, we 

have identified those species that have been identified as imperiled and may warrant listing as 

Threatened or Endangered by the Utah Native Plant Society and the Utah Natural Heritage 

Program (Utah Rare Plant Meeting Results 2000). There are no plants currently listed as 

endangered on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The alternatives have varying effects on botanical resources. For Primula maguirei (Maguire’s 

Primrose) and Viola frank-smithii (Frank Smith Violet), threats for potential impacts due to 

recreation and associated activities are moderate to high under all alternatives and fire could 

negatively affect these populations. For Sprianthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid), 

which has not been found in surveys in the Wasatch-Cache, the potential for moderate levels of 

impact to potential habitat are common to all alternatives. For Dodecatheon dentatum var. 

utahense (Utah Shooting Star), all alternatives would have moderate to high threats from 

recreation. For Draba maguirei var. burkei (Burke’s Draba) Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 may 

pose the least potential impacts because of being within prescriptions that provide the least 

possibility of disturbance. Alternatives 4 and 5 have prescriptions in these areas that have higher 

possibilities of disturbance. However, in all alternatives, the largest population occurs in 

prescription 4.5, which has already experienced loss of plants due to development. Botrychium 

lineare is not currently on the U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region sensitive species list 

and is not currently given any formal consideration. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

concluded that “...the overall magnitude of threats to B. lineare throughout its range is moderate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 19 

and the overall immediacy of these threats is nonimminent” (USDI USFWS 2002). The threats 

to the historic habitat on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for this species have been 

minimized. 

Table 5. Threatened, Candidate, and Species Likely to be Proposed as Threatened or 

Endangered on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Scientific Name Common Name Status Distribution 

Primula maguirei L. O. 

Williams 

Maguire’s Primrose Threatened Logan Canyon Endemic 

Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak Ute ladies’-tresses Threatened Potential Habitat – through the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Viola frank-smithii N. Holmgren Frank Smith’s Violet Sensitive2 Logan Canyon Endemic 

Dodecatheon dentatum Hook

var. utahense N.H. Holmgren

Wasatch Shooting 

Star, Utah Shooting 

Star 

Sensitive1 Salt Lake County Endemic 

Draba maguirei C.L. Hitchc.

var. burkei C.L. Hitchc. 

Burke’s Draba Sensitive1 Northeastern Utah Endemic 

Botrychium lineare 

W.H. Wagner 

Slender Moonwort Candidate Colorado, Oregon, Montana, 

Washington, (Historical sites in 

California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, 

Nevada and Quebec and New 

Brunswick, Canada) 1

 Likely to be proposed, as Threatened or Endangered, because of rarity and/or because of potential threats 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

In evaluating effects on terrestrial wildlife species, it must be remembered that any potential 

activity may be detrimental to some species while it benefits others because of the wide variety 

of habitat needs. The primary determinant for evaluating management activities effects on 

species is the effects of those activities on vegetation communities relative to their historic range 

of variability. 

Effects from timber harvest include fragmentation, displacement, and changes in vegetation 

structure and age class benefiting species that prefer more open areas in earlier successional 

stages. Species that prefer mature and old growth coniferous vegetation would see a reduction 

proportional to the amount of acres harvested however, given the abundance of currently mature 

and old age classes these species would continue to have available habitat under any alternative. 

Prescribed fire has similar effects favoring species that use younger vegetation age classes and 

applies to vegetation types other than conifer including aspen, sagebrush, and oak. Improving 

age class distribution of vegetation toward the historic range of variability will benefit the most 

species of terrestrial wildlife. Table 3 provides acres of projected harvest and prescribed fire for 

selected cover types by alternative. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 20 

Prescriptions 1.1-1.5 protect habitat, have minimum fragmentation, and generally favor species 

that prefer older vegetation age classes until set back by wildfire or wildland fire use. Table 1 

shows relative acreages of these prescriptions by alternative. 

Potential impacts from roads and trails include fragmentation of habitat and displacement of 

wildlife. The amount is a function of the amount of use on the road or trail. The greatest 

potential for adverse impacts associated with roads is from construction for timber harvest or oil 

and gas exploration and development with alternative 5, followed by 3, 4, 7, 6, 2, and 1 as shown 

in Table 16. In addition field development and well pads associated with oil and gas activities 

could further disrupt wildlife and fragment habitat. The amount of land disturbed ranges from 20 

acres in Alternative 1 and 2 to 1o5 acres in Alternative 5. 

The greatest potential effect from winter motorized access is disturbance of wintering big game 

and possibly increased competition for prey of Canada lynx. Acres open to snowmobiling within 

critical big game winter range are about 22,500 in Alternatives 1 and 2 (9% of total big game 

winter range), 54,000 in Alternative 7 (22%), 108,500 in Alternative 3 (44%), 115,700 in 

Alternative 5 (47%), and 141,700 in Alternative 4 (58%). Currently there are 96,100 acres 

within big game winter range (39%) open to snowmobiling. In Lynx Analysis Units (all of the 

Uinta Mountains) the Lynx Conservation Strategy recommends no net increase in the amount of 

groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or snowmobile play areas. The intent is to allow no 

more than existing compaction of snow in these areas because of potential for reducing the 

competitive advantage lynx has in uncompacted snow. Alternatives 1 and 2 would reduce the 

areas open to winter motorized use in the Uinta Mountains significantly while Alternatives 4 and 

5 would open some currently closed areas to motorized use which is inconsistent with the Lynx 

Conservation Strategy. Alternative 3 maintains currently open areas and Alternatives 6 and 7 

reduce the net of areas open to motorized use from existing but not to the large extent that 

Alternatives 1 and 2 do. 

Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Resources 

There are at least 24 fish species that inhabit the waters of the Wasatch Cache. Bonneville and 

Colorado cutthroat trout have been identified as sensitive. The June sucker, an endangered 

species, was stocked in Red Butte Reservoir in the early 1990 for holding and have since 

successfully reproduced. Of the seven amphibians historically present on the Forest, only the 

spotted from is on the sensitive species list. 

