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. 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

February 2003 

 

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Wasatch-Cache

National Forest
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

For the 

WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST 

FOREST PLAN REVISION 

Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Duchesne, Morgan, Rich, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Wasatch, Weber 

Counties, Utah 

And 

Uinta County, Wyoming 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Wasatch Cache National Forest 

8226 Federal Building 

125 South State Street 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 

(801) 524-3900 

Cooperating Agencies: 

Summit County, Utah 

Uinta County, Wyoming 

Responsible Official: 

Jack Troyer 

Intermountain Region 

USDA Forest Service 

324 25th Street 

Ogden Utah 84401 

(801) 625-5605 

For Futher Information Contact: 

Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

8226 Federal Building 

125 South State Street 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 
ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement documents the analysis of seven 

alternatives which were developed for possible management of the 1,200,000 acres administered 

by Wasatch-Cache Cache National Forest. Alternative 1 addresses concerns about a need for 

strong emphasis on allowing nature to take its course, minimizing human interference with 

natural processes, and maintenance of roadless landscapes. Alternative 2 addresses concerns 

about a need for emphasis on biodiversity, mimicking or restoring natural processes with active 

human management, and conservation of large roadless areas. Alternative 3 provides a mix of 

uses and protection/restoration activities, incorporating results of monitoring, project analyses 

and area assessments with some aspects of the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

Alternative 4 is formally the “No Action” alternative required, and can also be described as the 

“continuation of management under direction of the 1985 forest plan” alternative. Alternative 5

addresses the concern that the Forest can and should be used to directly benefit economies, 

livelihoods, and 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. Alternative 6 addresses concerns about emphasis on 

biodiversity with conservation of large roadless areas, highlighting of substantial areas for 

important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and concentrating activities in areas where they can be 

managed sustainably. Alternative 7, the preferred alternative, 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. 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 semiprimitive classes. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202)-720-5964 (voice or TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Page 

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED

The Proposed Action ............................................................................... 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................. 

Need for Change ...................................................................................... 

Revision Topics ....................................................................................... 

Decisions Made in a Forest Plan.............................................................. 

Significant Issues ..................................................................................... 

Issue 1 – Recreation Use Conflicts/Access Management............ 

Issue 2 – Roadless Areas Management........................................ 

Issue 3 – Ensuring Biodiversity and Species Viability................ 

Issue 4 – Concerns About Continued Economic Contributions 

and Personal/Social Benefits of the Forest .................................. 

Issue 5 – Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts of 

Uses.............................................................................................. 

Issue 6 – Appropriate Types and Amounts of Facility 

Development for Wildland Settings in the Forest........................ 

Other Topics and Issues Raised but not Addressed................................. 

Recent National Direction Considered in the Revision Analysis ............ 

1-1 

1-1 

1-2 

1-3 

1-6 

1-7 

1-7 

1-8 

1-9 

1-10 

1-12 

1-13 

1-13 

1-16 

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 

Alternative Development......................................................................... 

Elements Common to All Alternatives.................................................... 

Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................ 

2-1 

2-1 

2-4 

2-14 

Alternative 1................................................................................. 

Alternative 2................................................................................. 

Alternative 3................................................................................. 

Alternative 4................................................................................. 

Alternative 5................................................................................. 

Alternative 6 ................................................................................ 

Alternative 7 ................................................................................ 

2-15 

2-20 

2-26 

2-31 

2-36 

2-40 

2-47 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ................................................. 

Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................... 

The Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ 

2-55 

2-60 

2-66 

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3-1 

Delineating Ecosystems........................................................................... 

Broad Scale – Ecological Sections .............................................. 

Mid and Fine Scales – Management Areas and Watersheds ....... 

Management Areas .................................................................................. 

3-1 

3-1 

3-1 

3-2 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Bear Management Area Setting Description ............................... 

Cache Box Elder Management Area Setting Description............ 

North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area Setting 

Description................................................................................... 

Central Wasatch Management Area Setting Description ............ 

Stansbury Mountains Management Area Setting Description..... 

Western Uintas Management Area Setting Description .............. 

Eastern Uintas Management Area Setting Description ............... 

3-2 

3-2 

3-3 

3-4 

3-5 

3-5 

3-6 

Topic 1 – Watershed Health 3-8 

Soils, Water, and Geologic Resources .............................................................. 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Climate......................................................................................... 

Physiography................................................................................ 

Status of land types and soil surveys ........................................... 

Management Area Descriptions................................................... 

Geologic Hazards......................................................................... 

Surface Water............................................................................... 

Groundwater ................................................................................ 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains................................. 

Water Uses................................................................................... 

Public Supply Watersheds ........................................................... 

Instream Flows and Water Rights................................................ 

Water Quality............................................................................... 

Watershed Condition Assessment................................................ 

Future Trends............................................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Issues............................................................................................ 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Roads and Access 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Timber 

Harvest/Vegetation Treatment..................................................... 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Recreation................ 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Livestock Grazing ... 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Hard-Rock Mineral 

Development................................................................................ 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Oil and Gas 

Activities...................................................................................... 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Fire 

Management/Fuels Treatments.................................................... 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Water Developments 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-8 

3-8 

3-8 

3-9 

3-10 

3-10 

3-11 

3-11 

3-21 

3-22 

3-22 

3-23 

3-23 

3-24 

3-25 

3-25 

3-27 

3-28 

3-30 

3-29 

3-31 

3-31 

3-32 

3-35 

3-36 

3-37 

3-38 

3-44 

3-46 

3-47 

Air Resources .................................................................................................... 3-58 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-58 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Monitoring Sites........................................................................... 

Air Quality Conditions................................................................. 

Future Trends............................................................................... 

Resource Protection Measures..................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Effects on Air Quality from Fire Management............................ 

Effects on Air Quality from Ski Resort Management ................. 

Effects on Air Quality from Snowmobiles .................................. 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-58 

3-59 

3-59 

3-59 

3-60 

3-60 

3-61 

3-61 

3-62 

3-62 

3-65 

Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability 3-66 

Vegetation......................................................................................................... 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Disturbance Ecology and Ecosystem Resiliency......................... 

Broad Scale North-South Coniferous Corridor............................ 

Wasatch Mountains (Wasatch, Bear River and Wellsville 

Ranges) ........................................................................................ 

Bonneville Basin (Stansbury Mountains) .................................... 

Uinta Mountains........................................................................... 

Properly Functioning Conditions Assessment Summary ............ 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Vegetation Cover Types and Properly Functioning Condition.... 

Evaluating the Movement Towards Properly Functioning 

Condition...................................................................................... 

General Alternative Comparisons................................................ 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Roads and Access 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Timber Harvest ......... 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Fire Management...... 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Mechanical 

Vegetation Treatment................................................................... 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Recreation................. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Livestock Grazing..... 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Insects, Disease, and 

Noxious Weeds ............................................................................ 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Wildlife Management 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Aquatic and Semiaquatic Species Management....................................................... 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Oil and Gas 

Activities...................................................................................... 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Roadless Area 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Special Designation .. 

3-66 

3-66 

3-68 

3-69 

3-69 

3-70 

3-70 

3-78 

3-82 

3-89 

3-94 

3-94 

3-95 

3-98 

3-103 

3-104 

3-105 

3-108 

3-108 

3-111 

3-113 

3-115 

3-115 

3-116 

3-118 

3-119 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Heritage Resource 

Management................................................................................. 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

Botanical Resources.......................................................................................... 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Plant Types Within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest............. 

Vascular Plants................................................................. 

Non-Vascular Plants ........................................................ 

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant 

Species ......................................................................................... 

Current Management ................................................................... 

Selection of Species for Analysis ................................................ 

Sensitive Species and Species at Risk ......................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Resource Protection Measures..................................................... 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Roads and Access 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Timber Harvest ................ 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Vegetation/Fuels 

Treatment ..................................................................................... 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Recreation ........................ 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Livestock Grazing............ 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Non-native Plant Invasion 

and Noxious Weeds ..................................................................... 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Wildlife Management ...... 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Oil and Gas Activities...... 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Fire Management ............. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Roadless Area 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Special Designations........ 

Evaluation of Risk and Uncertainty............................................. 

Direct and Indirect Effects by Species......................................... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

Wildlife.............................................................................................................. 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

General Overview ........................................................................ 

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species.......................... 

Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator 

Communities................................................................................ 

Discussion of Individual Management Indicators ....................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

3-120 

3-120 

3-126 

3-126 

3-126 

3-126 

3-128 

3-128 

3-128 

3-131 

3-139 

3-139 

3-140 

3-142 

3-142 

3-142 

3-143 

3-143 

3-143 

3-144 

3-145 

3-145 

3-145 

3-146 

3-146 

3-146 

3-146 

3-147 

3-149 

3-151 

3-156 

3-156 

3-156 

3-157 

3-157 

3-162 

3-169 

3-170 

3-171 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Roads/Access Management 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Timber Management.......... 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Recreation .......................... 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Livestock Grazing.............. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife From Oil and Gas Activities....... 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Fire Management ............... 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Roadless Area 

Management................................................................................. 

Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife Species .................... 

Cumulative Effects from Nearby Lands ...................................... 

Fragmentation/Connectivity ........................................................ 

Evaluating Viability for Terrestrial Species ................................ 

Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Resources............................................................... 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Habitat.......................................................................................... 

Fish............................................................................................... 

Amphibians.................................................................................. 

Conservation Approaches ............................................................ 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Timber Harvesting .............................................................. 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Livestock Grazing ............................................................... 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Travel Management ............................................................ 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Recreation Management...................................................... 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Vegetation Treatment.......................................................... 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Oil and Gas Activities ......................................................... 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Fire Management Activities................................................ 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat 

from Management Prescription Categories ................................. 

Non-Native Species and Other Threats........................................ 

Fishery Enhancement................................................................... 

Cumulative and Viability Effects Summary................................ 

3-171 

3-172 

3-175 

3-176 

3-177 

3-179 

3-181 

3-182 

3-183 

3-184 

3-185 

3-186 

3-188 

3-188 

3-188 

3-188 

3-188 

3-189 

3-194 

3-196 

3-198 

3-198 

3-199 

3-201 

3-202 

3-203 

3-203 

3-205 

3-206 

3-207 

3-207 

3-208 

Topic 3 – Roads Access Management 3-211 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Travel Management ..................................................................... 

3-211 

3-211 

3-211 

3-211 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Roads Management...................................................................... 

Scenic Byways and Backways..................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Inventoried 

Roadless Area Management ........................................................ 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Recreation............. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Timber Harvest..... 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Oil and Gas 

Activities...................................................................................... 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Special Use 

Authorization ............................................................................... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-213 

3-220 

3-220 

3-220 

3-222 

3-223 

3-224 

3-224 

3-224 

3-225 

Topic 4 – Recreation/Scenery Management 3-224 

Recreation.......................................................................................................... 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Forest-Wide Recreation ............................................................... 

Descriptions of Recreation on Ranger Districts........................... 

Salt Lake Ranger District................................................. 

Kamas Ranger District..................................................... 

Evanston and Mountain View Ranger Districts............... 

Ogden Ranger District ..................................................... 

Logan Ranger District...................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Recreation from Recreation........................................ 

Effects on Recreation from Roads and Access Management ...... 

Effects on Recreation Management from Vegetation and Fuels 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Recreation from Livestock Grazing ........................... 

Effects on Recreation from Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Recreation from Wildlife, Soil and Water Resources 

and Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species........................................ 

Effects on Recreation from Wildlife Management...................... 

Effects on Recreation from Threatened, Endangered and 

Sensitive Species Management.................................................... 

Effects on Recreation from Special Management Areas ............. 

Effects on Recreation from Oil and Gas Activities ..................... 

Environmental Consequences for Ski Areas............................................ 

Effects on Ski Areas from Roadless Areas Management ............ 

Effects on Ski Areas from Fire/Vegetation Management............ 

Effects on Ski Areas from Scenery Management........................ 

Effects on Ski Areas from Wildlife and Fisheries Management . 

3-226 

3-226 

3-227 

3-228 

3-228 

3-245 

3-245 

3-247 

3-248 

3-249 

3-250 

3-253 

3-253 

3-253 

3-264 

3-266 

3-266 

3-267 

3-269 

3-270 

3-271 

3-271 

3-272 

3-274 

3-274 

3-274 

3-274 

3-275 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Effects of Ski Areas from Watershed and Soil Management ...... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

Scenery Management ........................................................................................ 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Visual Management System, Visual Quality Objectives and the 

Proposed Scenery Management System ...................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Timber Management............. 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Fire, Insect, and Disease ....... 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Livestock Grazing................. 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Recreation Management ....... 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Ski Resorts............................ 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Travel Management .............. 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Soil, Water, and 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Scenic Resources from Oil and Gas Leasing.............. 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-275 

3-275 

3-279 

3-279 

3-279 

3-281 

3-282 

3-283 

3-283 

3-285 

3-286 

3-287 

3-287 

3-288 

3-289 

3-289 

3-290 

3-292 

Topic 5 – Roadless Wilderness Characteristics/Roadless Area Values, 

and Wilderness Management 3-293 

Additions and Changes to the Analysis in the FEIS for Roadless Areas. 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Private and State Inholdings ........................................................ 

Unconstructed Roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas.................. 

Motorized Trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas ......................... 

Inventoried Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness 

Recommendation ......................................................................... 

Environmental Consequences for Wilderness Characteristics ................ 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Road Construction .................................................... 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Timber Management................................................. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Vegetation/Fuels Treatment...................................... 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Fire Management ...................................................... 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Recreation Management ........................................... 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Recreation Use.......................................................... 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

3-293 

3-294 

3-294 

3-295 

3-297 

3-298 

3-299 

3-299 

3-300 

3-300 

3-301 

3-301 

3-302 

3-302 

3-302 

3-303 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Areas from Winter Motorized Recreation Use ............................ 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from Oil and Gas Activities............................................... 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics from Mineral and Land 

Ownership.................................................................................... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

Environmental Consequences for Roadless Area Values........................ 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Introduction – Values of Roadless Areas......................... 

High, Medium, and Low Value Roadless Areas.............. 

Management Prescriptions and Effects on Roadless 

Values .............................................................................. 

Underlying Assumptions ............................................................. 

Direct and Indirect Effects........................................................... 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Road 

Construction................................................................................. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Timber 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from 

Vegetation/Fuels Treatment......................................................... 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Fire 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Recreation 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Recreation 

Use ............................................................................................... 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Oil and Gas 

Activities...................................................................................... 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Mineral and 

Land Ownership........................................................................... 

Wilderness Management ................................................................................... 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Biological Diversity of Wilderness.............................................. 

Recreation Use in Wilderness Areas............................................ 

Special Designations in Wilderness............................................. 

Future Trends............................................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Wilderness from Wild and Scenic Rivers................... 

Effects on Wilderness from Vegetation and Fire Management... 

Effects on Wilderness from Roads Management......................... 

Effects on Wilderness from Wildlife and Fisheries Management 

Effects on Wilderness from Recreation Management ................. 

Effects on Wilderness from Livestock Grazing........................... 