Effects from timber harvest and oil and gas exploration and development would be primarily 

from road construction that requires stream crossings and the subsequent risk of sedimentation 

that causes direct and indirect mortality to aquatic and semi-aquatic species by covering and 

suffocating eggs. For timber harvest, Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the greatest potential 

impact followed by Alternative 3, 7, 6, 2 and 1 in that order. For oil and gas activities, 

Alternative 4 would have the least threats followed by alternatives 1 and 2, 6, 3, 7, and 5. 

The prescription providing the greatest reduction in threats is 2.4, research natural areas. No 

timber harvest, vegetation treatments, road building, grazing or new recreation development is 

allowed. Prescriptions 1.1-1.5, wilderness and proposed wilderness, along with prescription 2.6, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 21 

undeveloped areas, also provide a high level of threat reduction in excluding timber harvest, 

vegetation treatments, road construction and new developed recreation al facilities. Management 

prescription 3.1 also provides a high level of threat reduction. To assess the affects of 

management prescriptions on aquatic species, the number of acres were summed for prescription 

categories 1.1-1.5, 2.4 and 3.1 and compared. Most of the acres gained in Alternative 1 are in 

proposed wilderness. Alternative 1 has the most acres in the combined prescriptions followed by 

Alternatives 2, 6, 7, 3, 4, and 5. Alternatives 2 and 7 also provide recognition for all populations 

of cutthroat trout. 

Alternative 2 provides the best balance of protection and restoration opportunities for aquatic and 

semi-aquatic. Alternative 1 ranks out high as an alternative that provides for aquatic and semiaquatic species but there are some difficulties in restoration efforts. Alternative 1 would make it 

very difficult to actively restore aspen stands adjacent to streams or to install migration barriers 

to preclude non-native fish because it depends entirely on natural processes. Alternatives 6, 7, 

and 3 allow for restoration work but they provide less emphasis on aquatic restoration and 

protection. Alternatives 4 and 5 provide the least emphasis on protection of native aquatic and 

semi-aquatic species. Alternative 7 encourages restoration of native cutthroat trout to six key 

drainages. 

Timber Suitability and Production 

Effects on the timber program are based on the amount of volume projected from both suited 

lands (prescription 5.2 or 6.2) and tentatively suited lands where harvest is allowed. A number 

of other factors affecting the program but not dependent on alternatives include quality of the 

timber, amount actually offered annually, accessibility, distance from the mill, and special 

requirements or contract provisions that have potential to increase cost of processing. 

Alternative 1 does not allow any timber harvest therefore there would be no timber program and 

mills dependent on National Forest timber would have to find other sources or go out of 

business. Alternative 2 designates no lands as suited for timber production but does allow 

harvest to meet other resource objectives, however road construction to access areas of 

inventoried roadless is not allowed and the type of offerings would be for lower value species 

such as aspen and fir. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 designate differing amounts of area (Table 

6) as suited for timber production and also allow timber harvest for meeting other resource 

objectives with volumes as shown in Table 7. Alternative 5 would provide the largest volume of 

quality material and would supply demand for one or two local mills. It would also require a 

significant shift in dollar allocation within the forest budget. Alternative 4 would provide the 

second largest volume and also would require reallocation of funds into the timber program. 

Alternatives 7, 6 and 3 would supply less than that needed to supply one mill on an annual basis 

but would continue to contribute toward meeting demand. 

Table 6. Acres of Timber Suitability 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Suited1 Lands for 

Timber Production 

0 0 38,000 193,900 226,000 28,900 28,900

1

 Areas available and capable with Mgt. Prescription 5.2 or 6.2. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 22 

Table 7. Timber Production Potential 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

ASQ/TSPQ Volume (MMBF) 0 / 0 0 / 2.1 1.6 / 3.2 3.3 / 6.2 6.2 / 7.4 2.0 / 3.9 2.0/4.5 

Rangeland Suitability and Livestock Grazing

Building upon the 1996 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Rangeland Health Forest Plan 

Amendment, Forest Plan revision management direction for all alternatives has been developed 

to maintain or improve rangeland conditions on National Forest administered lands. Direction 

occurs at both the Forest-wide and Management Area levels. Goals and objectives have been 

designed to achieve desired rangeland conditions over the long term, and to maintain or restore 

sustainable levels of forage production, livestock use, and ecosystem functions and processes. 

Furthermore, management direction for other resource programs—such as vegetation, soil, 

water, riparian, aquatic, wildlife, and recreation—provide additional guidance and resource 

protection in an integrated manner. 

Currently, it is estimated that 95 percent of allotment rangelands with management objectives are 

either meeting or moving toward those objectives. In the 5% of areas where present rangeland 

conditions are not meeting objectives, conditions are expected to improve under all alternatives 

with the implementation of Forest Plan management direction. However, the rate of 

improvement may vary by alternative. 

Several criteria that vary between alternatives were established to determine suitability. All 

alternatives remove 2,700 acres of developed recreation sites that are currently within open 

allotments. Alternatives 1, and 2 remove 10,400 acres because of closure of vacant allotments 

and Alternative 7 removes 2,500 acres for this reason. Alternatives 1,2,6, and 7 remove 7,800 

acres from vacant allotments for bighorn sheep habitat, and Alternatives 1,2, and 6 remove 

18,300 acres, and Alternative 3 removes 2,100 acres because they are in unsatisfactory condition. 

Alternative 2 removes an additional 26,000 acres of riparian areas for enhanced protection of 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat. Alternatives 4 and 5 remove no capable 

acres from the suitable category. 

Table 8. Forest-Wide Suitable Rangeland Acres 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Forest-Wide Suitable 

Rangelands1 263,500 237,500 297,900 300,000 300,000 273,900 289,800 1

 From FEIS Table RN-4. 