3-303 

3-303 

3-305 

3-306 

3-307 

3-307 

3-307 

3-308 

3-309 

3-310 

3-313 

3-313 

3-314 

3-314 

3-314 

3-315 

3-315 

3-317 

3-318 

3-320 

3-320 

3-320 

3-320 

3-323 

3-325 

3-326 

3-326 

3-327 

3-325 

3-328 

3-328 

3-329 

3-329 

3-330 

3-330 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Effects on Wilderness from Mineral and Energy 

Exploration/Development............................................................ 

Effects on Wilderness from Land Ownership.............................. 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-330 

3-330 

3-331 

Topic 6 – Timber Suitability 3-332 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Timber Market and Demand........................................................ 

Changes in Suitability Based on Implementation and 

Monitoring Results....................................................................... 

Insect and Disease........................................................................ 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Allowable Sale Quantity, Total Sale Program Quantity, and 

Long-Term Sustained Yield Capacity ......................................... 

Effects on Timber Management from Recreation and Scenery 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Timber Management from Inventoried Roadless 

Area Management........................................................................ 

Effects on Timber Management from Fire and Fuels 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Timber Management from Wildlife and Aquatic 

Resources Management ............................................................... 

Effects on Timber Management from Insects and Disease ......... 

Effects on Timber Management from Research Natural Areas 

and Special Interest Areas............................................................ 

Effects on Timber Management from Soil and Water Resources 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Timber Management from Oil and Gas Resources 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Timber Management from Heritage Resources 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Timber Management from Grazing............................ 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-332 

3-332 

3-332 

3-333 

3-334 

3-335 

3-337 

3-337 

3-340 

3-341 

3-341 

3-342 

3-342 

3-344 

3-344 

3-344 

3-345 

3-345 

3-345 

3-345 

Topic 7 – Rangeland Capability and Suitability 3-347 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Capable Rangeland Acres............................................................ 

Forage Production........................................................................ 

Current Livestock Grazing Levels............................................... 

Current Condition and Trend....................................................... 

Rangeland Health Amendment Implementation.......................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Background.................................................................................. 

3-347 

3-347 

3-349 

3-349 

3-350 

3-351 

3-352 

3-353 

3-354 

3-354 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

General Effects Common to All Alternatives.............................. 

Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative................................... 

Effects on Grazing from Timber Harvest .................................... 

Effects on Grazing from Vegetation/Fuels Treatment................. 

Effects on Grazing from Recreation ............................................ 

Effects on Grazing from Wildlife Management .......................... 

Effects on Grazing from Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Grazing from Soil and Water Resource Management 

Effects on Grazing from Special Designations............................ 

Effects on Grazing from Fire Management ................................. 

Effects on Grazing from Management of Recommended 

Wilderness.................................................................................... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-354 

3-356 

3-361 

3-361 

3-362 

3-362 

3-363 

3-364 

3-364 

3-364 

3-366 

3-366 

Topic 8 – Special Designations 3-370 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Research Natural Areas (RNA’s)................................................. 

Special Interest Areas and Special Areas..................................... 

Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................ 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Potential RNA additions and SIA Establishments....................... 

Potential Special Area Designation ............................................. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................ 

3-370 

3-370 

3-371 

3-371 

3-372 

3-374 

3-376 

3-376 

3-378 

3-378 

Topic 9- Oil and Gas Leasing 3-380 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Leasing Analysis in the Forest Plan Revision.......................................... 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Concepts Related to Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Analysis 

and Decisions........................................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Current Oil and Gas Production................................................... 

Oil and Gas Potential ................................................................... 

Existing Leases ............................................................................ 

Industry Interest ........................................................................... 

Land and Mineral Ownership ...................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

1994 Leasing Decision for Adjacent Lands................................. 

Difference in Stipulations from 1994 Leasing Decision to 

Proposed Revised Forest Plan...................................................... 

Determination of Effects.............................................................. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Resources from Availability Decisions.. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities by Type of Stipulation ........... 

Effects by Alternative .................................................................. 

Effects from Management Prescriptions...................................... 

3-380 

3-380 

3-381 

3-382 

3-382 

3-382 

3-383 

3-383 

3-384 

3-385 

3-385 

3-386 

3-386 

3-387 

3-389 

3-390 

3-393 

3-394 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Major Resource 

Programs ...................................................................................... 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Air ................................. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Fish and Wildlife 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Livestock Grazing ......... 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Recreation Management 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Soil Management .......... 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Special Area 

Designation .................................................................................. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Inventoried Roadless 

Area Management........................................................................ 

Leasing in Context with the 1994 Leasing Decision ................... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-395 

3-395 

3-395 

3-395 

3-395 

3-396 

3-396 

3-396 

3-397 

3-398 

Topic 10- Fire Management 3-401 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Fire Occurrence............................................................................ 

Prescribed Fire ............................................................................. 

Wildland Fire Use........................................................................ 

Fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface ........................................ 

Fire Regimes and Condition Classes ........................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Fire Management from Roads and Access 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Fire Management from Timber Harvest..................... 

Effects on Fire Management from Vegetation/Fuel Treatment... 

Effects on Fire Management from Recreation............................. 

Effects on Fire Management from Wildlife Management........... 

Effects on Fire Management from Aquatic and Semi-aquatic 

Species Management ................................................................... 

Effects on Fire Management from Soil and Water Resources 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Fire Management from Air Quality............................ 

Effects on Fire Management from Special Designations ............ 

Effects on Fire Management from Livestock Grazing ................ 

Effects on Fire Management from Noxious Weed/Invasive 

Annual Plant Establishment......................................................... 

Effects on Fire Management from Scenery Management ........... 

Effects on Fire Management from Wilderness Management ...... 

Effects on Fire Management from Roadless Area Management. 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-401 

3-401 

3-403 

3-403 

3-403 

3-403 

3-403 

3-404 

3-406 

3-406 

3-406 

3-406 

3-407 

3-408 

3-409 

3-409 

3-409 

3-410 

3-410 

3-410 

3-411 

3-411 

3-412 

3-412 

3-412 

Heritage Resources 3-416 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-416 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Management Activities that Affect the Condition of Heritage 

Resources ..................................................................................... 

Resource Protection Measures..................................................... 

Direct and Indirect Effects........................................................... 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Watershed/Soils 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Vegetation Management.... 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Wildlife and Fish 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Recreation Management.... 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Roads and Trails 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Wilderness Management ... 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Special Areas Management 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Roadless Area 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Timber Management.......... 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Livestock Grazing.............. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Minerals and Oil and Gas 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Fire Management............... 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Lands Management............ 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Facilities Management....... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-417 

3-417 

3-418 

3-418 

3-419 

3-419 

3-420 

3-420 

3-421 

3-421 

3-422 

3-422 

3-423 

3-423 

3-424 

3-424 

3-424 

3-425 

3-425 

3-425 

3-426 

Locatable and Salable Minerals 3-429 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Locatable Minerals....................................................................... 

Salable Minerals........................................................................... 

Recreational Mining..................................................................... 

Paleontology ................................................................................ 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

General Effects............................................................................. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Management...................... 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Inventoried 

Roadless Area Management ........................................................ 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Noxious Weed 

Management................................................................................. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Fish and 

Wildlife Management .................................................................. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Managing 

3-429 

3-429 

3-431 

3-431 

3-432 

3-432 

3-432 

3-433 

3-434 

3-435 

3-436 

3-436 

3-437 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Other Resources........................................................................... 

Cumulative Effects....................................................................... 

3-437 

3-437 

Social and Economic Analysis 3-439 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Regional Overview ...................................................................... 

Study Area ................................................................................... 

American Indians......................................................................... 

Land Ownership........................................................................... 

Demographics .............................................................................. 

Employment................................................................................. 

Personal Income........................................................................... 

Per Capita Income........................................................................ 

Poverty ......................................................................................... 

Forest Resource Related Industries and Resources ..................... 

Timber.......................................................................................... 

Grazing......................................................................................... 

Leasable Minerals, Mineral Materials and Other Minerals ......... 

Recreation and Tourism............................................................... 

Revenues to the State................................................................... 

Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 

Financial and Economic Efficiency............................................. 

Distribution Analysis ................................................................... 

Environmental Justice – Civil Rights .......................................... 

Payments to the State................................................................... 

Economic Cumulative Impacts.................................................... 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions Related to 

Livestock Grazing........................................................................ 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions Related to Timber 

Harvest and Vegetation Management.......................................... 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions Related to Oil and 

Gas Leasing.................................................................................. 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions Related to 

Recreation .................................................................................... 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions Related to Ski 

Areas and Heliskiing.................................................................... 

Effects of Alternative Wilderness Recommendations on Social 

Conditions.................................................................................... 

Effects of Alternative Roadless Area Management on Social 

Conditions.................................................................................... 

Effects on Social Conditions from Fuel/Vegetation Treatment... 

Effects on Social Conditions from Fire Management.................. 

Potential Effects on Concerns Raised by Counties...................... 

American Indians......................................................................... 

Consideration of Plans of Other Federal Agencies, States, Local 

3-439 

3-439 

3-440 

3-440 

3-440 

3-446 

3-448 

3-449 

3-453 

3-455 

3-457 

3-458 

3-458 

3-460 

3-461 

3-462 

3-463 

3-464 

3-367 

3-468 

3-470 

3-473 

3-473 

3-474 

3-475 

3-476 

3-476 

3-477 

3-478 

3-478 

3-478 

3-479 

3-480 

3-480 

3-484 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Governments, and Indian Tribes.................................................. 

Social Cumulative Effects............................................................ 

3-484 

3-485 

Lands, Real Estate, Property Boundary Management 3-488 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction..................................................................... 

Affected Environment.............................................................................. 

Purchases and Donations ............................................................. 

Land Exchanges........................................................................... 

Access to National Forests and Encroachments .......................... 

Surface and Mineral Ownership Pattern...................................... 

3-488 

3-488 

3-489 

3-489 

3-490 

3-490 

3-491 

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers 

List of Preparers ................................................................................................ 4-1 

 

Chapter 5 – Document Recipients 

Document Recipients......................................................................................... 5-1 

Index 

Glossary 

References 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Tables 

Page 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives Acres by Management 

Prescription .................................................................................. 

Table 2-2. Comparison of Alternatives for Projected Activities and 

Outputs......................................................................................... 

Table 2-3. Suitable Lands, Acres by Alternative.................................... 

Table 2-4. Acres of Summer Recreation Opportunity Classes, Existing 

Conditions, and Alternatives........................................................ 

Table 2-5. Winter Recreation Opportunities Alternatives and Existing 

Condition...................................................................................... 

Table 2-6. Inventoried Roadless Acres Disposition by Alternative ....... 

Table 2-7. Average Annual Employment by Program by Alternative ... 

Table 2-8. Labor Income Estimated by Program by Alternative............ 

2-60 

2-62 

2-64 

2-64 

2-65 

2-65 

2-66 

2-66 

 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Topic 1 – Watershed Health 

Soils, Water, and Geologic Resources 

Table GEO-1. Stream, River, Lakes, and Reservoirs on the WasatchCache National Forest that are on Utah’s and Wyoming’s 2002 

303(d) List.................................................................................... 

Figure GEO-1. Locations of Impaired Water Bodies and Watersheds 

in Need of Restoration ................................................................. 

Table GEO-2. Wasatch-Cache National Forest High Priority 

Watersheds Needing Restoration................................................. 

Table GEO-3. Summary of the Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Actions that may Affect Soil and Water Resources 

Air Resources 

Table AIR-4. Yellowstone Air Quality Predictions................................ 

3-26 

3-27 

3-29 

3-49 

3-63 

Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability 

Vegetation 

Figure VEG-1. Location of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest within 

the Bonneville Basin, Overthrust Mountains, and Uinta 

Mountains Ecological Sections.................................................... 

Table VEG-1. Acres of Each Vegetation Type within the WasatchCache National Forest, portions of the Uinta Mountains, 

Overthrust Mountains, and Bonneville Basin Ecological 

Sections........................................................................................ 

Table VEG-2. Existing and Desired Age Class Diversity for 

Vegetation Cover Types Occurring in the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest Portions of the Bonneville Basin, Uinta 

3-66 

3-67 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Mountain, and Overthrust Mountain Ecological Sections........... 

Table VEG-3. Deviation from Historic Range of Variation for the 

Bonneville Basin, Uinta Mountains, and Wasatch Mountains of 

Northern Utah and for the Caribou National Forest .................... 

Table VEG-4a. Existing and desired conditions of various cover types 

by Ecological Section .................................................................. 

Table VEG-4b. Existing and desired conditions of the sagebrush 

vegetation cover type across the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest............................................................................................ 

Table VEG-5. Comparison of Treatments (prescribed fire, harvest, and 

mechanical fuels treatment) for each Alternative over a 10-year 

period on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest............................. 

Table VEG-6. Results from the VDDT Model that show Maximum 

Acres of different Vegetation Types that are likely to burn in 

one decade within the next 10 decades through failed fire 

suppression................................................................................... 

Table VEG-7. Cover types in the Uinta Mountains and Overthrust 

Mountains Sections reaching Properly Functioning Condition 

within 10 decades......................................................................... 

Figure VEG-2. Fires since 1961 that burned at least 100 acres across 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest............................................. 

Figure VEG-3. Age class diversity of the Aspen and Aspen/Conifer 

vegetation cover types under alternative 2 on the Overthrust 

Mountains Ecological Section of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest over the next 10 decades................................................... 

Figure VEG-4. Age class diversity of all conifer vegetation cover 

types under alternative 2 on the Uinta Mountains Ecological 

Section of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest over the next 10 

decades......................................................................................... 

Figure VEG-5. Age class diversity of the oak vegetation cover type 

under alternative 2 on the Overthrust Mountains Ecological 

Section of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest over the next 10 

decades......................................................................................... 

Figure VEG-6. Age class diversity of the Sagebrush vegetation cover 

types under alternative 2 over the entire Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest over the next 10 decades .................................... 

Botanical Resources 

Table B-1. Threatened, Candidate, and species likely to be Proposed 

as Threatened or Endangered on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest............................................................................................ 

Table B-2. Endemism and Distribution of Threatened and Sensitive 

Plan Species ................................................................................. 

Table B-3. Lifeform and Taxonomic Groupings of Threatened, 

Proposed and Sensitive Plant Species.......................................... 

Table B-4. Rating of Potential Impacts on TES Species and Habitats 

by MPC ........................................................................................ 

3-90 

3-93 

3-94 

3-95 

3-96 

3-97 

3-103 

3-106 

3-122 

3-123 

3-123 

3-124 

3-131 

3-141 

3-141 

3-148 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Wildlife 

Table WL-1. Herd Objectives................................................................. 

Table WL-2. Postseason Surveys ........................................................... 

Table WL-3. Elk herd objectives............................................................ 

Table WL-4. Approximate Acreage of Deer and Elk Herd Units on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest................................................... 

Table WL-5. Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator 

Communities................................................................................ 

Table WL-6. Acres of Protective Prescription by Alternative................ 

Table WL-7. Miles of Projected New Road Construction by 

Alternative Over 10 Years ........................................................... 

Table WL-8. Winter Recreation Use on Big Game Winter Range......... 

Table WL-9. Percent of Big Game Winter Range Identified as NonMotorized..................................................................................... 

Table WL-10. Possible Harvest in Aspen and Conifer in the 10 year 

period ........................................................................................... 