Effects of removal of areas in unsatisfactory condition from suitable acres in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

and 6 would vary because of site-specific factors. Areas in unsatisfactory condition that can be 

easily avoided through livestock herding, and/or salting would be most likely to improve in 

ground cover and species composition over the long-term. Areas that are fenced or can be 

fenced would also be likely to improve if removed from livestock grazing. Areas in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 23 

unsatisfactory condition that are relatively small, scattered, or in locations where it is difficult to 

avoid grazing without expensive structural improvements (fence construction) would be much 

less likely to improve. 

Alternative 7 (and the Revised Forest Plan) includes a forage utilization guideline for lower (30-

40%) allowable use on areas in unsatisfactory condition rather than removing these areas from 

suitability. With implementation of this guideline, areas of both upland and riparian vegetation 

in unsatisfactory condition would improve with riparian areas restored more quickly than 

uplands. Improvement would be more consistent overall than in Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 3 

because a lower utilization standard could be applied to all the areas more easily than total 

avoidance of the areas. However, even this approach’s success will depend on diligence in 

herding, salting, range improvement maintenance, and monitoring of utilization. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 do not remove areas in unsatisfactory condition nor do they implement a 

lower forage utilization allowance for these areas. Some improvement of these areas is expected 

through implementation of management direction from the 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment, 

however it is expected that it would be more gradual and less consistent than in any of the other 

Alternatives. 

Potential future changes in suitable acres are included in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 by allowing for 

closure of Gilbert Peak, Henry's Fork-Hessie Lake, & Red Castle allotments should those 

permits be voluntarily waived without preference. Alternative 7 allows for these closures, as 

well as East Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork Blacks Fork, East Fork Bear River, and Stillwater 

allotments. The purpose of these closures would be reduced risk for disease transmission from 

domestic sheep to bighorn sheep as well as watershed protection and establishment of ungrazed 

benchmarks. Given that this would be based strictly on a voluntary action initiated by permit 

holders, net effects on permittee operations would be expected to be positive. (Otherwise the 

permittee could choose not to take this action). These wildlife and ungrazed resource condition 

values are foregone in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. 

Burning of sagebrush will increase forage production with Alternative 1 not allowing any 

prescribed fire and depending on wildland fire use, 2 and 7 providing the most benefit with 

40,000 and 30,000 acres respectively, alternatives 3 and 6 with about 20,000 acres and 

Alternatives 4 and 5 with about 10,000 acres. Prescribed burning of sagebrush will require some 

pre and post treatment exclusion of grazing requiring that alternative forage be found for grazing 

that would normally be scheduled for the areas to be burned. Effects on grazing from 

recommended wilderness would be mitigated by allowing for continuation of existing motorized 

access included in term grazing permits. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 24 

Table 9. Estimated Authorized Livestock Grazing Outputs by Alternative 

Livestock 

10-Year Average 

AUMs 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 2

Cattle 34,300 31,980 28,820 33,940 34,180 34,180 31,980 33,560 

Sheep 24,600 23,160 20,870 24,580 24,750 24,750 23,160 24,300 

Total 58,900 55,140 49,690 58,520 58,930 58,930 55,140 57,860 

Decisions made in the Forest Planning process do not include issuance of Term Grazing Permits 

nor do they include decisions about stocking of allotments (i.e. permitted numbers). These 

decisions must be based on very specific site-dependent information and are made through either 

Allotment Management Planning or Term Permit Issuance or Modification. Therefore, the 

projections displayed in Table 9 are for outputs only. Permitted number changes are dependent 

on other decision-making processes. 

Recreation Management 

The primary means of expressing differences between alternatives for summer recreation is the 

amount land within the different classes of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). ROS is 

a management system and tool that is based on inventory and mapping of recreation settings. 

These settings occupy a spectrum from highly developed urban settings (e.g. ski area base 

facilities) to very primitive settings with no evidence of human development (much of the High 

Uintas Wilderness). 

When the ROS categories were mapped for each of the alternatives it became apparent that the 

ROS map in the 1985 Forest Plan (Alternative 4/1985) does not reflect existing conditions 

because it reflects the anticipated ROS conditions that would have come about if the 1985 Forest 

Plan had been strictly implemented. However, budgets and priorities changed from 1985 to the 

present and the anticipated ROS conditions on the Forest did not occur. Therefore, the existing 

condition represents current ROS settings and should be used as the point of comparison for the 

other alternatives. Table 10 shows the amount of land in ROS classes by alternative. Maps 

showing ROS allocations by alternative are provided with the FEIS and available on the website 

(www.fs.fed.us/wcnf). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 25 

Table 10. Acres of Summer ROS Categories by Alternative and Existing Condition (EC). 

1 Wilderness (MPC 1.1). 

2 Wilderness Semi Primitive Non-Motorized. 

3

 Semi-Primitive Non Motorize and Recommended Wilderness (MPC1.5).

4

 Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

5 Lands acquired after 1985 plan. 

6

 Totals differ due to GIS Mapping accuracy and rounding-off of decimal points. 

Major differences between alternatives exist in the amount of recommended Wilderness, SemiPrimitive Non-motorized (SPNM), Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) and Roaded Natural (RN) 

ROS classes. The ROS map in the 1985 Forest Plan (Alternative 4/1985) anticipated much more 

road development than what actually occurred and this is reflected in much more non-motorized 

ROS categories in the existing condition. Alternative 1 provides an emphasis on more primitive 

forms of summer recreation with the recommendation of substantial new acreage for Wilderness 

and protection of the values inherent to undeveloped areas. Alternative 5 gives increased 

emphasis to motorized and developed uses. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 provide differing acreages of 

developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities between the amounts of Alternatives 1 and 

5. Alternative 7 is almost the same as the existing condition with only about 6,000 acres added to 

rural from roaded natural. ROS maps show the particular recreation settings available in an area. 