Table WL-11 Comparison of Motorized and Non Motorized 

Recreation Settings ...................................................................... 

Table WL-12 Acres Treated by Alternative Over 10 Years................... 

Table WL-13. Acres of Roadless Area Designations by Alternative ..... 

Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Resources 

Table AQ-1. Fish believed to have been found pre-settlement, fish 

found downstream that may be affected by land management 

activities, and fish introduced on the land administered by the 

Wasatch-Cache national Forest.................................................... 

Table AQ-2. Cutthroat trout populations on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest that are believed to be headed for extirpation 

during the next 15 years............................................................... 

Table AQ-3. The 15 and 100 year expectations regarding the 

likelihood of the cutthroat trout subspecies to maintain viability 

at the 4th level HUC under current management.......................... 

Table AQ-4. Amphibians historically present on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, January 2000 ..................................................... 

Table AQ-5. Acres of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest which are 

available for commercial timber harvest, vegetation treatments, 

road construction, wildland fire, use, the development of new 

recreational facilities and prescribed fire..................................... 

Table AQ-6. Potential restoration area for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

by alternative................................................................................ 

Table AQ-7. Ranking of Wasatch-Cache National Forest’s alternatives 

by threats for aquatic and semi-aquatic species........................... 

Table AQ-8. Standards and guidelines in the revised plan pertaining to 

threats........................................................................................... 

3-158 

3-159 

3-159 

3-160 

3-169 

3-172 

3-173 

3-174 

3-174 

3-175 

3-177 

3-181 

3-182 

3-190 

3-193 

3-194 

3-194 

3-199 

3-208 

3-209 

3-210 

Topic 3 – Roads Access Management 

Table RM-1. Management areas and their associated size and miles of 

road found within the area ........................................................... 3-214 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Table RM-2. Miles of road by function class ......................................... 

Table RM-3. Miles of road by traffic service level ................................ 

Table RM-4. Miles of road by surface type............................................ 

Table RM-5. Miles of road by operational and objective maintenance 

level.............................................................................................. 

Figure RM-1. Roads decommissioned on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest from 1991 to 2001............................................................. 

Figure RM-2. Road improvements as projected in the 1985 WasatchCache National Forest Plan compared to the actual 

improvement completed on the Forest for the year 1986 

through 2002 ................................................................................ 

Table RM-6. Scenic byways and backways on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest............................................................................. 

3-215 

3-215 

3-216 

3-216 

3-217 

3-218 

3-220 

Topic 4 – Recreation/Scenery Management 

Recreation 

Table REC-1a. Existing condition summer ROS acres by district ......... 

Figure REC-1. Relative acres inventoried existing condition ROS by 

district .......................................................................................... 

Table REC-1b. Relative Acres in 1985 forest plan ROS by district....... 

Table REC-2a. Existing condition acres of winter recreation by district 

Figure REC-2a. Relative acres of existing condition winter recreation 

opportunities by district ............................................................... 

Table REC-2b. Acres from 1985 plan of winter recreation by district... 

Table REC-3. Ranking of the top ten forest activities by 1996 reported 

RVD’s and how that activity ranks in the Intermountain Region 

Table REC-4. Number of developed recreation sites by Ranger 

District on the WCNF and the number of people at one time 

sites are designed to accommodate.............................................. 

Table REC-5. The weighted average occupancy by percent and season 

of use of developed recreation sites on the WCNF...................... 

Table REC-6. Trail miles by management area...................................... 

Table REC-7. Non-motorized, motorized, and wilderness system trail 

miles by Ranger District .............................................................. 

Table REC-8. Estimates of Utah skier visits by WCNF ski areas.......... 

Table REC-9. Skiers at one time (SAOTs) capacity by ski area ............ 

Table REC-10. Permitted acres, 1984 and 1999 by ski area .................. 

Table REC-11. Acres of summer recreation opportunity classes: 

existing conditions and alternatives............................................. 

Figure REC-3. Acres of summer ROS: existing condition and 

alternatives ................................................................................... 

Table REC-12. Acres of winter recreation: heli-skiing, motorized, 

non-motorized, wilderness by alternative and existing condition 

Figure REC-4. Acres of winter recreation: heli-skiing, motorized, 

non-motorized, wilderness by alternative.................................... 

Table REC-13a. Motorized Trails within recommended wilderness 

that would be closed to motorized and mechanized use by 

3-229 

3-230 

3-231 

3-231 

3-232 

3-232 

3-233 

3-235 

3-236 

3-239 

3-239 

3-243 

3-244 

3-244 

3-254 

3-255 

3-261 

3-261 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

alternative..................................................................................... 

Table REC-13b. System trail mileage allowing mountain bike use 

affected by recommended wilderness.......................................... 

Table REC-14. Winter Recreation in Big Game Winter Range ............. 

Scenery Management 

Table SMS-1. Landscape character theme and scenic integrity 

objective by alternative................................................................ 

3-267 

3-268 

3-270 

3-53 

Topic 5 – Roadless/Wilderness 

Roadless Areas 

Table RA-1. Roadless Area Inventory by Management Area ................ 

Table RA-2. Private and State Inholdings within Inventoried Roadless 

Areas ............................................................................................ 

Table RA-3. Unconstructed district travel plan roads in inventoried 

roadless areas ............................................................................... 

Table RA-4. Motorized system trails in inventoried roadless areas ....... 

Table RA-5. Recommended wilderness and wilderness character 

protected by alternative................................................................ 

Table RA-6. Mineral ownership in recommended wilderness ............... 

Table RA-7. Adjacent private land miles next to recommended 

wilderness .................................................................................... 

Table RA-8. Groupings of management prescriptions by alternatives 

and categories of effects to roadless values ................................. 

Table RA-9. Categories of allowed activities and potential effects on 

roadless area................................................................................. 

Figure RA-1. Effects on roadless areas by alternative............................ 

Table RA-10. Recreation opportunity spectrum allocation in roadless 

areas ............................................................................................. 

Table RA-11. Acres in inventoried roadless areas open to 

snowmobiling and heliskiing ....................................................... 

Table RA-12. Non-federal ownership of minerals in roadless areas...... 

Wilderness Management 

Table WM-1. Wilderness by district and acreage................................... 

Table WM-2. Existing wilderness acreage and percentage.................... 

Table WM-3. Grazing allotments in wilderness areas............................ 

Table WM-4. Wild and Scenic river eligible segments in wilderness 

areas ............................................................................................. 

3-296 

3-298 

3-298 

3-299 

3-301 

3-306 

3-306 

3-311 

3-312 

3-313 

3-316 

3-317 

3-319 

3-321 

3-322 

3-324 

3-328 

Topic 6 – Timber Suitability 

Table TM-1. Timber volume offered and sold since inception of the 

Forest Plan in 1985 ...................................................................... 

Table TM-2. Available Timberland by alternative................................. 

Table TM-3. ASQ, TSPQ, and LTSYC estimates from VDDT for all 

alternatives ................................................................................... 

3-333 

3-340 

3-341 

Topic 7 – Rangeland Capability and Suitability 

Table RN-1. Capable rangeland acres by management area .................. 

Table RN-2. Average AUMs for the period of 1990 to 1999................. 

3-350 

3-351 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Table RN-3. Rangeland condition and trend .......................................... 

Table RN-4. Rangeland suitability acres by alternative ......................... 

Table RN-5. Estimated authorized livestock grazing outputs by 

alternative..................................................................................... 

Figure RN-1. Open allotments (active and vacant) on the Caribou, 

Wasatch-Cache, Ashley, and Uinta National Forest portions of 

the Bonneville Basin, Overthrust Mountains, and Uinta 

Mountains ecological sections ..................................................... 

3-353 

3-357 

3-361 

3-367 

Topic 8 – Special Designations 

Table SD-1. Potential Special Interest Areas.......................................... 

Table SD-2. Names and classification of 33 eligible river segments ..... 

Table SD-3. Acres of research natural areas and special interest areas 

by alternative................................................................................ 

3-373 

3-375 

3-376 

Topic 9- Oil and Gas Leasing 

Figure OG-1. Existing Leases in the Uinta Mountains portion of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest................................................... 

Table OG-1. Acres available for lease under the 1994 leasing decision 

Table OG-2. Summary of activities expected under RFD scenarios for 

each alternative ............................................................................ 

Table OG-3. Available acres and not available acres by alternative ...... 

Table OG-4. Tabulation of lease stipulations according to each 

alternative..................................................................................... 

Table OG-5. Acres with stipulations listed by alternative...................... 

Table OG-6. Acres of Federal minerals available for leasing on the 

north slope of the Uinta mountains by alternative....................... 

Table OG-7. Acres of Federal minerals available on the north slope of 

the Uinta mountains by stipulation by alternative ....................... 

3-384 

3-386 

3-389 

3-390 

3-391 

3-393 

3-397 

3-397 

Topic 10- Fire Management 

Table FM-1. Fire Regime Definitions .................................................... 

Table FM-2. Condition class definitions ................................................ 

Table FM-3. Vegetation on the WCNF by fire regime and condition 

class.............................................................................................. 

Table FM-4. Acres of vegetation/fuel treatment by alternative.............. 

3-404 

3-405 

3-405 

3-408 

Heritage Resources 

Locatable and Salable Minerals 

Table LO-1. Acres proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry........... 3-435 

Social and Economic Analysis 

Table SE-1. Area figures for counties within the regional study area.... 

Map SE-1. Structures in the Wildland Urban Interface.......................... 

Table SE-2. Population for analysis area and states, 1991-2000............ 

Table SE-3. Population characteristics compared for the United States, 

Utah, Wyoming, and analysis area in 2000 ................................. 

Table SE-4. Demographic characteristics compared for the United 

States, Utah, Wyoming, and analysis area in 1989 and 2000...... 

Figure SE-1. Employment change by major industry between 1991 

and 2000 for the Wasatch-Cache analysis area............................ 

3-448 

3-450 

3-451 

3-452 

3-453 

3-454 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Figure SE-2. Total personal Income change in real 2000 dollars 

between 1991 and 2000 by major sector for the Wasatch-Cache 

analysis area................................................................................. 

Table SE-5. Per Capita personal income and percent change for the 

analysis area, 2000....................................................................... 

Figure SE-3. Estimated Forest Service-related employment 

contributions within the analysis area, 1999................................ 

Figure SE-4. Estimated Forest Service-related labor income 

contributions within the analysis area, 1999................................ 

Table SE-6. 25 percent fund payments to counties from WasatchCache National Forest, 2001........................................................ 

Table SE-7. PILT payments to counties from Federal Government, 

fiscal year 1996-2001................................................................... 

Table SE-8. County budgets and Federal payments from PILT and 25 

percent fund, 1999 ....................................................................... 

Table SE-9. Economic and financial efficiency (PNV) estimated by 

alternative for 50-year planning horizon...................................... 

Table SE-10. Average annual employment by program by alternative.. 

Table SE-11. Labor income estimated by program by alternative ......... 

Table SE-12. Cache, Rich, and Tooele Counties Utah, 25 percent 

payment for fiscal year 1999-2001 .............................................. 

3-456 

3-457 

3-459 

3-460 

3-465 

3-466 

3-466 

3-469 

3-472 

3-473 

3-474 

Lands, Real Estate, Property Boundary Management 

Table LA-1. Purchases and Donations 1990-2000 ................................. 

Table LA-2. Land Exchanges 1990-2000............................................... 

Table LA-3. Small Tracts Act Cases 1990-2000.................................... 

3-489 

3-490 

3-490 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 1 

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED 

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). 

Regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-588) 

require periodic revisions of forest plans. In 1982 instructions to revise forest plans were 

formulated in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 219. Revised planning regulations 

were approved in November 2000 (Federal Register 2000); however, those forests that had 

initiated revision were allowed to complete the revision process under the 1982 regulations (36 

CFR 219.35). 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

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. 

Need 

The regulations implementing the NFMA outline conditions under which a revision of a forest 

plan is needed. Specific instructions found at 36 CFR 219.10(g) state: 

“A forest plan shall ordinarily be revised on a 10-year cycle or at least every 15 

years. It also may be revised whenever the Forest Supervisor determines that 

conditions or demands in the area covered by the plan have changed significantly, 

or when changes in Resource Planning Act policies, goals, or objectives would have 

a significant effect on forest level programs.” 

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. The 1992 monitoring report concluded: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 2 

1. Resource inventories lacked quality information or were outdated. 

2. There was a discrepancy between recreation goals and current conditions. Developed 

recreation site program needed to emphasize maintaining existing facilities prior to building 

new facilities. 

3. Riparian area direction was limited and very general. 

4. Timber volume objectives were inaccurate because of problems with timber volume 

conversions, timber availability assumptions, and technical concerns with implementation. 

5. Water quality monitoring strategy needed strengthening. 

6. An accurate assessment of relationships between resources was lacking. A new emphasis on 

integrated resource management was needed. 

7. The forest plan was never fully funded and there was no indication of priority work to be 

accomplished with available budgets. The program of work needed to be prioritized to allow 

for funding shortfalls. 

8. The monitoring plan was too general to ensure forest plan direction was being accomplished. 

An improved monitoring plan was needed. 

These important findings were supplemented by recent reviews of the forest plan revealing that 

since the forest plan was approved in 1985, conditions and knowledge have changed 

substantially from those present at that time. In some cases, outside influences have changed and 

in others agency national policy has evolved. Some of the more significant changed conditions 

are: 

• New approaches, philosophies and management policies have emerged to highlight the need 

to ensure the sustainability of ecosystems.

• Scientific knowledge and understanding of land use effects on watershed and wildlife 

habitats occurring in the forest has improved in recent years. There is also new and emerging 

knowledge and techniques in the areas of biodiversity and viability. 

• The social and economic settings have changed. As nearby urban populations soar, 

recreational uses grow and peoples’ demands for forest recreation increase. Public views 

about the values and uses of public land are changing. These changes necessitate new 

management approaches that anticipate trends while maintaining options for future 

generations. 

Administrative setbacks delayed the revision from formally beginning in 1992. In 1999 the 

Forest Supervisor reviewed the relevant information and determined that revision of the 1985 

Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan was still warranted and was even more necessary. Not only have 

conditions and expectations changed, the forest plan is currently 15 years old -- within the 

timeframe prescribed by the 1982 regulations for revision. 

Need For Change 

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

1999a) 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 3 

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. 

Revision Topics 

Upon review of existing documentation, the Revision Team identified 10 “Need For Change 

Topics” for forest plan revision. It is important to remember that changes are being proposed to a 

plan that has already been developed and implemented. In revising the forest plan the focus is on 

those areas that must be reviewed in accordance with federal regulations, and on critical topics 

identified through new information, monitoring and public concern. Through the revision 

process the portions of the plan identified as needing change, and as important and appropriate at 

this time, are being addressed. It is important to focus on the most compelling needs for change 

in forest plan direction. 

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. 

Direction that establishes priority watersheds for restoration is needed to better integrate local 

with broader scale needs and funding priorities. 