Maps that show the location for four classes of winter recreation are found in the FEIS. These 

are Heli-skiing, Motorized (snowmobile use), Non-motorized, and Wilderness (non-motorized) 

and Table 11 shows the acres for each of these by alternative. Effects on winter use are 

compared by the acres open and closed to snowmobiling and they vary by alternative. Reasons 

for changing closures from existing include protection of critical big game winter ranges, 

exclusion from recommended wilderness and/or roadless areas, and separation of motorized from 

non-motorized uses to enhance non-motorized recreation opportunities in specific locations. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 are the most restrictive to motorized use reducing open areas by about 61% 

and 53% respectively from existing. Alternative 3 increases existing winter motorized access by 

about 4%. Alternative 4 (1985 Plan) had about 12% more area open to motorized that currently 

exists in Travel Management Plans. Alternative 5 would open additional areas to motorized use 

adding about 9% to existing. Alternatives 6 and 7 decrease existing motorized areas by about 

14% and 15% respectively. However, a large portion of the reduction (about 30,000 acres) is 

acreage along the very steep Wasatch Front of the Ogden Ranger District, which is currently 

“open”, but not used by snowmobilers. Therefore the usable snowmobile terrain in the existing 

ROS Category Alternative 

1 2 3 4/1985 5 6 7 EC 

Wilderness/Primitive1 36,500 36,500 36,500 307,500 36,500 36,500 36,500 36,500 

Wilderness/SPNM2 272,400 272,400 272,400 0 272,400 272,400 272,500 272,500 

SPNM3 556,200 436,300 392,100 241,900 308,400 411,800 416,100 416,100 

SPM4 135,800 188,700 223,600 85,600 268,800 201,400 276,800 276,800 

RN (Roaded Natural) 234,600 301,500 311,100 545,600 349,300 313,400 227,900 233,600 

Rural 720 720 720 13,600 720 720 6,400 720 

Urban 144 144 144 0 144 144 144 144 

NA5 0 0 0 45,200 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL6 1,236,364 1,236,264 1,236,564 1,239,400 1,236,264 1,236,364 1,236,344 1,236,364 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 26 

condition is actually about 5% less than the acres shown and alternatives that close this area 

(1,2,6,7) have a 30,000 acre reduction that has no real effect on snowmobiling. 

Heliskiing areas remain the same as current in Alternatives 5, 6 and 7. The area available for 

heliskiing is somewhat different and acreage is reduced in Alternative 3, and heliskiing is not 

allowed in Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Alternative 5 allows ski area permit boundary expansion while the other 6 alternatives maintain 

existing permit boundaries. 

Table 11. Acres of Winter Recreation: Heli-skiing, Motorized, Non-Motorized, Wilderness 

by Alternative and Existing Condition (EC) 

1 Alt 7 Allows motorized use in areas currently open within Recommended Wilderness (Prescription 1.5) 2 Existing Condition 

Scenery Management 

Scenery is an integral component of all national forest landscapes, and contributes to the quality 

of people’s experience. 

For Scenery Management the major change between the 1985 forest plan and the revised forest 

plan is the replacement of the old Visual Management System with a new system for managing 

scenery – the Scenery Management System. The Scenery Management System (SMS) provides 

new terminology (terms are explained on page 11) and a different perspective within which to 

plan for scenic resources. Under the previous Visual Management System, human alteration of 

the natural landscape character was considered a negative impact to scenery. The forest was 

managed to acceptable degrees of deviation from the natural characteristic landscape using 

Visual Quality Objectives of preservation, retention, partial retention and modification. Under 

SMS, positive cultural modifications can be included in the landscape character to establish a 

baseline of measurement. 

The Forest is classified in five landscape character themes that are tied to management 

prescriptions that may include positive cultural modifications within the theme definition. 

Alternative 4 uses the old system and is presented for contrast in Table 12. 

Scenery has been altered in numerous locations across the Forest by both human and natural 

forces. Obvious significant effects on scenic resources arise from a variety of resource 

management activities and public uses such as recreation, timber management, wildland and 

prescribed fire, grazing, oil and gas leasing and development and utility corridors that alter 

Winter Recreation Acres of Existing Condition and Alternatives 

 1 2 3 4/1985 5 6 71 EC2

Heli-skiing 0 0 12,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 

Motorized 246,800 296,700 663,600 723,300 693,900 548,700 540,700 634,800 

Non-Motorized 679,200 629,800 263,000 163,400 232,600 377,900 385,900 291,600 

Wilderness 308,900 308,900 308,900 307,500 308,900 308,900 308,900 308,900 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 27 

vegetation and the landscape appearances. The relative amount of these activities and uses vary 

by alternative. However, they are likely to be present to some extent in all alternatives. 

Table 12. Percent of the WCNF of Landscape Character Theme and Scenic Integrity 

Objectives

LANDSCAPE Alternative 

CHARACTER 

Scenic 

Integrity 

Objective 1 2 3 4/1985 5 6 7 

Natural evolving Very High 56.3 36.7 29.1 N.A. 24.9 30.5 29.9 

High 33.8 43.6 36.6 N.A. 39.5 38.7 49.7 

Moderate 7.3 17.0 28.2 N.A. 2.2 25.2 14.7 

Natural appearing 

Low 0 0 3.5 N.A. 29.7 2.8 3.1 

Developed natural appearing High 1.9 2.0 1.9 N.A. 2.9 2.0 1.9 

Resort natural setting High 0.5 0.5 0.5 N.A. 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Water recreation rural 

appearing 

High 0.3 0.3 0.3 N.A. 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Natural1 VQO preservation Very High 0 0 0 25.0 0 0 0 

Natural1 VQO retention High 0 0 0 21.0 0 0 0 

Natural1 VQO partial retention Moderate 0 0 0 27.0 0 0 0 

Natural1 VQO modification Low 0 0 0 36.0 0 0 0 

Grand Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

1

 Translation from Visual Management System terminology to Scenery Management System. Alternative 4 

represents the 1985 Forest Plan direction for Scenic Resources.