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. Guidance needs to be established to comply with the National Forest System 

Road Management Rule. The intent of the rule is to develop a science-based forest transportation 

system that meets the needs of the public, yet minimizes or reverses the environmental impacts 

often caused by roads. The 1985 plan direction needs to be updated with adaptive standards that 

allow the latest science and technology to be used. The revised forest plan needs to establish the 

framework that allows future site-specific travel management decisions to be made that meet the 

integrated transportation system goals. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 4 

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 percent 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. The niche of 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in the overall scheme of outdoor recreation settings in 

northern Utah needs to be clarified considering other federal, state, county and private providers. 

Niches and unique characteristics of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest include the following: 

• Proximity to a large and growing urban area (nearly 1.5 million people). People can drive 5 

to 40 minutes and be at a trailhead, ski area, or other developed recreation facility in the 

forest. 

• A broad array of recreation settings and opportunities at various locations across the forest 

from fully developed to pristine wilderness. 

• Outstanding terrain and snow conditions that offer world class skiing opportunities. 

• Wildland mountain settings that are rarely duplicated on nearby public and private lands. 

• Wide diversity of users, often with conflicting desires and demands for what they feel the 

forest should provide. 

 

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-four 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 

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 characteristic or 

unique values. There is a need to identify areas on the Forest that because 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 5 

protected and managed accordingly. The forest plan revision provides an appropriate vehicle to 

examine opportunities to meet the intent of the Wilderness Act within specific areas of this 

national forest. For those roadless areas not recommended as Wilderness, there is a need to 

provide direction for desired conditions and the mix of uses and values to be emphasized. The 

purposeful recognition of roadless area values was identified as a ‘need for change’ in the 

evaluation of the 1985 forest plan. 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. Management prescriptions (Appendix D) identify whether or not timber harvest 

is allowed. They also identify whether vegetation treatments are allowed including prescribed 

fire, thinning, or timber harvest incidental to meeting other resource objectives. 

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 for outputs from areas suitable for grazing livestock as one of numerous uses that 

may be appropriate for a capable land area. Revised Forest Plan range management direction to 

ensure compatibility of this use with sustainable ecosystems and social values is primarily 

derived by incorporating direction from the 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment. There is a 

need to modify that management direction in the area of assigning value classes to riparian areas 

to recognize species at risk. There is also a need for direction to restore rangelands in 

unsatisfactory condition. Other factors to be considered include disposition of vacant 

allotments, and the risk of livestock disease transmission to bighorn sheep. 

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. The portion of the Uinta Mountains specifically excluded 

from the 1994 decision through an appeal settlement decision (Levere and Heaton, 1994) was 

considered to be “roadless” at that time. When the roadless inventory was updated in 1999 it 

identified additional acres as roadless. However, because of specific language in the appeal 

settlement decision, these additional roadless acres are considered to be outside the scope of this 

leasing decision. 

This area being addressed in the revision is the remaining portion of the forest identified as 

having a high potential for oil and gas reserves being present. There is a need to make the 

leasing decision in the forest plan revision 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 6 

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 

wildland urban interface. 

Decisions Made in a Forest Plan 

A forest plan establishes key decisions for the long-term management of a national forest. These 

decisions are: 

1. Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives, including a description of 

the desired future condition of the national forest as required by 36 CFR 219.11 (b). 

2. Establishment of forest-wide management standards and guidelines to fulfill the 

requirements of 36 CFR 219.13 through 219.27. 

3. Establishment of management areas and management prescriptions as required by 36 

CFR 219.11 (c). 

4. Establishment of lands suitable for the production of timber as required by 36 CFR 

219.14. 

5. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements as required by 36 CFR 219.11 

(d). 

6. Recommendations to Congress of areas eligible for wilderness designation as required by 

36 CFR 219.17 (a). 

Decisions to be made in this planning process 

Ultimately, the Forest Supervisor “shall determine the major public issues, management 

concerns, and resource use and development opportunities to be addressed in the planning 

process” (36 CFR 219.12 (b)). This Environmental Impact Statement analyzes a range of 

alternatives for revising management direction for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 

Responsible Official for this analysis is the Regional Forester. Based on the analysis and 

subsequent public comments, the Responsible Official will select an alternative to revise the 

forest plan and document the rationale in a Record of Decision. 

The Record of Decision will set a course of action for managing the forest for the next 10 to 15 

years. However, project level environmental analysis will still need to be completed for specific 

proposals to implement the direction in the forest plan. A good example of this involves the 

designation of dispersed recreation sites. The forest plan may contain general direction to 

designate sites in order to protect land and water resources, but a site-specific analysis and 

decision will have to be made about the number of sites and their exact locations. This process is 

called staged decision-making because a series of decisions will be necessary to carry out 

projects as specific needs, priorities, locations, conditions, monitoring results, and public 

response change or become more apparent. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 7 

Significant Issues 

Issue Identification 

The Revision Team identified the following set of issues after a review of the many letters that 

responded to the September 1999 Proposed Action for the Plan revision as well as compilation of 

work completed at numerous public workshops in November and December of 1999. Over 800 

comments from approximately 250 letters touched on every aspect of forest management. 

Narrowing the scope of the issues to those significant to this analysis is a primary task of the 

team and forest leadership. 

Following are the issues that were determined to have the potential to drive development of 

alternatives. Most issues have several components and a brief discussion explains the basis for 

concern. 

Issue 1 – Recreation Use Conflicts/Access Management 

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

vehicles (ATVs, snowmobiles, helicopters for skiing, ski area expansion into adjacent areas, 

and mountain bikes) 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? 

Since the 1985 plan, the population has increased, types of recreation have diversified, and 

technology for off road vehicles, snowmobiles, mountain bikes and other conveyances has 

improved. This allows users access to portions of the forest they could not reach in the past. As 

use on the forest increases, conflicts between users occur more frequently. User densities and 

the perceived degree of freedom or restrictions affect desired recreation opportunities. Also, as 

demographics of the population change over time, the additional considerations for both older 

and younger segments as well as the physically challenged are increasing in importance. 

Type. In general, most conflicts occur between motorized/mechanized and non-motorized users 

of the forest. The actual areas of conflict vary with the season of use (winter/summer). From the 

motorized user’s perspective, their use is less affected by the presence of the non-motorized user. 

However, non-motorized users feel that the quality of their experience is compromised by 

motorized use (e.g. sound, smell, speeding, safety, and dust). Some feel that separating uses is 

the best way to address conflicts between users, while others feel that this would only drive the 

polarized user groups further apart, diminishing the opportunity to resolve conflicts. Conflicts 

tend to be most prevalent in easily accessed terrain and areas closest to population centers. 

The evolution of ATVs, mountain bikes, and snowmobiles and their skyrocketing popularity in 

the past decade have created new user conflicts never anticipated in the 1985 plan. 

Extent. Many people are concerned about being prohibited from areas previously open to them. 

Some feel we should be creating new motorized opportunities while others feel that we have too 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 8 

much to manage already. Some users, such as those with mountain bikes, are expanding their 

ranges, accessing areas previously not used. 

Ability Levels. Some feel that a continuum of challenging experiences needs to be available. 

With the advent of new technology, many off-road vehicles (especially snowmobiles) and four 

wheel drives are now able to venture into areas once considered inaccessible. This combined 

with more people results in an ever-increasing demand for additional motorized areas. 

User Densities. Many people have stated that they want to see the forest continue to be 

managed for the same opportunities available today. Although they have seen a marked increase 

in the number of people recreating, user densities are still within the realm of desirable recreation 

experiences. However, there appears to be a belief for some that no action is necessary to sustain 

current opportunities in the face of rapidly increasing use and demand. Others state they would 

be willing to submit to various limits such as permit systems or alternating use times in order to 

achieve opportunities similar to those available now. They point out that currently we have no 

systematic way of monitoring use and use trends and that inaction results in use patterns that are 

difficult or impossible to control or change once they have been established. 

 

Issue 2 – Roadless Area 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? 

About 300,000 acres of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is designated as wilderness. About 

572,000 of the remaining acres are inventoried as roadless. Federal regulations direct national 

forests to evaluate roadless areas for wilderness recommendation during the forest planning 

process. Beyond this, in recent times numerous values associated with roadless areas have been 

highlighted. It is now recognized that roadless areas have significant ecological as well as social 

values. The values of roadless areas are of both local and national significance. Roadless areas 

are often aquatic strongholds for fish. They also often provide critical habitat and migration 

routes for many wildlife species and they are particularly important for species requiring large 

home ranges. 

Some people want to see all inventoried roadless areas managed to protect their undeveloped 

character. Some of these see Wilderness designation as the only permanent protection avenue 

available. They are concerned about whether any other management prescriptions actually 

protect roadless character. For some, even those prescriptions that do not allow land-altering 

activities but do allow winter motorized use have a negative impact on roadless values. Others 

feel these lands need not be protected and should be available for development for a variety of 

uses. As population and demand continue to grow, some people feel that roadless areas offer the 

opportunity to spread use out to meet growing demands and reduce impacts. Others are not 

advocating new road construction but are very concerned about maintaining motorized access 

currently available. They see designation of wilderness followed by protection of roadless areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 9 

as incremental steps toward additional restrictions on their activities and uses of the forest. 

Another point of view is that certain key roadless areas should be identified and protected. 

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? 

In 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service committed the agency to the practice of ecosystem 

management with its goals to produce diverse, healthy, productive and sustainable ecosystems 

while operating under a philosophy based on environmental sensitivity, social responsibility, 

economic feasibility and scientific principles. Watersheds are an essential component of these 

ecosystems. It should be assumed when we refer to sustainability and biodiversity that watershed 

health is an inherent consideration. Biological diversity (biodiversity) refers to the diversity of 

life. There are at least three levels of biological diversity: genetic, species, and ecosystem 

diversity. Maintaining biodiversity at appropriate scales is a key part of ecosystem management. 

Major land use decisions can and have changed the biodiversity of the forest. Conserving 

biodiversity while managing the land for multiple uses is a balancing act. While the science of 

biodiversity is not new, interpretations and applications to the management of national forests is 

relatively new. Goals for each action must be carefully assessed, and trade-offs between 

resource needs and human wants must be made. 

While various goals, objectives, general direction, and standards and guidelines in the 1985 

forest plan considered some elements of biodiversity, this revision attempts to take a more 

holistic approach to viewing the forest. 

People have a broad range of opinions about what management is needed to meet goals for 

biodiversity and viability. Some feel we should manage conservatively, taking a more passive 

approach to management allowing natural processes to dominate, while others feel a more active 

approach is necessary to restore biodiversity. Some feel that we should place our primary 

emphasis on factors such as: protecting regionally significant corridors; protecting and/or 

restoring connectivity of unfragmented forested lands; reintroductions of historically native 

predators (e.g. grizzly bears and wolves); discontinuing predator control and introductions of 

non-native species; eradication of non-native species; expand protection of species to include 

invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians as well as neotropical migrants, and more well known 

wildlife already identified as threatened, endangered, or sensitive; protection of old growth and 

special habitats; reintroduction of natural fires; allowing the natural role of insects and disease; 

removing livestock grazing; identifying and protecting a system of reserves representing all 

native ecosystem types and seral stages across their historic range of variation; and protecting all 

existing roadless areas from any extractive or motorized uses to maintain values such as Canada 

lynx habitat. Others, however, feel that these measures are extreme, unnecessary, and will only 

result in a loss in the ability of the public to use and enjoy their national forest. Some are 

especially concerned about what affect these actions would have on traditional uses of the forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 10 

such as livestock grazing and timber harvest. They feel we simply do not know enough to justify 

these actions. 

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? 

Communities near the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have often benefited from products or 

uses of public land. Traditional uses here have centered on wood products, livestock forage, ski 

areas, and mineral and oil and gas production. As recreation uses and popularity have increased, 

some communities have seen economic benefits from increased visitation through providing 

services (food and gas), equipment, and some outfitted guiding services. As restrictions and 

investments related to protection of sensitive and other species increase, there is concern that 

economic viability of many traditional uses becomes marginal or not viable. Changes in forest 

management can affect traditions, lifestyles, and the economic livelihood of residents and some 

communities. Those who depend on the forests for their livelihoods are concerned that other 

uses (e.g. recreation, wildlife, rare species, etc.) will take precedence. Others suggest that a 

variety of other values such as clean air and water, wildland scenery, and maintenance of 

biodiversity be included in the analysis of the “net public benefit.” 

Livestock Grazing. The economic well being of a portion of the local livestock industry is 

dependent upon a continual source of available forage on federally administered rangelands. The 

western rural lifestyle and traditions associated with the livestock industry are highly valued by 

permit holders and rural communities. Many permittees (and in some cases their forefathers) 

have made a financial and emotional investment throughout their lifetime to continue the 

tradition. Many have seen range conditions improve over time. In addition, the continuation of 

agriculture in these areas in light of the burgeoning growth in northern Utah prevents 

development and loss of open space. Increasing management requirements for grazing in light of 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species and other conflicts (such as recreation) are of great 

concern to permit holders and rural communities. Permit holders are concerned that 

management prescriptions that do not emphasize grazing will result in reductions in grazing and 

subsequent economic benefits. Other people view the economic contribution from grazing as 

limited, the environmental and administrative costs as too high, and feel grazing should be 

reduced, phased out, or eliminated. 

Timber Harvest. Forested lands serve both as important habitats for plants and animals and as a 

source of wood products. Traditionally, all the timber volume sold on the forest was processed 

at mills in local communities. Operators and employees of these mills are concerned about 

availability of timber from public lands to sustain their businesses. Some people want to see 

most of the forested acres available for timber harvest and wood production. Others have 

expressed concern about the methods of harvest (i.e. do they lead to successful reforestation) and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 11 

post harvest appearance. (i.e. does it degrade the visual integrity of the area). Some people feel 

harvest should be restricted or eliminated because they view the economic contribution from 

timber harvest as limited, and the administrative and environmental costs too high. They feel the 

net public benefit measured in forest planning should include less tangible benefits such as those 

associated with ecological systems (e.g. clean air and water, nutrient cycling, habitat for 

sustenance of biodiversity, wildland settings for recreation). 

 

Oil and Gas Leasing. While much of the economic focus of Summit County, Utah is centered 

on the Park City area and its economy, the exploration and extraction of oil and gas reserves over 

the eastern part of the county have contributed significantly to the economic base of the area. 

Summit County also receives revenue from taxes, royalties, and other fees assessed to 

operations. These revenues are used to enhance the communities through construction of public 

facilities such as public schools, libraries, community centers, etc. Residents of Uinta County, 

Wyoming and Summit County, Utah rely on the production of oil and gas reserves to provide for 

continued services and infrastructure. Others feel that the economic benefits do not outweigh the 

environmental costs and feel forest lands should be protected from oil and gas exploration and 

development. 

Recreation Related Contributions. There are a variety of services associated with recreation in 

the forest including nearby convenience stores, gasoline, food, recreational and off-road vehicle 

rental, sales and maintenance, concessionaires, outfitter guides, and outdoor sporting goods sales 

to name only a few. Economic contributions to local communities from these sources are on the 

rise. Depending on forest recreation opportunities provided, a range of potential benefits to 

communities can be realized. The amount of motorized and non-motorized opportunities 

available, the number of visitors, and degree of management restrictions all affect the social and 

economic contributions of recreation to communities. In addition to economic benefits, various 

recreation opportunities in the forest enhance the quality of life for residents in nearby 

communities. 