Trails 

Hiking, walking, bicycling, horseback riding, and motorized uses are all very popular activities 

on Wasatch-Cache trails. For this forest planning effort trail by trail allocation to different uses 

and the opening and closing of trails were not within the scope of the decisions to be made, and 

in general, most trail opportunities will continue as defined in current ranger district travel 

management plans. Currently, there are 306 miles of motorized trails on the Forest. Because of 

allocations of inventoried roadless areas to recommended wilderness in some alternatives, some 

trails that are currently open to motorized and mechanized uses would be closed to these uses. In 

Alternative 1, approximately 76 miles or 24 percent of existing trails would be closed to 

motorized use. In Alternative 2, approximately 7 miles or 2 percent of existing trail would be 

closed to motorized use. Alternatives 3 through 7 would have no change in motorized trail use 

from existing conditions. 

Table 13. Miles of Existing Motorized Trials Closed to Motorized Use 

in Recommended Wilderness 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Trails Closed to Motorized Use from 

Wilderness Recommendation 

76 7 0 0 0 0 0

For mountain bikes (mechanized use) there are also effects of recommended wilderness by 

alternative. Because of allocations of inventoried roadless areas to recommended wilderness in 

some alternatives, some trails that are currently open to mountain biking would be closed to this 

use. In Alternative 1, approximately 167 miles of existing trail would be closed to mountain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 28 

biking use in 11 roadless areas. In Alternatives 2, 6, 7, and 3, approximately 53, 47, 43, and 12 

miles of existing trail would be closed to mountain biking use. However, not all miles of trail 

that are open to mountain biking are actually suitable for average skill levels, therefore they may 

not be commonly used for that purpose. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have no change in mountain 

biking use from existing conditions. 

Table 14. Miles of Existing Trails Closed to Mountain Biking 

in Recommended Wilderness

Roadless Area Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Burch Creek 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

High Uintas 12.6 7.8 7.8 NA NA 5.9 5.9 

Lakes 40.3 24.6 0 NA NA 9.5 9.5

Lone Peak 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Mount Aire 11.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mount Naomi 33.5 15.5 3.8 NA NA 3.8 NA

Mount Olympus 8.8 0 0 NA NA NA NA

Nobletts 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Stansbury 13.9 0 0 NA NA NA NA

Twin Peaks 6.4 0 0 NA NA NA NA 

Upper South Fork 27.5 NA 0 NA NA 27.5 27.5 

Wellsville Mountains 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA 

White Pine 5.3 5.3 NA NA NA NA NA 

Widdop Mountain 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Total 166.6 53.2 11.6 0 0 46.7 42.9 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management 

In addition to providing areas for future wilderness consideration, inventoried roadless areas 

possess social and ecological values and characteristics such as unique opportunities for nonmotorized and motorized dispersed recreation in a primitive or semi-primitive setting, sources of 

clean drinking water, and large undisturbed landscapes that offer privacy and seclusion. These 

areas support a diversity of habitats for native plants and animal species, conserve biological 

diversity and provide opportunities for study and education. 

Alternative 1 recommends the largest amount of acreage for wilderness designation, has the 

greatest amount of acreage managed as 2.6 (undeveloped areas), and applies the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule to all inventoried roadless areas. Because of these factors it affords the most 

amount of protection to wilderness characteristics within inventoried roadless areas. Alternatives 

2 and 6 protect large amounts of inventoried roadless acres primarily because of application of 

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, but also because of the amount of inventoried roadless 

areas managed as undeveloped or recommended as wilderness. Alternatives 3 and 7 maintain 

most roadless values on a large part of the inventoried roadless area. Alternatives 4 and 5 

maintain roadless values to a much lesser degree than the other alternatives and the potential to 

effect wilderness characteristics in roadless areas is highest under these alternatives. Refer to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 29 

Table 1, Management Prescription 1.5 to determine relative differences in areas recommended as 

wilderness. 

 

Table 15. Inventoried Roadless Acres Disposition by Alternative 

Alternative 

Prescriptions that: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Maintain Roadless Area Values1 606,000 546,200 366,900 0 7,200 191,200 188,700 

Mostly Maintain Roadless Area 

Values2

0 39,200 58,100 131,900 109,900 389,400 267,400 

Allow Development 0 20,600 180,900 474,000 488,800 25,300 149,900 

1

No road construction, no timber harvest, no new trail or recreation development construction, no mechanical fuels 

treatments. 

2

No road construction, no timber harvest, trail construction, minimal new recreation development, and mechanical 

fuels treatments allowed. 

Alternatives 1, 2 and 6 have the least potential timber management effects on inventoried 

roadless area values. In Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, undisturbed landscapes that are found in 

inventoried roadless areas could be altered by timber harvest and vegetation treatments to 

differing degrees. Timber harvest activities also increase the risk of impairing water quality and 

affecting habitat of some species. 

Development of existing leases in inventoried roadless areas could affect roadless values under 

any alternative. Within the area being analyzed in the forest plan revision for future leasing, oil 

and gas activities resulting from new leases have the greatest potential to affect roadless area 

values in Alternative 5. In Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 areas are available for leasing however most 

do not allow surface occupancy. Alternative 7 does not surface occupancy on 20,900 acres while 

27,000 acres allow surface occupancy with stipulations applied to protect resource values. 

In Alternative 1 with motorized and mechanized recreation restricted in about 388,900 acres that 

are recommended as wilderness, user densities could increase in the remaining inventoried 

roadless areas. However, it is unlikely densities would increase to the degree that semi-primitive 

class is changed. Conversely, the primitive settings would be maintained in areas recommended 

as wilderness. Effects from recreation management in alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7 would be similar 

to Alternative 1. In Alternatives 4 and 5 proposals could be considered that may affect primitive 

or semi-primitive settings since these alternatives allow new recreation facilities or road 

construction in inventoried roadless areas. 

Road Management 

The total overall miles of roads do not change substantially by alternatives. The one exception is 

in Alternative 1 that has 2.3 miles of open travel plan roads that would be closed to motorized 

uses as a result of inventoried roadless area being recommended for Wilderness. The 

management prescriptions assigned to areas may affect some road management objectives for 

specific areas. Maintenance effects are the same for all alternatives based on experienced budget 

levels. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 30 

Proposed miles of road construction vary by alternative and by prescription where construction is 

allowed. Alternative 5 proposes the most new road construction as a result of timber harvest and 

oil and gas leasing and has the most acreage where it is allowed by prescription. New road 

construction would be very minimal in Alternative 1, a result only of allowing access to existing 

leases. The risk of effects to soil and water resources resulting from road reconstruction is 

mitigated through standards and guidelines. In all alternatives road construction is precluded by 

prescription in areas managed for undeveloped or backcountry values. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 

further restrict road construction in inventoried roadless areas. The primitive and semi-primitive 

settings currently present would be maintained. 

Table 16. Projected Road Construction and 

Projected Road Closure to Motorized Use 

(Total miles1

 for 10-year Planning Period)

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

New Timber Harvest Road Construction 0 6 39 49 49 6 7

Projected New Oil and Gas Exploration 

Roads 

3 3 6 0 10-11 6 7.5

Projected New Oil and Gas Development 

Roads 

0 0 4 0 4 4 4

Roads Closed to Motorized Use from 

wilderness Recommendation 

2 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

 Rounded off to nearest mile. 

Oil and Gas Leasing 

The Appeal Settlement Zone referred to in the discussion below describes an area of about 

68,300 acres defined through an appeal settlement decision in 1994. It is a band of land adjacent 

to the High Uintas Wilderness on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. Alternative 1 does not 

allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone; however, development of existing leases 

within the Table Top Unit (an area of about 19,000 acres within the Hayden Fork, Stillwater and 

East Fork of the Bear River drainages) could affect resources on an estimated 20 acres because 

of oil and gas exploration activities. In Alternative 1 the majority of this area would be 

recommended as wilderness. Alternative 2 is very similar. Again, development of existing leases 

within the Table Top Unit could affect about 20 acres. Once existing leases expire, new leases 

could be issued but surface occupancy would not be allowed. The majority of this area would be 

managed for backcountry or undeveloped values. Alternative 3 precludes leasing availability in 

areas recommended for wilderness in the future and does not allow new leases with surface 

occupancy in areas managed for undeveloped and backcountry recreation values. New leases 

would be allowed outside those areas with stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. Oil 

and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 75 acres. Some of the effects could be long-term 

because of field development. Some of this development is predicted within the Table Top Unit 

and within areas managed for backcountry and undeveloped values. Development within these 

areas could substantially affect the recreation setting. Alternative 4 does not make a leasing 

decision. Because lessees would not be able to effectively develop a field should one be 

discovered due to nearby unleased parcels, future activities are not likely. No effects are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 31 

probable. Alternative 5 would provide for leasing with standard lease terms and therefore 

provide the greatest opportunity for full field development. Oil and gas activities are estimated to 

disturb about 105 acres. In Alternative 6 new leases issued as a result of the leasing decision 

made in the plan revision would not allow surface occupancy. However, existing leases in the 

Table Top Unit that expire would be immediately renewed in areas not precluded by 

management plan direction. Leases would be issued in areas managed for motorized dispersed 

recreation values and terrestrial habitat. In the Table Top area the degree of effects from 

Alternative 6 is similar to Alternative 3. In the remainder of the area the effects would be 

minimal because of no surface occupancy. In Alternative 7 leasing would be allowed with 

surface occupancy on about 27,000 acres with no surface occupancy allowed on 20, 900 acres. 

About 85 acres could be disturbed. Potential effects on resources from new leases are most 

likely to result from Alternative 5 and least likely in Alternative 1. Conversely, opportunities for 

oil and gas exploration and development are most restricted in Alternative 1 while Alternative 5 

affords the greatest opportunities. 

Decisions to make lands not administratively available for leasing or not to authorize lands for 

leasing precludes the exploration and potential discovery of oil and gas resources and can make 

subsurface oil and gas resources unrecoverable. If drilling and production occurs on adjacent 

private lands drainage of federal reserves may occur and result in lost federal revenues and 

returns to the counties and states. Also, the opportunity to explore and produce on adjacent 

leased lands may be affected by precluding exploration and production from reservoirs under 

unavailable lands. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3 6 and 7 would administratively eliminate various amounts of acreage from 

leasing consideration. Alternative 1 would remove the most acreage from leasing consideration 

followed by Alternatives 2, 7, 6 and 3. Alternative 5 allows all lands within the revision analysis 

area to be leased. Areas determined not administratively available are based on the lands 

recommended for wilderness. 

Table 17. Available Acres and Not Available Acres by Alternative 

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Acres available for leasing 0 40,100 50,100 N/A 68,300 48,300 47,900

Acres not available for leasing 68,300 28,200 18,200 N/A 0 20,000 20,400

Footnote: N/A = not applicable

Table 18 displays the differences between the alternatives in the number of acres available for 

leasing and the number of acres where different stipulations would be applied. The size and 

shape of an area assigned an NSO stipulation affects a potential operator’s ability to access the 

subsurface resource from adjacent lands. In Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7, areas assigned an NSO 

stipulation generally tend to be big blocks. The shape of an area where CSU would be applied is 

less important because CSU permits year-round occupancy and maintains potential for discovery 

and development of oil and gas resources. 