Ski Area Contributions. Skiing on national forest lands is important to the economy of Salt 

Lake and Summit Counties, and to a lesser degree Weber County. Many feel the premier skiing 

offered in northern Utah contributes to their reason for living near and/or visiting the Wasatch 

Front. World-class ski areas and high quality snow bring people from around the world to ski 

here. Of the nearly three million skier visits to Utah in 1996, nearly half were to the five large 

resorts on the forest. Resort owners and patrons see improvements and expansion as essential to 

providing a desirable, safe skiing experience and attracting new and return customers. At the 

same time, increased restrictions because of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and 

conflicts with opponents of development threaten profitability and management flexibility. 

Others are concerned that environmental and social tradeoffs for this development are too great 

and are opposed to any further development, improvements or expansion. They point out that 

nearby private lands provide similar opportunities for this kind of development. 

Personal/Social Benefits. In addition to the above contributions of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest to local communities, an additional aspect of values brought forward in many public 

comments should be acknowledged. This category we have labeled “personal/social benefits” 

and while difficult to describe, it is no less important to those who voiced concerns about it than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 12 

the items described above. Among the comments were statements about how the forest 

environment provides opportunities for families to bond, for escape from the crowded urban and 

work world hustle, for continuation of highly valued lifestyles and longstanding traditions, for 

nature’s healing to the human imagination and spirit, for solitude, serenity, and spiritual renewal, 

and simply for the knowledge that wild places are wild and will remain that way. These 

comments cross the boundaries of groups advocating motorized or non-motorized access, 

commodity production or reduction/elimination of commodity production, and strongly differing 

world-views on the appropriate role of humans in stewardship of the forest. We heard advocates 

of both motorized and non-motorized access mentioning serenity or escape from urban hustle as 

values, and both groups expressed concern about crowding. Both commodity and noncommodity advocates voiced concerns about family, tradition, and caring for the land. 

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. 

The potential environmental and social impacts of various uses of the forest are of great concern 

to many people. They see the long-term planning process as a rare opportunity to look into the 

future and examine what kind of environmental and social legacy today’s decisions will leave. 

Recreation. There are concerns about effects on watersheds from off road vehicles, mountain 

bikes, facility development, and improper trash disposal; effects on wildlife/habitat from off road 

vehicles, facility development, human presence (both motorized and non-motorized), noise, 

packed snow trails; effects on fragile alpine and remote ecosystems from four season use in ski 

areas (mountain biking, hiking, large numbers of people, waste disposal), expansion of recreation 

into previously inaccessible areas associated with ski based resorts and with improved 

technology of snowmobiles; and effects on aquatic ecosystems from facilities, fish stocking 

(distribution of fishing use), and sediment from user-created roads; social impacts of recreation 

to local communities including increased demand for law enforcement and search and rescue, 

and changes to character of rural communities because of increasing numbers of recreation visits. 

Debates about the actual environmental impacts of various types of recreation are common. 

Debate and disagreement around the social impacts are even more contentious because impacts 

are a matter of human values and perceptions that vary greatly from person to person. Some 

people are also concerned that the Forest Service promotes commercial opportunities without 

consideration of local needs and long-term implications (i.e. difficulty removing any commercial 

use once established even though conditions change making the use less appropriate).

Livestock Grazing. There are concerns about effects on riparian and aquatic habitats, watershed 

conditions, upland vegetation, alpine habitats, and recreation experience. At the same time, 

beneficiaries of livestock grazing see the environmental and social impacts as acceptable and 

question the actual contribution of livestock grazing to negative environmental impacts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 13 

Timber Harvest. People are concerned about impacts of road construction and harvest on 

visuals/scenery, fragmentation of forests, old growth habitats, wildlife and fish needs, and 

watershed health. Those who benefit economically from timber production while also concerned 

about sustainability of the forest, are skeptical about the actual negative environmental impact of 

this activity and its effects on other values of the forest. 

Oil and Gas. Exploration and development there are concerns about effects on values 

associated with undeveloped areas. 

Road and Trail Management. There are concerns about effects on watershed and aquatic 

habitats from erosion and sedimentation, and about effects of road and trail densities on 

wildlife/habitat connectivity. 

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? 

Increasing recreation demand and the extent to which facility development is allowed or used to 

accommodate increased use is of concern to some people. Given current and expected growth in 

demand, there is concern that wildland settings may be compromised by too much or certain 

types of additional facility development. The kinds of facilities most often associated with 

recreation include ski resort improvements, campgrounds, picnic areas, overlooks, trailheads, 

parking areas, fishing access, boat launches, signing, visitor centers, and designated dispersed 

campsites. 

Some people would prefer that growth in recreation be accommodated by construction of 

additional facilities. They see this as a way to further disperse visitors in more heavily used 

areas or to protect sites from heavy use through hardening and preventive services such as trash 

containers. They have also noted the need to include demographic considerations such as an 

aging population and accessibility for physically challenged as facilities are developed. Others 

prefer to see limitations on types and/or amounts of facility development, particularly in certain 

areas that already have numerous facilities such as the tri-canyon area of the Wasatch Mountains. 

Some would like to see approaches to recreation management other than new facility 

development. An example is advocating additional mass transit rather than building additional 

parking facilities. There are concerns that continually adding facilities may result in the loss of 

the special niche the Wasatch-Cache National Forest offers for recreation. 

Other Topics And Issues Raised But Not Addressed 

Several issues raised by the public and other agencies are not addressed in detail in this analysis. 

Issues are addressed in the analysis to the extent they relate to the decisions being made in a 

forest plan and the scope of the revision topics. A summary of the issues with the reason why 

they are not analyzed in detail follows. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 14 

Outside of Forest Service Authority 

Wildlife Management. Some people commented on various aspects of wildlife management 

such as hunting restrictions, bear baiting practices, fish stocking practices, and the 

appropriateness of introducing non-native wildlife species or top carnivores. The State of Utah, 

not the Forest Service, has the authority for managing wildlife. The Forest Service works 

cooperatively with the State Division of Wildlife Resources and often makes recommendations 

for management in those instances where national forest resources are affected by its actions. 

Predator Control. Some people commented that predator control should be eliminated. 

Predator control responsibilities have shifted since the last round of forest planning. Another 

agency of the Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services now has the authority to make those 

decisions in cooperation with the Forest Service. 

Listing of Canada lynx as threatened. Some people disagreed with the finding of the Canada 

lynx as threatened. The Endangered Species Act prescribes the authority of species listing to the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), an agency within the Department of the 

Interior. Land management agencies such as the Forest Service work in consultation with the 

USFWS to define species conservation strategies. 

RS 2477 road assertions of counties. Some people commented that the Forest Service should 

recognize all RS 2477 road assertions made by counties. At the present time the Forest Service 

does not have a mechanism by which it can administratively recognize public roads under RS 

2477. Only a legal determination usually through a court action can actually establish an RS 

2477 right of way. We are identifying asserted roads on maps and maintaining their status until a 

determination of their validity can be made. 

Outside framework level of analysis 

 

Site-specific issues. There were many comments about issues that are dealt with in project level 

decisions that implement the forest plan. In some cases comments pertained to current 

implementation of projects. Many people commented on travel management issues such as 

closure of specific trails, allocation of uses on trails, and signing, while others commented on 

specific locations where they believed new or improved facilities should be added for recreation 

users. There were also many comments about non-recreation issues such as removing a fence in 

a specific location. 

 

The forest plan revision will identify general areas of the forest where various types of uses or 

facilities are appropriate. The forest plan does not make site-specific determinations of specific 

locations for those uses or facilities. The forest plan will not address specific route changes. 

Site-specific decisions are made in the future through project level analysis that must be 

consistent with the broad area direction established in the forest plan. 

Administrative Actions. Many people commented on administrative issues such as the current 

and future levels of law enforcement needed, the appropriateness of partnerships to accomplish 

agency goals, and whether or not user fees should be charged for using the national forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 15 

The forest plan identifies goals and objectives for land management and outlines environmental 

measures to achieve these goals. However, the forest plan does not prescribe administrative 

actions. These types of issues are administrative aspects of implementing the forest plan and are 

not appropriate for inclusion in the forest plan itself. 

Addressed by Regional Inventory Protocol 

Definition of a road to establish roadless inventory. Several people thought the definition of 

what was considered a road established too high of standard thereby allowing inappropriate 

acreage to be included within the roadless inventory. The regional protocol for establishing 

roadless inventories was completed with public input considered in the final definitions. The 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest used the definition from the approved protocol. 

Outside the scope of the Revision Topics 

Communication sites and utility corridors. Some people believed additional commercial 

electronic sites and utility corridors should be designated to accommodate future use. The 1985 

forest plan established ten utility corridors after an extensive review of industry needs. The 

forest currently has communication sites established that allow commercial use. Analyzing new 

areas for these uses requires a high degree of complexity and extensive involvement and 

coordination with private industry. These issues are currently not as pressing as some others 

necessary in the forest plan revision and will be addressed in the future as warranted. 

Wild and Scenic River suitability determinations. Some people suggested that the forest plan 

revision was the proper context in which to address suitability of wild and scenic rivers. An 

inventory of the rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest was completed in August 1999 in 

accordance with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Based on this inventory, 34 segments 

on the Wasatch-Cache were found eligible for inclusion. As allowed for in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, the Wasatch-Cache will complete the suitability determination though a 

separate analysis at a later date rather than as part of the forest plan revision. The potential 

complexity of analysis required a degree of detail that would reduce resources available for other 

important revision decisions. Suitability is currently not as pressing a decision as some others 

necessary in the forest plan revision. In addition there is a backlog of rivers that have gone 

through the suitability process and have had no Congressional action for designation. As more 

national forests in Utah complete eligibility inventories, it might be possible to conduct 

suitability studies at a broader and more comprehensive statewide scale. 

Until this analysis can be completed, the revised forest plan will provide for protection of the 

eligible river segments until the suitability determinations can be made and, if appropriate, 

designations are accomplished. 

Addressed by Management Direction 

Many people’s comments related to narrow aspects of management that would be addressed the 

same regardless of the alternative. These were not identified as issues used to develop the range 

of alternatives but instead will be addressed by management direction in the revised forest plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 - 16 

An example of this would be “wildland fire should comply with state and federal air quality 

standards”. 

Recent National Direction Considered in the Revision Analysis 

Several months prior to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement being published two new 

rules were issued establishing new national direction. The most recent direction concerning these 

rules is reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

The National Forest System Road Management Final Rule revises regulations concerning the 

management use and maintenance of the National Forest Transportation System. The final rule 

approved a new road policy that uses a science-based forest transportation system that meets the 

needs of the public yet minimizes or reverses the environmental impacts often caused by roads. 

The programmatic aspects of the new policy have been more fully incorporated into the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

The Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule establishes prohibitions on most road 

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

National Forest System lands. Presently, the Rule is being challenged within the federal court 

system. The Forest Service has initiated efforts to move forward with a responsible and balanced 

approach to re-examining the rule. For now, the Chief has instructed forests to ensure that Forest 

Plan revisions consider, as appropriate, the long-term protection and management of unroaded 

portions of inventoried roadless areas. 

The terms of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are applied to Alternatives 1, 2, and 6. Other 

alternatives consider the protection and management of inventoried roadless areas by varying 

degrees. All give full consideration of the values of each inventoried roadless area on the forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 1 

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES 

Introduction 

This EIS explores the differences among a number of management alternatives for the WasatchCache National Forest. These were developed to provide a range of options for the direction that 

forest management will take over the next 10 to 15 years. These alternatives are responsive to 

the needs for change (‘Topics’), significant issues discussed in Chapter 1, and public comment 

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. However, given that some of the issues are 

highly polarized, no one alternative fully resolves all of them. Showing a range of approaches 

for addressing issues, along with differences, trade-offs, and projected effects is a key part of the 

environmental analysis process. This chapter is divided into the following sections: 

• Alternative Development – discusses how the alternatives were developed. 

• Elements Common to All Alternatives – describes features that are part of every alternative 

considered in detail. 

• Alternatives Considered in Detail – describes the alternatives analyzed in depth. 

• Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study – briefly describes 

alternatives that were considered, but not studied in detail and reasons why. 

• Comparison of Alternatives – summarizes how the alternatives compare to one another. 

• The Preferred Alternative – identifies the alternative currently preferred by the Responsible 

Official for implementation. 

IMPORTANT: Maps of Management Prescriptions, Recreation Opportunities (Summer 

and Winter) and Scenery Management for each Alternative are included in the map packet 

accompanying this document. These maps are essential to understanding each of the 

Alternatives. 

Alternative Development 

Range of Alternatives 

As explained in Chapter 1, revision of the forest plan is based on the need to change the 1985 

forest plan. The September 1999 “Proposed Action Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan 

Revision” provided people with a first cut of what the Forest Service approach to revision might 

look like. Based on public responses to that proposal, the six issues detailed in Chapter 1 were 

identified. These, along with mapping and themes compiled from later public workshops formed 

the basis for a number of alternative approaches to address needs for change and issues in forest 

plan revision. Where possible, we identified specific geographic areas where each issue was 

most prevalent. This helped narrow the potential range of alternatives in some cases. We then 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 2 

identified the outer ranges (maximum and minimum treatment) of potential alternatives for each 

issue, noting reasons for narrowing the range where that was appropriate. For example, although 

one end of the range of suggested options for ensuring biodiversity was to reintroduce 

historically native predators (while the other is the minimum of mitigating activities where 

threatened or endangered species are known to occur), we narrowed the range because 

reintroduction is not typically initiated by the Forest Service nor is it implementable by the 

Forest Service. Scope of current policy does not include this action. Instead, we used only 

actions that are within Forest Service authority to implement as the end of the range of options 

for biodiversity. 

Public Review of Alternatives Prior to the DEIS

Five “Preliminary Alternatives” were then described in writing and provided to forest plan 

revision participants in August 2000. Each alternative was designed to respond to comments and 

significant issues in a different way, providing a range of possible management approaches from 

which to choose. Responses to this package were then compiled and used to further define, 

clarify, and improve the five alternatives as well as to add a sixth alternative completing the 

National Forest Management Act requirement that “The interdisciplinary team shall formulate a 

broad range of reasonable alternatives...” 36CFR 219.12(f). 

Primary changes resulting from public comments on the Preliminary Alternatives included: 

adding more area as recommended wilderness to some alternatives; further restricting 

snowmobile access in some alternatives while adding snowmobile access in others; adding 

Special Interest Areas and/or Special Areas to some alternatives; protecting more inventoried 

roadless areas in some alternatives; allowing no timber harvest in one alternative; applying the 

National Roadless Area Conservation Rule to some alternatives and not to others; providing for 

more separation of winter recreation uses in some alternatives; adding emphasis on fuel 

management to some alternatives; rearrangement of permitted heli-ski areas in some 

alternatives; and adding recreation access as an emphasis in some alternatives in addition to 

Alternative 5. 

Public Review of Alternatives Included in the DEIS

Six Alternatives were presented for public review and comment in the May 2001 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. These represented the range of reasonable alternatives 

developed with multiple rounds of public participation. Alternative 6 was identified as the 

Preferred Alternative. The comment period ended November 1, 2002 and we received 3,762 

separate responses. Public comment specifically on Alternatives included many expressions of 

support for or opposition to each of the six alternatives. Some respondents felt that a wider range 

of alternatives should be considered. In particular some wanted to see more wilderness 

recommendation than the maximum in Alternative 1, a no grazing alternative, a wider variation 

in projected grazing outputs (AUMs), more variation in summer motorized access, specific areas 

of winter non-motorized access, and numerous other very specific variations on the six 

Alternatives presented. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 3 

The FEIS responds to these comments by changing several suggested roadless areas in the 

Ogden area to recommended wilderness in Alternative 1. The FEIS decreases suitable range 

(and consequent projected AUMs) for purposes of cutthroat trout habitat improvement in 

Alternative 2. All other aspects of the six DEIS alternatives remain the same. The reasons for 

not varying summer motorized access by alternative are explained in a subsequent section of this 

Chapter titled “Past Decisions Not Being Revisited in Plan Revision” under the subheading 

“Travel Management Plans” as well as in the last section of this Chapter “Alternatives 

Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study”. Reasons for not analyzing a no grazing 

alternative are also explained there. 

 

An additional alternative, Alternative 7, was developed by modifying the original preferred 

alternative with careful consideration of the public comments and suggestions about the six draft 

Alternatives, and considering information on effects displayed in this FEIS. Among other 

changes from the original preferred alternative, Alternative 7 responds to the concerns for some 

separation of winter motorized and non-motorized uses to reduce conflicts as well as concerns 

about unsatisfactory rangeland conditions. 

Application of the 2002 National Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

A note about the current status of and how we have addressed the National Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule in this FEIS is warranted. At the point of fully developing our alternatives for 

the DEIS analysis, the process of public comment on the Rule was still in progress. By the time 

we were identifying and finalizing the DRAFT preferred alternative, previous Forest Service 

Chief Michael Dombeck issued a Record of Decision on the Roadless Area Conservation 

Initiative. Even at that time, there were several legal challenges being initiated. We ultimately 

applied the Rule to Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 in the DEIS. 

This rule was subsequently selected for review by President Bush’s Administration until at least 

May 12, 2001. In December 2001 Interim Direction was provided in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM 1925.04a, id_1920-2001-1) to guide various activities affected by the Rule including 

Forest Planning. This direction reserved authority for certain decisions (roading and timber 

harvest) within roadless areas to the Chief of the Forest Service “until a forest-scale roads 

analysis is completed and incorporated into the forest plan” and “until a revision of a forest plan 

or adoption of a plan amendment that has considered the protection and management of 

inventoried roadless areas.” 

Therefore, Alternative 7, developed in response to public comment on the DEIS Alternatives 1-6, 

applies this direction rather than the Rule. This Alternative relies on the individual roadless area 

evaluation (FEIS Appendix C2) as the basis for applying management prescriptions to roadless 

areas. Many of the areas have prescriptions that maintain roadless values completely or mostly 

while some have prescriptions that allow development (see Chapter 4, Topic 5, under the 

heading “Effects on Roadless Area Values”). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 4 

Assumptions About Budgets and Funding 

Finally, alternative development was based on assumptions about budgets and funding. One of 

the learning experiences from the original forest planning efforts was that although plans should 

describe desired future conditions of the forest, they also must have some connection to reality. 

In many cases the plans projected outputs and accomplishments that could only have been 

achieved if funding was significantly increased in various resource program areas. These 

funding increases did not materialize and in many cases funding actually decreased over the 

years. Since the plans did not establish clear priorities within or between resource areas, 

implementation necessarily was sporadic for some resources while others with funding became 

the priority by default. Achieving balance was difficult. 

Therefore, all alternatives (including the new Alternative 7) developed for this analysis are based 

on “experienced budget levels.” The total budget allocation to the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest was assumed to be similar to the average of several recent years. The mix of different 

types of funds (such as wildlife, recreation, or minerals) could be adjusted depending on the 

nature of the alternative but the total was viewed as a cap. There is one exception to this in the 

area of fire funding. Given the recent emphasis on fire and fuels in the National Fire Plan, we 

assumed that funding in this area will be significantly higher than experienced budget levels for 

other resources. Projections about activities related to fire and fuels reduction therefore are 

based on these higher funding levels. In the event that Congress emphasizes other programs 

through appropriations in the future, regardless of the alternative being implemented, a 

redistribution of priorities might result. 

Also see the explanation of assumptions for projected activities and outputs in Table 2-2. 

Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Past Decisions Not Being Revisited in Plan Revision 

Travel Management Plans have been developed for each ranger district or group of districts. 

These plans identify routes open for summer motorized use and areas or routes open for winter 

motorized use. Although this forest plan revision addresses winter motorized and non-motorized 

uses, the designated routes open for summer motorized use remain in place consistent with 

current Travel Plans for all alternatives. The single exception to this is when the motorized route 

is located within an inventoried roadless area that is recommended for wilderness designation 

(Prescription 1.5), in which case that route would be closed to motorized use. These are 

highlighted in the alternative descriptions in this Chapter beginning under the heading 

“Alternatives Considered in Detail.” 

Public comments and discussions after review and comment on the DEIS revealed needs for 

updating some District Travel Plans, particularly Ogden, Salt Lake, and Logan Ranger Districts. 

Given this need, an Objective was developed and included in the Revised Forest Plan to 

complete this work in the near future. Changes resulting from these site-specific Travel Planning 

analyses may require Forest Plan amendment, particularly if they affect Recreation Opportunity 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 5 

Class mapping. This is an expected and appropriate type of adaptation of the Plan to changes in 

the future. 

All alternatives also have in common Utility Corridors and Electronic Sites. The utility 

corridors and electronic sites identified in the 1985 forest plan remain as defined. They are to be 

treated as an overlay to the Management Prescriptions and integrated as much as possible with 

the prescription emphasis while providing for use of the corridor or site. (Direction for specific 

sites is included in Management Area Desired Future Conditions in the Revised Forest Plan). 

The 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment established forage and browse utilization standards, 

and ground cover standards as well as rangeland monitoring requirements. This forest plan 

amendment also described broad desired future conditions for four vegetation types: riparian, 

upland, aspen, and alpine. These items are retained in all alternatives and are incorporated into 

the Revised Forest Plan. 

Based on public comment on the DEIS, several items have been added to the Revised Forest 

Plan to improve on the guidance developed in 1996. These include a Guideline for upland 

forage utilization on lands in unsatisfactory condition (G71), a Guideline for site-specific 

objective development (G75), and an Objective for Improved Rangeland Management. 

The 1994 Oil and Gas Leasing decision included leasing stipulations for 140,400 acres of the 

North Slope of the Uinta Mountains and is retained in all alternatives for forest plan revision. 

Existing leases (on about 19,000 acres) in the inventoried roadless area (“appeal settlement 

zone”, see Topic 9 in Chapter 3) continue as they exist now until they expire at which time the 

record of decision for this plan revision will take effect for future availability and lease 

stipulations. 

The 1997 High Uintas Wilderness Amendment established desired future conditions, goals, 

standards and guidelines for that Wilderness area. These are incorporated in all alternatives and 

are included in the Proposed Forest Plan. 

In response to public comment, some of the direction for the High Uintas, where we felt it was 

appropriate, has been applied to other designated wildernesses in the Revised Forest Plan to 

improve protection and management of those areas. 

The 1999 Goshawk Amendment provided desired future conditions, goals, objectives, 

standards and guidelines for sustaining habitats for goshawk. The intent of these has been 

incorporated in the Revised Forest Plan and applies to all alternatives. 

The 2001 Utah Fire Amendment amended all of the Forest Plans for the Utah National Forests 

to allow for prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Components of this amendment are 

incorporated in all alternatives except Alternative 1 (which does not allow prescribed fire) with 

one exception. Sensitive watersheds are removed from the list of exceptions to wildland fire use 

because these watersheds may include barriers to fire spread that could be used as acceptable 

wildland fire use perimeters. We will analyze sites specifically to determine whether to include 

portions of sensitive watersheds in areas approved for wildland fire use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 6 

Comments on the DEIS expressed concern about needed motorized access under permit to 

administer various on-going uses (such as weather stations, reservoir/ditch maintenance, and 

livestock grazing operations). In response a Guideline has been added to the Revised Forest Plan 

to incorporate authorization for these types of access into permits where public motorized access 

may not be allowed. 

Common Framework for Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Before reviewing the seven Alternatives for this FEIS, a quick review of how they will be 

described is necessary. To understand any one of the alternatives the reviewer must look at a 

series of maps as well as written descriptions. 

Management Areas are the same delineation of seven groupings of watersheds across the forest 

for each alternative. They are described narratively and shown on a map in the introductory 

section of Chapter 3 of this FEIS. They include Bear, Cache-Box Elder, North Wasatch-Ogden 

Valley, Central Wasatch, Stansbury, Western Uintas, and Eastern Uintas. Management Areas 

are the place where forestwide direction must be integrated with the capabilities and sensitivities 

of the land, as well as the needs and opportunities there. These areas are places recognizable by 

people that use and are interested in the area. 

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. 

The set of maps for each alternative are best understood by first reviewing the standardized 

categories and descriptions that go with each map legend. FEIS Appendix D provides detailed 

descriptions of the categories. Following are very abbreviated versions of these descriptions to 

introduce the concepts used in mapping. Management Prescriptions define the primary land 

allocation with the other three maps further defining direction for a given land area. In most 

instances the map layers are compatible by design. However, in the instance of a conflict 

between direction for a Management Prescription and any of the other layers, the Management 

Prescription takes precedence. 

The maps and their accompanying descriptions for the selected Alternative (7) are a key part of 

the Revised Forest Plan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 7 

Management Prescription Categories 

The Management Prescription Categories listed below (Appendix D for detailed descriptions) 

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 category numbers below 

correspond to the numbers on the 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. 

1.0 Wilderness 

1.1 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class I 

1.2 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class II 

1.3 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class III 

1.4 Existing Wilderness - No Class 

1.5 Recommended Wilderness 

2.0 Special Management Areas

2.1-2.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (not used on revision maps) 

2.4 Research Natural Areas 

2.5 Scenic Byways 

2.6 Undeveloped Areas 

2.7 Special Interest Areas and Special Areas 

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

Integrity

3.1 Aquatic Habitat/Watershed Emphasis (A - Aquatic, W - Watershed, Alt. 7 only) 

3.2 Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis (D - Development allowed, U - Undeveloped, Alt. 7 

only) 

4.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Recreation Needs and Opportunities

4.1 Emphasis on Backcountry non-motorized recreation settings 

4.2 Emphasis on Dispersed non-motorized recreation settings 

4.3 Emphasis on Backcountry Motorized recreation settings 

4.4 Emphasis on Dispersed Motorized recreation settings 

4.5 Emphasis on Developed Recreation Areas 

5.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Forested Vegetation Management Needs and 

Opportunities

5.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring forested ecosystem integrity while meeting 

multiple resource objectives 

5.2 Emphasis on managing timber for growth and yield while maintaining or restoring 

forested ecosystem integrity 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 8 

6.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Rangeland Vegetation Management Needs and 

Opportunities

6.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring non-forested ecosystem integrity while 

meeting multiple resource objectives 

6.2 Emphasis on managing for livestock forage production while maintaining or 

restoring non-forested ecosystem integrity 

7.0 Intermingled Public/Private Lands (This prescription accompanied one of the other 

prescriptions in earlier versions. It has been eliminated because it made maps difficult to 

read and because private lands are already shown clearly on the maps.) 

8.0 Concentrated Development Areas 

8.1 Mineral Development Emphasis 

Allowed Activities by Management Prescription 

For each alternative described later in this Chapter, a list of Management Prescriptions and 

Allowed Activities is provided accompanied by a series of tables. These show eight types of 

forest management activities and whether or not each would be allowed in the areas mapped with 

that prescription for that alternative. The following explanations should be referenced for better 

understanding of the allowed activities. 

Allowed Activities Explanations 

Timber Harvest refers to commercial removal of vegetation for a variety of purposes including 

providing raw wood materials, improving wildlife habitat, adjusting age class distribution to 

mimic historic disturbance regimes, providing fire-resistant landscapes and commercial thinning. 

Timber harvest may be used to salvage trees or stands substantially damaged by wind, fire, or 

other significant disturbance; reduce susceptibility to insects and disease; or to develop stand 

structures that meet the desired future conditions, provided this can be done in harmony with the 

management emphasis for the area. 

Vegetation/Fuel Treatment refers to a host of activities including, thinning; seeding; planting; 

mechanical treatments such as cutting by hand with chainsaws; cutting using tracked equipment 

or equipment on wheels for roller-chopping, chaining, crushing, or chipping; chemical 

application; and biological treatments (i.e., specialized grazing regimes). These are methods 

used to achieve a broad range of multiple-use objectives including maintaining or restoring 

healthy ecosystems, reducing likelihood of unwanted wildfire, removing public safety hazards, 

reducing potential for high-intensity wildfires and resulting erosion, improving forage or browse 

production, restoring native plant communities, improving or restoring watersheds, and 

providing for specific elements of terrestrial or aquatic wildlife habitats. 

Prescribed Fire refers to any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A 

written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and site-specific NEPA analysis requirements 

must be met prior to ignition. Prescribed fire plans are docments prepared by qualified 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 9 

personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include criteria for the conditions under 

which the fire will be conducted (a prescription). Prescribed fire activities include actuallly 

lighting a fire using a fire accelerant with ground or aviation equipment and personnel; and may 

include the following: removal or piling of vegetation to secure perimeter lines, clearing areas 

for helicopter operations, clearing holding lines to bare mineral soil using hand tools or heavy 

eqiupment (i.e., bull dozers), using fire resistant foam or water on holding lines, constructing 

temporary camps for base operations, using aviation resources for fire retardant or water drops to 

reduce high-intensity fire behavior, closing areas to livestock grazing before and after burning, 

and closing roads and areas to the public before and after burning. 

Wildland Fire Use is the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific 

prestated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in the Fire 

Management Plan. The term does not include fires that are human-caused (either accidental or 

arson) and are considered unwanted wildland fires and that must be suppressed. It also does not 

include the use of those fires that are management ignited, referred to as prescribed fires. Use of 

wildland fire requires a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan which is a progressively developed 

assessment and operational management plan that documents the analysis and selection of 

strategies and describes the appropriate management response for a wildland fire being managed 

for resource benefits. 

Road Construction refers to activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary 

road miles. Road is defined as a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated 

and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary (FSM 7705). 

Note: Where road construction is not allowed by a Management Prescription the responsible 

official may authorize road construction or reconstruction when: 

a. A road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of 

flood, fire, or other catastrophic event, that without intervention would cause the loss of 

life or property; 

b. A road is needed to conduct a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or to conduct a natural 

restoration action under CERCLA, section 3d11 of the Clean Water Act, or Oil Pollution 

Act; 

c. A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided by statute or 

treaty; or 

d. Realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage by a classified road. The 

road must be deemed essential for public or private access, natural resource management, 

or public health and safety, and the resource damage associated with the road cannot be 

corrected by maintenance. 