Alternative 5 would have no acres stipulated with NSO. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 32 

Table 18. Acres with Stipulations Listed by Alternative

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Acres Available for Leasing 0 40,100 50,100 -- 68,300 48,300 47,900

Available with Stipulations 

No Surface Occupancy 0 40,100 37,200 -- 44,700 20,900

Controlled Surface Use 0 0 2,100 -- 3,600 24,900

Timing Limitation 0 0 300 -- 0 100

CSU/TL 0 0 100 -- 0 1,000

Standard Lease Terms 0 0 10,400 -- 68,300 0 1,000

Special Designations 

Special designations refer to Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Special Interest Areas (SIAs), 

Special Areas (SAs), and Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs). These designations are defined in 

detail in the FEIS within several management prescription categories: 2.4 for RNAs, and 2.7 for 

SIAs and SAs. Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers are not mapped with 

prescriptions. In brief, an RNA is an example of important forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, 

aquatic, and geologic types that have special or unique characteristics of scientific interest and 

importance. RNAs on the Wasatch-Cache will not be open to use by the general public. SIAs are 

areas with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological, palentological, or other special 

characteristics. Special Areas are designed to protect and manage for public use and enjoyment, 

special recreation areas with scenic, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, 

archaeological, or other special characteristics or unique values. The primary distinction 

between SAs and SIAs, is that Special Areas have recreation as an underlying value while 

Special Interest Areas protect and “where appropriate” foster use. 

WSRs include three categories of free-flowing rivers (Wild, Scenic, and Recreational) that differ 

based on the amount of development present in the river corridor. The FEIS makes no 

recommendation to Congress of which eligible rivers should be included in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. Thirty-three river segments were found to be eligible as a result of a 

1999 inventory. Suitability determinations must be completed to address this. The current Forest 

Plan (in any alternative) protects the outstanding values for eligible rivers until such suitability 

studies and recommendations are completed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 33 

Table 19. Acres of Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas 

(rounded to the nearest 100 acres) by alternative.

Alternative 

Designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Red Butte RNA 4,650 4,650 4,650 5,500 4,650 4,650 4,650

Morris Creek RNA 1,050 1,050 200 200 1,050 1,050

Mollens Hollow RNA 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

Total RNA Acres (MPC 2.4)1 6,900 6,900 5850 6,900 6,050 6,900 6,900

Red Butte SIA 850 850 850 0 850 850 850

Logan Canyon SIA 13800 13800 0 0 0 13800 22550

Willard Basin SIA 200 200 0 0 0 200 2200

Daniels Experimental Forest SIA 1700 0 0 0 0 1700 1700

Tri Canyons Special Area 0 17,600 0 0 0 0 0

Total SIA Acres (MPC 2.7) 16,550 32,450 850 0 850 16,550 27,300 1

 These acres include acres mapped as MPC 3.1 or MPC 3.1a within the boundary of the Research Natural Area. 

The alternatives propose RNA changes in Morris Creek and Red Butte Canyon but not in 

Mollens Hollow and SIA additions as shown on Table 19. In Alternatives 1, 2, 6 and 7

additional acreage (an estimated 850 acres) contiguous to the existing Morris Creek RNA is 

added. With this addition, greater elevational gradient and associated climatic conditions, 

aspects, soils, plant communities, and dependent species would be represented in the RNA 

providing a larger and more diverse ecosystem to the RNA. Alternative 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 

would remove approximately 850 acres from the Red Butte Canyon RNA and place those acres 

in Special Interest Area status because of the high amount of introduced and weedy species that 

occur. This provides a potential for manipulative restoration ecology research, which is 

incompatible with RNA direction. Alternative 4 keeps these acres in RNA status. 

Lower Logan Canyon SIA would be added in Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7. In addition, 

Alternative 7 would manage the roadless (MPC 2.6) south-facing slopes in the lower portion of 

the canyon as an SIA (botanical area), which would add approximately 8,750 acres. For this area 

rock climbing activities or other undeveloped recreation might be limited or redirected, if it was 

determined that use patterns could affect specific plant species at sites where these species exist. 

Lower Red Butte, a portion of the existing RNA (about 850 of the total 5140 acres) would be 

reclassified as an SIA in Alternative 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. In these alternatives more flexibility for 

restoration ecology research would be provided (than if the area remained part of the RNA). 

Current uses in this prescription area would be modified so that the research could be conducted 

in a controlled manner. 

Willard Basin SIA would be added in Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7. In this small tall forb area, 

recreation use patterns, mostly motorized uses, but also other non-motorized recreation that 

might affect the tall forb setting would be controlled to the extent that the relic tall forb 

community was protected. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 34 

W.C. Daniels School Forest has operated under an agreement between the Forest Service and 

Utah State University for many years. The State of Utah owns one of the four sections that make 

up the W.C. Daniels School Forest, while the other three are National Forest lands. It is unlike 

the previous three SIA's in that reclassification of it as an SIA (under Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7) 

is largely recognition of the existing situation, but places the area within the Forest Service 

Manual’s direction for SIA’s. 

Alternative 2 includes a potential Tri-Canyon Special Area. Under this alternative a process 

would be initiated among the Forest Service, other interested governments and agencies, 

business groups, and citizenry to identify values, refine management direction and add additional 

detail to the desired future condition for this area based on this process. Under Alternative 1, 

large parts of this area are recommended for Wilderness. For Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 

management would be as depicted by prescription. There would be no special recognition of the 

area other than values embodied in the mapped prescriptions. 

 

Fire Management 

Recent spotlighting of fire management policies and practices because of several severe fire 

seasons have lead to increased emphasis on suppression resources, fuel treatment, and fire 

restoration on the landscape. 2001 is the first year of substantially increased funding and 

personnel to accomplish these, however it is unclear whether this level of commitment will be 

stable for the life of the Forest Plan. Effects analysis assumes it will. There are a number of 

challenges in addition to funding including species at risk management, lack of experience and 

personnel for fire management project planning and implementation, potential for noxious weed 

invasion, sensitive watershed concerns, scenery resource concerns, smoke production, and dense 

populations in and surrounding the forest. These essentially apply to all alternatives. 

Table 3 shows projected use of fire and mechanical treatment of fuels by vegetation cover type in 

acres by alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 plan more prescribed fire than alternatives 4 and 5 

while alternative 1 does not allow prescribed fire. A key component of each alternative except 1 

and 4 is the mechanical treatment of oakbrush to reduce hazardous fuels in the urban/wildland 

interface along the Wasatch front. Effects on fire management from livestock grazing may be 

significant because it affects the amount of fuel available to burn. In the case of fire suppression 

this can be an advantage while in the case of prescribed fire it can be a disadvantage because of 

lack of fine fuels needed to carry a lower-intensity fire. Grazing may need to be deferred before 

and after use of prescribed fire in order to allow proper regeneration of vegetation. Prescribed 

fire must also be coordinated with scenery management, species at risk and recreation. In each 

case these may be constraints on the design and implementation of restoring fire’s role in 

Wasatch-Cache landscapes. 