New Trail Construction refers to development of any “pathway for foot, horse, or trail 

vehicles” (bikes, scooters, snomobiles, and all terrain vehicles [motorized OHV 50” or less] 

(FSM 2305.05, WO Amendment 2300-94-3, 7/8/94, pg. 8-9 and FSH 2309.18 WO Amendment 

2309.18-91-2, 11//8/91 pg. 1-2). To determine whether a trail is open to motorized or 

mechanized uses refer to District Travel Management Plans. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 10 

Note: In Prescriptions where new trail construction is not allowed, reconstruction and/or 

realignment to correct resource impacts from existing trails is allowed. 

Grazing refers to eating of forage by permitted livestock managed under an approved Allotment 

Management Plan and terms of a livestock grazing permit. Forestwide and management 

prescription standards and guidelines provide direction for grazing management until sitespecific desired conditions and/or objectives can be developed. Grazing may also include use of 

livestock under contract to reduce fuels. 

New Recreation Development refers to major structural public use facilities such as 

campgrounds and trailheads. It does not refer to construction within already established 

developed recreation sites. Trails and single restrooms are not considered recreation 

development for these descriptions. 

Changes to Prescriptions Between Draft and Final 

Comments on the DEIS expressed concerns about the real intent behind some of the management 

prescriptions and their “Generally Allowed Activities”. There was confusion about whether the 

word “generally” would in essence negate the intent of stating that an activity was not allowed. 

The word generally has been removed from all allowed activities tables. The Allowed Activities 

Explanations above have been improved to distinguish between different types of vegetation 

treatments. In addition, new trail construction has been added to both the explanations and 

tables for each alternative. 

There were also questions about conditions that might be placed on some activities because of 

the emphasis in the prescriptions. Given the need for better clarity during future 

implementation, the Revised Forest Plan replaces the allowed activities tables with 

corresponding standards and guidelines better reflecting intent for allowed activities in each 

management prescription (see Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4A.5). 

Finally, for Alternative 7 only, several new subcategories of prescriptions have been added to 

address comments and to adapt to evolving roadless area management direction. 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 for interim management 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 11 

Recreation Opportunities Summer 

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 accompanying map packets show 

these recreation allocations for summer and how they vary by alternative. It is important to 

recognize that these maps are NOT Travel Management Maps and do not show which routes are 

designated as open to motorized uses. A ROS Class of motorized may be the result of motorized 

routes nearby but off National Forest and influencing the recreation setting on National Forest. 

FEIS Appendix D provides a more detailed description of the classes and FEIS Appendix B 

includes a discussion on how the system was applied to the analysis. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 12 

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; Resorts Natural 

Setting/Water Recreation Rural Appearing Landscape Character Theme.

Changes to ROS Application Between Draft and Final and Relationship to 

Travel Planning 

Comments on the DEIS raised questions about how ROS mapping was intended to be used in the 

future when Travel Management Plans are updated. People wanted to know whether a mapped 

ROS Class such as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized would preclude consideration of additional 

motorized routes in that area, for example to develop a loop between existing motorized routes. 

Likewise, people asked if an area is mapped as Semi-Primitive Motorized because of an existing 

motorized trail, would that trail be precluded from consideration for closure and return to nonmotorized status because of the ROS Class? These excellent questions resulted in reexamination of how ROS was to be used and what its relationship is to Travel Management 

Planning. Our conclusion was this: ROS Maps will provide direction for managing recreation 

settings until such time that Travel Management Plans are updated through site-specific 

analysis. As Travel Plans are updated, that analysis can include alternatives that would require 

amendment of the Forest Plan ROS Maps. In other words, ROS Mapping necessarily follows

Travel Management Plan updates, rather than preceding them or precluding certain changes to 

them. This ensures that a range of options can be considered at the site-specific level, which is 

the appropriate scale for decision making on designated open travel routes. 

Winter Recreation Classes 

Four classes were defined for allocating areas to winter recreation. These are very similar to the 

classes listed above for summer, but with several of the classes combined for simplicity. These 

are Wilderness, Non-Motorized, Motorized, and Heliski. These winter allocations are shown 

on maps (available in accompanying map packets), and vary by alternative. (See Appendix D for 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 13 

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 

accompanying map packets. These vary by alternative primarily based on management 

prescriptions. FEIS Appendix D provides a more detailed description of the Scenery 

Management System and FEIS Appendix B includes a discussion on how the system was applied 

to the analysis. 

Natural Evolving Landscape Character Theme

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 Landscape Character Theme 

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 Landscape Character Theme 

This landscape character theme is characteristic of National, National Forest and State scenic 

byways with development, and developed and dispersed recreation facilities within the 

foreground of the viewshed (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 Landscape Character Theme 

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. 

Water Recreation Rural Appearing Landscape Character Theme 

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 area. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 14 

development on the private lands, housing, businesses, roads and other developments, [dominate 

some views]. 

Natural Landscape Character Theme (Alternative 4 only)

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. Each degree of 

change in integrity changes the integrity level. The degree of visual alteration is measured in 

terms of visual contrast with the surrounding natural landscape. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

There are two sections of information about the seven alternatives. First there are Individual 

Alternative Descriptions. After these descriptions, there are a series of tables that summarize 

key information for all alternatives allowing a quick Comparison of Alternatives, their 

similarities and differences. 

Individual Alternative Descriptions: 

Each alternative is presented in the same format with the following components. 

• Background/Theme – explains the general aim and a brief overview of the alternative.

• Response to Issues – describes how the alternative addresses the significant issues described 

in Chapter 1. Issue 5- impacts of uses, is addressed in-depth within Chapter 3 of this FEIS, 

where the consequences of each alternative are displayed. 

• Alternative Acres by Prescription Category – is a pie chart showing the relative amounts 

of each management prescription category in acres for that alternative.

• Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities – displays tables showing Allowed 

Activities by prescription for each alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 show these allowed 

activities for within and outside of inventoried roadless areas whereas Alternatives 1, 4, 5, 

and 7 do not have different allowed activities inside or outside of inventoried roadless areas.

• Maps – of each alternative and the corresponding prescriptions, recreation opportunities and 

scenery objectives are included in the map packets accompanying this document. It may be 

helpful to open the maps and use them as a reference as you read the particular alternative 

description.

Comparison of Alternatives:

• Tables – are provided beginning on page 2-XX displaying key differences between 

alternatives for management prescriptions, projected activities and outputs, suitable lands, 

recreation opportunities, disposition of roadless areas, and revenues and payments to counties 

for each alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 15 

Figure 1: Alternative 1 Acres

by Management Prescription 

308,900 Acres 

1.1-1.4

225,000 Acres 

3.1-3.12

7,700 Acres 4.1-

4.2

388,900 Acres 

1.5

241,200 Acres 

2.4-2.7 

3,000 Acres 8.1

5,300 Acres 6.1-

6.2

59,100 Acres 

4.3-4.5

Alternative 1 

Background/Theme 

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 forestwide, 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. 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. 

Response to Issues 

Alternative 1 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management

consistent with priority placed on goals for watershed health, biodiversity and species viability, 

and protection of special areas. Motorized uses are restricted more than currently because no 

snowmobiling is allowed in recommended wilderness and inventoried roadless areas. Areas 

closed to winter motorized uses because of critical big game winter range total 222,800 acres or 

18% of total Forest acres. Heli-skiing is not allowed because much of the suitable terrain is 

recommended as wilderness. Within inventoried roadless areas, summer motorized recreation is 

allowed on routes designated as open in current travel maps except within areas recommended as 

wilderness. In these areas, about 76 miles of trail and two miles of road currently open to 

motorized uses would be closed to motorized use and rehabilitated or returned to vegetation. 

Mapped semiprimitive and primitive ROS classes (both motorized and nonmotorized) would be 

managed (potential permit system) to maintain low user densities. See Comparison of 

Alternatives Tables 2-4, 2-5 for comparisons of different recreation opportunities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 16 

Alternative 1 addresses the issue of inventoried roadless area management with a prohibition 

on road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest that maintains 100 percent of 

inventoried roadless areas as undeveloped. Areas recommended for wilderness (prescription 

1.5) are shown in dark green on the maps in the map packets. The majority of acres of roadless 

areas with high quality wilderness characteristics are recommended consistent with the view that 

these areas deserve wilderness designation to protect those values in perpetuity. Portions of 

several roadless areas in the Ogden Ranger District (Willard, Lewis Peak, Burch Creek, and 

Francis) were added to the recommended wilderness in this Alternative based on public 

comment. About 388,900 acres, or 64 percent of inventoried roadless acres are recommended 

for wilderness designation. Remaining inventoried roadless areas are managed according to the 

mapped prescription with allowed activities defined specifically for Alternative 1. Allowed 

activities are shown in tables following this narrative. Also see Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-6. 

Alternative 1 addresses the issue of ensuring biodiversity and species viability (including 

watershed functions) by emphasizing natural processes with minimal human intervention as 

follows: 

a. Identify a system of areas representing all native ecological units and seral stages 

across their historic range of variation and allow nature to take its course. 

b. All known wildlife corridors protected (regionally significant Bear River and 

currently designated western portion of East Fork Smiths Fork Uinta Mountains). 

c. No interference with natural dynamics of vegetation including no timber harvest, 

no mechanical fuel reductions, no prescribed fire or unwarranted suppression of 

fire – (except that required to protect life and property). Allowing natural fires 

within prescription (wildland fire use) is acceptable and the natural role of insects 

and disease is allowed to play out. 

d. Manage livestock grazing (including eliminating or reducing where necessary) to 

restore proper functioning of watersheds, riparian areas, lands in unsatisfactory 

condition (i.e. not meeting objectives) and to maintain or restore biodiversity.

Close all vacant allotments including 3 for bighorn sheep habitat. 

e. Manage recreation activities (including eliminating or reducing where necessary) 

to restore proper functioning of watersheds, riparian areas, and lands with 

recreation caused detrimental soil disturbance (this includes realignment of trails 

where needed). 

f. Maintain all inventoried roadless areas as undeveloped and minimize human 

interference/intrusion. 

g. Road decommissioning (closure, rehabilitation and revegetation) is pursued 

consistent with Travel Maps and priority placed on improving water quality, fish 

habitat, and reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

h. Maintain connectivity of unfragmented forested lands or restore connectivity with 

minimum human interference. 

i. Discourage introductions of non-native species. 

j. Allow only biological control or hand-removal of noxious weeds. 

k. Provide natural habitat protection for all species to include invertebrates, reptiles, 

amphibians, neotropical migrants, and plants, as well as species identified as 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 17 

l. Protect and or restore special habitats (3 grazing allotments in the Uinta 

Mountains would be phased out from allotment status if permits are voluntarily 

waived without preference, to provide for bighorn sheep habitat). 

m. Existing Research Natural Areas are maintained (Mollens Hollow, Morris Creek, 

Red Butte). Realign the lower portion of Red Butte Research Natural Area 

making the lower part a Special Interest Area; include additional acreage with 

current Morris Creek RNA. 

n. Designate special interest areas in Willard Basin, and lower Logan Canyon for 

botanical values, and the T.W. Daniels Experimental Forest for educational 

purposes.

Alternative 1 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the forest through recognizing non-commodity values such as water quality, air 

quality, natural ecological functions, and perpetuation of species along with commodity output 

measures of value. The land base is considered not suited for timber production and timber 

harvest is not allowed. Livestock grazing is managed on suitable rangelands, to meet standards 

associated with habitat needs. In both riparian and upland areas with unsatisfactory conditions, 

where movement of livestock or other non-structural means cannot accomplish satisfactory 

conditions (based on monitoring), livestock would be removed. Vacant allotments are removed 

from allotment status, including three that provide bighorn sheep habitat. Oil and gas leasing is 

limited to currently available lands (1994 Leasing Decision) with the remaining appeal 

settlement zone1

 not available for lease after current leases expire. Recreation related 

opportunities for economic benefits are tied to semiprimitive and primitive ROS classes (outfitter 

guiding may be included in management of user densities) and areas currently devoted to roaded 

natural and rural categories (concessions, ski areas). Ski area boundary expansions are not 

allowed nor are new ski areas. Commodity outputs are expected to be lower in this Alternative 

than in the others. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-2 and 2-7. 

Alternative 1 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development 

by allowing no additional facility development except to replace current facilities that have 

unacceptable impacts to resources and that do not increase user densities. No new trails are 

allowed, although realignment of existing trails to reduce resource impacts is allowed. Facilities 

at ski areas would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting landscape character theme. ROS 

categories Urban and Rural are not expanded beyond current acres. 

 

1

 About 68,300 acres being analyzed for oil and gas leasing within the Western and Eastern Uinta Mountains 

Mangement Areas are referred to as the Appeal Settlement Zone, see Chapter 3 Topic 9. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 18 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities for Alternative 1 

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness, Alternative 1 

Prescription

Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed 

Fire2

Road 

Building Grazing1 Wildland Fire Use

New 

Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.5 No No No No Yes Yes No No 

1

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

2 Only to meet Wilderness Objectives 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas, Alternative 1 

Prescription 

Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

No

No

No 

No

No 

No 

No 

No

No

No

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No

No

No 

No

No 

No

No 

No 

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity, Alternative 1 

Prescription

Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1-3.2 No No No No Yes Yes No No 

Prescription Category 4: Recreation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 1 

Prescription

Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1-4.4 

4.5

No 

No

No 

No

No 

No 

No 

No

No 

Yes

Yes 

No

No 

No

No 

No 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 1 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1

5.2

No

NA

No

NA

No 

NA 

No

NA

Yes

NA

Yes

NA

No

NA

No 

NA 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 19 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 1 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1

6.2

No

No

No 

No

No 

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No 

No 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas, Alternative 1 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

8.1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 20 

 Figure 2: Alternative 2 Acres

by Management Prescription

250,700 Acres 

2.4-2.7

145,900 Acres 

1.5

308,900 Acres 

1.1-1.4

3,000 Acres 8.1

319,700 Acres 

3.1-3.2

33,600 Acres 

4.1-4.2

76,400 Acres 

4.3-4.5

69,800 Acres 

5.1-5.2

31,300 Acres 

6.1-6.2

Alternative 2 

Background/Theme 

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, 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 currently mapped primitive and semiprimitive recreation opportunities.

Response to Issues 

Alternative 2 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management by 

allowing winter motorized use in those areas where that use does not compromise existing and 

recommended wilderness. Conflicts between winter motorized and non-motorized uses are 

resolved through identification of most desirable snowmobiling and cross-country skiing areas, 

analysis of overlaps and determination of areas to separate these uses. These are overlaid with 

highest priority areas for protection/conservation and restricted accordingly. Areas closed to 

winter motorized uses because of critical big game winter range total 222,100 acres or 18% of 

total Forest acres. Heli-skiing is not allowed because much of the suitable terrain is 

recommended as wilderness. Within inventoried roadless areas, summer motorized recreation is 

allowed on routes designated as open in current Travel Maps except for those areas 

recommended as wilderness. In these areas, about eight miles of trail currently open to 

motorized uses would be closed to motorized use. Mapped semiprimitive and primitive ROS 

categories (both motorized and nonmotorized) are managed (potential permit system) to maintain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 21 

low user densities. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-4, 2-5 for acres of different 

recreation opportunities. 