Timber harvest affects fire management by reducing fuel loadings and increasing openings to 

reduce fire’s ability to transition from a surface fire to a crown fire. It can also create activity 

fuels which if not properly treated can lead to higher fuel loadings and increase the threat of 

ignition and hazard. Since Alternative 1 does not allow timber harvest or vegetation treatment 

(with the exception of wildland fire use) natural fuels would continue to accumulate and some 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 35 

fires may increase in size and intensity. As timber stands age the threat of large stand replacing 

fires with more risk to firefighters, public, and adjoining areas becomes more likely. In 

Alternatives 2 and 6 that apply the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, fire use will be the favored 

treatment in inventoried roadless areas for ecosystem benefit and hazardous fuels reduction. 

Access to the forest effects fire management by increasing the potential of human-caused fire 

starts, but also increases the ability to report fires and suppress fires. The opposite is true in 

areas without access. 

Economic and Social Effects 

When this analysis considered the ten counties that surrounds and includes the Wasatch-Cache, it 

was found that few jobs and income are directly derived from the Forest. Traditional forest 

related jobs in timber, livestock grazing, oil and gas or other mineral production, and recreation 

uses make up a small part of this economy. When considering only the rural areas within the ten 

counties, all jobs traditionally related to the forest were still a very small portion of the total 

number of jobs in these rural areas. However, jobs in these sectors are important to those that 

depend on them, and their presence in the area helps keep the economy diverse which is a 

positive condition from an economic standpoint. 

The different alternatives do project different outputs for timber products and minerals, and this 

affects projections for jobs and income across the seven alternatives. For livestock grazing the 

variance in jobs and income is less across the alternatives. The projections of the numbers of jobs 

by alternative affected in the rural setting of the ten county area are shown in Table 20 for 

current conditions and for the alternatives at the end of the decade after implementation. In each 

case the percentage change from current conditions is minor. The complete FEIS has much more 

detailed information on economic effects. 

Table 20. Average Annual Employment (jobs) by Program by Alternative (Decade 1) 

Alternatives 

Resource Current No Action 1 2 3 5 6 7 

 - - - - - - - - average annual employment, jobs- - - - - - - - - 

Recreation/tourism 5,510 5,982 5,960 5,977 5,993 6,002 5,993 5,993

Wildlife and fish 80 88 88 88 88 88 88 88

Grazing 35 35 33 29 35 35 33 34

Wood products 60 60 0 18 25 63 33 37

Minerals 89 89 52 52 210 251 210 227

Forest Service expenditures 393 393 394 392 392 392 392 392

Total forest management 6,167 6,647 6,527 6,556 6,743 6,831 6,749 6,771

Percent change from current --- 8% 6% 6% 9% 11% 9% 10%
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Summary 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 36 

Table 21. Labor Income estimated by Program by Alternative (Decade 1) 

Alternatives 

Resource Current No Action 1 2 3 5 6 7 

 - - - - - - - - average annual, in millions of dollars- - - - - - - - - 

Recreation 108.2 117.6 117.0 117.4 117.8 117.9 117.8 117.8

Wildlife and Fish 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Grazing 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Wood products 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.4 0.8 0.8

Minerals 4.5 4.5 2.6 2.6 10.6 12.6 10.6 11.4

Forest Service expenditures 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5

Total forest management 128.6 138.2 134.3 135.1 143.8 146.7 144.0 144.8

Percent change from current --- 7% 4% 5% 12% 14% 12% 13%

Source: MIG 2002. 

All counties within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest analysis area except Cache, Rich, and 

Tooele counties in Utah have selected stable payments under the secure payments legislation. 

There will be no changes in payments to states by alternative to those counties selecting stable 

payments. Cache, Rich, and Tooele counties will continue receive a portion of Forest revenues, 

Table 22 highlights historical payments by program to these counties. Funds from timber 

harvesting and salvage are a significant portion of the related payments; it is likely any 

alternative with lower timber activity may return fewer funds to the counties. Grazing has been 

fairly stable over the last three fiscal years and this trend may continue. Finally, the fees from 

recreation have been declining and will likely continue to do so under all alternatives. 

Table 22. Cache, Rich, and Tooele counties Utah, 25% payment, fiscal year 1999-2001. 

Cache County Rich County Tooele County 

Revenue category FY99 FY00 FY01 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY99 FY00 FY01 

nominal dollars

Timber 51,448 33463 92,332 8,988 6,006 16,574 256 4,906 4,714 

Grazing 25,006 25,660 24,750 4,368 4,606 4,443 4,687 4,792 4,392 

Land use 4,308 3,128 5,017 752 561 900 22,314 4,118 1,858 

Recreation Special Use 44,850 30,158 47,964 7,835 5,413 8,610 203,929 173,787 13,303 

Power Line 7,529 7,204 7,344 1,315 1,293 1,318 773 789 801 

Minerals 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 66 956 

Recreation Fees 15,258 13,753 5,477 2,665 2,468 983 137 155 291 

KV/Salvage 271,093 138,697 167,731 47,364 24,897 30,099 25,535 18,278 9,922 

Total revenues 419,492 252,063 350,615 73,291 45,247 62,928 257,695 206,891 136,237 

County 25% payment 104,873 63,016 87,654 18,323 11,312 15,735 64,424 51,723 34,059 

Source USDA Forest Service 2001c. 

As with economic effects, off-forest effects to social conditions in communities and counties 

surrounding the Forest (including American Indians) were determined to be minor. 

Preferred Alternative 

The Regional Forester has selected Alternative 7 as the Preferred (Decision) Alternative.