Alternative 2 addresses the issue of roadless area management by adjusting allowed activities 

for management prescriptions with application of the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

Road construction and reconstruction are not allowed in inventoried roadless areas nor is cutting, 

sale, and removal of timber except: for the cutting, sale or removal of generally small diameter 

trees which maintains or improves roadless characteristics and 1) to improve habitat for 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species, or 2) to maintain or restore ecosystem 

composition and structure, such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. The 

only development allowed in inventoried roadless areas is for recreation facilities in prescriptions 

4.4 and 4.5 (about 20,600 acres). About 145,900 acres or 24 percent of inventoried roadless 

areas with highest quality wilderness characteristics are recommended for wilderness. This is 

because of the need for active management of vegetation (primarily through use of prescribed 

fire that is not allowed in recommended wilderness) in order to return landscapes to properly 

functioning conditions in remaining roadless areas. See Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-6 

for disposition of roadless areas. 

Alternative 2 addresses the issue of ensuring biodiversity and species viability (including 

watershed functions) by emphasizing factors known to contribute to conservation biology with 

active human intervention as follows: 

a. Identify current or manage to create a system of areas representing all native ecological 

units and seral stages across their historic range of variation. 

b. All known wildlife corridors managed to maintain function of corridor (regionally 

significant Bear River and currently designated western portion of East Fork Smiths Fork 

Uinta Mountains). 

c. Manage and/or restore rangelands and manage livestock grazing (including eliminating or 

reducing where necessary) to restore proper functioning of watersheds, riparian areas, 

and lands in unsatisfactory condition. All vacant allotments are closed including 3 for 

bighorn sheep habitat. Remove 26,000 acres of watershed in unsatisfactory condition 

from rangeland suitability to improve cutthroat trout habitat. 

d. Active vegetation management (prescribed fire, wildland fire use, suppression of fire for 

protection of life and property, timber harvest, thinning, mechanical treatment of fuels, 

and seeding with native species) is emphasized to more quickly move landscapes to 

within the historic range of variability and to mimic natural disturbance processes 

including insects and disease. 

e. Maintain inventoried roadless areas as undeveloped. 

f. Road decommissioning is pursued as consistent with Travel Maps and priority placed on 

improving water quality, fish habitat, and reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

g. Take aggressive actions to eradicate noxious weeds. 

h. Maintain or restore connectivity of forested lands. 

i. Discourage introductions of non-native species. 

j. Monitor and assess for viability groups of species identified as focal species (categories 

of species used to assess ecological integrity). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 22 

j. Protect and or restore special habitats (3 grazing allotments in the Uinta Mountains would 

be phased out from allotment status if permits are waived without preference, to provide 

for bighorn sheep habitat). 

k. Encourage restoration of native cutthroat trout to key drainages (Hayden Fork, Whitney, 

Temple Fork, Beaver Creek, Causey, South Fork Weber, Smith-Morehouse). 

l. Existing Research Natural Areas are maintained (Mollens Hollow, Morris Creek, Red 

Butte). Realign the lower portion of Red Butte Research Natural Area creating a Special 

Interest Area; include additional acreage with current Morris Creek RNA. 

m. Designate special interest areas and/or special areas in portions of the Wasatch Front Tricanyon area for watershed, recreation and scenery purposes; and Willard Basin and lower 

Logan Canyon for botanical values.

Alternative 2 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the forest through using opportunities for economic benefit from active management 

while focusing on objectives for biodiversity, species viability, and watershed health. Values for 

water quality, air quality, natural ecological functions, and perpetuation of species, as well as 

administrative and environmental costs of commodity outputs are recognized and included. 

Some forested lands are identified as suitable for timber harvest where that activity can be used 

to achieve habitat objectives and/or to mimic natural disturbance processes. Livestock grazing is 

managed on suitable rangelands to meet standards associated with habitat and watershed needs. 

In areas with unsatisfactory conditions, where movement of livestock or other structural means 

cannot accomplish satisfactory conditions (based on monitoring), livestock will be removed until 

satisfactory conditions are achieved. Vacant allotments are removed from allotment status. 

Lands recommended as wilderness within the appeal settlement zone in the Uinta Mountains are 

not available to lease for oil and gas development. The remaining portion of the Uinta 

Mountains inventoried roadless area in the appeal settlement zone is available for lease with no 

surface occupancy. Current leases covering portions of this area (see Chapter 3, Topic 9 for 

details) are not included in this decision. Recreation related opportunities for economic benefits 

are tied to the ROS classes. Ski area boundary expansions are not allowed nor are new ski areas. 

In general, outputs are dependent on consistency with achieving goals for biodiversity, species 

viability and watershed health. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-2 and 2-7 for activities 

and outputs.

Alternative 2 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development

by allowing very limited additional facility development. Replacement of current facilities that 

have unacceptable impacts to resources is allowed and some additional facilities to accommodate 

recreation as mapped in ROS classes. Facilities must be consistent with goals for biodiversity, 

species viability and watershed health. Trail construction is allowed consistent with 

management prescriptions and to the degree that it does not conflict with other goals. Facilities 

at ski areas would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting landscape character theme. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 23 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities Alternative 2

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness, Alternative 2

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing1 Wildland Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.5 No No Yes No Yes Yes No No 

1

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas, Alternative 2 

Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

No

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No

No

No 

No

No 

No 

No 

No 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No 

Yes 

No 

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes1

1

Associated with resource interpretation and public use

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity, Alternative 2

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1-3.2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 24 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1 

3.2

No 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes1

Yes2

1

Trail construction allowed if consistent with riparian management objectives 

2

Trail construction is allowed with consideration of existing trail densities 

Prescription Category 4: Recreation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 2 

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas: 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

No 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

No 

No

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 2 

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1-5.2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 25 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1-5.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 2 

Within Inventoried Roadless areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 

Outside Inventoried Roadless areas: 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas, Alternative 2 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

8.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 26 

Figure 3: Alternative 3 Acres

by Management Prescription

84,600 Acres 

4.3-4.5

360,200 Acres 

3.1-3.2

59,900 Acres 

4.1-4.2

111,100 Acres 

2.4-2.7

51,500 Acres 

1.5

308,900 Acres 

1.1-1.4

88,700 Acres 

5.1/6.1

3,000 Acres 8.1

71,800 Acres 

6.1-6.2 99,900 Acres 

5.1-5.2

Alternative 3 

Background/Theme 

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 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. We modified Alternative 3 from earlier versions to 

provide 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. 

Response to Issues 

Alternative 3 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management by 

increasing the amount of area open for snowmobiling over that currently available to reduce user 

densities and improve distribution of growing demand. Timing of allowed use and/or facility 

design and access would be used to reduce winter recreation conflicts. In some cases additional 

parking would be provided to increase snowmobile opportunities. Areas closed to winter 

motorized uses because of critical big game winter range total 136,700 acres or 11% of total 

Forest acres. Areas open to winter motorized uses are increased by about 28,800 acres over 

existing. Heli-skiing would be allowed, though in a different area than currently permitted to 

offset terrain recommended as wilderness. Summer motorized recreation is allowed on routes 

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

wilderness. In these areas, about one mile of currently open motorized trail would be closed to 

motorized uses. Some routes not currently open on Ogden Ranger District Travel Maps would 

be evaluated for potential motorized trail development. ROS categories are similar, but not 

identical to current conditions (see Table 2-4 in the last section of this Chapter). Management 

Prescription Categories 4.1, 2.6, 1.5, and 4.2 provide some guidance for upper limits on desired 

user densities. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-4, 2-5 for acres of different recreation 

opportunities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 27 

Alternative 3 addresses the issue of roadless area management by applying management 

prescriptions that maintain or mostly maintain 425,000 acres or 70 percent of inventoried 

roadless area as undeveloped recognizing that these values are important in the context of the 

already developed portions of the forest along with dominance of development on private lands. 

Areas recommended for Wilderness designation (about 51,300 acres or 8% of inventoried 

roadless areas) are shown in dark green on the maps in the map packets. These areas were 

selected based on highest wilderness characteristics and minimizing conflicts with other uses. 

Remaining inventoried roadless areas are open for development to the extent consistent with the 

mapped prescription. Most are assigned to prescriptions that focus on habitats (aquatic or 

terrestrial) and generally would not be developed or would only be developed where it would be 

necessary for achieving habitat improvement or restoration (see Allowed Activities by 

prescription below). See Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-6 for disposition of inventoried 

roadless areas.

Alternative 3 addresses the issue of ensuring biodiversity and species viability (including 

watershed functions) by emphasizing: 

a. Managing at least portions of known wildlife corridors to maintain functions of corridors 

(regionally significant Bear River and currently designated western portion of East Fork 

Smiths Fork Uinta Mountains). 

b. Managing livestock grazing through standards included in the 1996 Rangeland Health 

Record of Decision to achieve the desired conditions identified in that document and with 

emphasis on restoration of riparian areas. 

c. Active vegetation management (prescribed fire, wildland fire use, suppression of fire for 

protection of life and property, timber harvest, thinning, mechanical treatment of fuels, 

and seeding with native species) to ensure landscapes function within the historic range 

of variability and mimicking of natural disturbance processes including insects and 

disease. 

d. Maintenance of 70 percent of inventoried roadless areas as undeveloped. 

e. Road decommissioning is pursued as consistent with current travel maps and evaluation 

of some routes for trails and priority is placed on improving water quality, fish habitat, 

and reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

f. Encouraging control or eradication of non-native species. 

g. Discouraging introductions of non-native species. 

h. Developing conservation measures for groups of species based on rarity, habitat and/or 

risk factors, as well as those already identified as threatened, endangered, or sensitive. 

i. Protecting and or restoring special habitats. 

j. Maintenance of existing Research Natural Areas (Mollens Hollow, Morris Creek, and 

Red Butte) except for realignment of the lower portion of Red Butte to create a Special 

Interest Area. 

Alternative 3 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the forest through providing some, but not necessarily maximizing, outputs. It 

allows commodity production to the degree possible while moving vegetation and landscapes to 

properly functioning conditions. Timber harvest is allowed on suited lands consistent with 

mapped prescriptions. Forage for livestock is available within standards for maintaining or 

moving toward properly functioning conditions and consistent with special habitat needs. Focus 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 28 

for restoration of rangelands in unsatisfactory condition is on riparian areas. Vacant allotments 

remain vacant or are used in conjunction with improvement of active allotments, but not 

eliminated from allotment status. However, given recent funding levels, stocking of vacant 

allotments is unlikely. The appeal settlement zone on the North Slope Uinta Mountains is 

available for oil and gas leasing. Lease stipulations aligned with management prescriptions and 

special habitat needs provide for surface occupancy on about 12,900 acres and no surface 

occupancy on about 37,200 acres. Areas recommended for wilderness (prescription 1.5) are not 

available for lease. Economic contributions of recreation related services (concessions, 

outfitter/guides) continue at levels similar to current. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-2 

and 2-7 for activities and outputs. 

Alternative 3 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development

by allowing additional recreation facilities construction consistent with mapped prescriptions and 

Recreation Opportunity Classes. The intent is to accommodate some of the growing demand 

with focus on areas mapped with recreation prescriptions. Trail construction is allowed 

consistent with management prescriptions. Ski area boundary expansion is not allowed, nor are 

new ski areas. Facilities at ski areas would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting 

landscape character theme. 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities Alternative 3 

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness Alternative 3 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.4 

1.5

No 

No

No 

No

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes1

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No 

No

No 

Yes 1

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas Alternative 3 

Prescription 

Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

No

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

No

Yes

No 

No

No

Yes

No 

Yes1

1

Associated with resource interpretation and public use
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 29 

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity Alternative 3 

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1-3.2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1-3.2 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1,2

1

Trail construction allowed if consistent with riparian management objectives 

2

Trail construction is allowed with consideration of existing trail densities 

Prescription Category 4: Recreation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 3 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 3

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1-5.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 3 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 30 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas Alternative 3 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

8.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 31 

Figure 4: Alternative 4 Acres

By Management Prescription

3,000 Acres 8.1

325,700 Acres 

6.1-6.2

309,000 Acres 

1.1-1.4 28,200 Acres 

2.4-2.7

117,900 Acres 

3.1-3.2

130,600 Acres 

4.1-4.2

32,200 Acres 

4.3-4.5 292,600 Acres 

5.1-5.2

Alternative 4 

Background/Theme 

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. 

Response to Issues 

Alternative 4 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management by 

continuing motorized and non-motorized opportunities in summer according to current Travel 

Management Plans. Heli-skiing continues in currently permitted terrain. Recreation 

Opportunity Classes as mapped in the 1985 Forest Plan are provided on a map in the map 

packets for reference and acres open to winter motorized uses are shown in Chapter 3, however 

this map was never viewed or used as an allocation and was not revised as changes occurred 

through site-specific decisions. Areas closed to winter motorized uses because of critical big 

game winter range totaled 88,300 acres or 7% of total Forest acres. This recreation opportunity 

mapping anticipated more than double the number of acres of Roaded Natural than exists today, 

consequently significantly reducing the acres of semi-primitive recreation opportunities. The 

1985 Plan discourages separation of uses. User densities are generally controlled through 

available parking, facility availability, and some areas where designated dispersed policies have 

been applied through recent project decisions. Increasing demand is met through recreation 

facility and trail construction and reconstruction investments (USDA Forest Service 1985: 342-

349) that are contingent on actual budget allocations. See Tables 2-4 and 2-5 for Alternative 4’s 

relative acreage of each recreation opportunity class for non-snow seasons and winter (minimum 

snow depth of 1 inches). 

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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 32 

Recreation Program Management, Riparian Management, Timber Objectives, Water 

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

e. 1985 Standards and Guidelines as amended. 

Important note: The 1985 forest plan, although it did include “prescriptions”, did not employ 

the Management Prescription Categories now required for forest planning. Therefore, the 

mapping of management prescriptions for this Alternative shown on maps accompanying this 

document required a number of assumptions about, and interpretations of, the 1985 plan. There 

was no way to translate that plan with a 1:1 correlation to today’s prescription categories. The 

mapping of prescriptions for this Alternative therefore is only an estimation of the intent of that 

plan in prescription category terms. We have provided this mapping and relative acreages for 

purposes of comparison. Since that plan tended to be very general in some regards and presented 

management direction resource by resource without clear priorities or integration, the application 

of prescription categories was based on our best interpretation of that plan’s wording translated 

to today’s prescription categories. 

It should also be noted that since 1992, when the need for plan revision was first identified, onthe-ground management has evolved to incorporate integration of the various resource 

management needs. This means that decisions on management of projects based on site-specific 

analyses have often resulted in actions that match prescriptions such as 5.1 or 6.1 rather than 5.2 

or 6.2. However, since the Forest plan direction was not amended, prescription mapping to 

represent the 1985 plan is generally with prescriptions such as 5.2 or 6.2. These better match the 

wording in the 1985 plan. 

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 - USDA 

Forest Service 1985: 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. 

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 4 addresses the issue of roadless area management by recommending no 

additional areas for Wilderness designation to form a baseline with which to compare other 

alternatives that do make wilderness recommendations. Inventoried roadless areas are mapped 

with prescriptions that generally maximize flexibility, allowing development for commodity 

outputs and recreation access. About 131,900 acres or 22% of inventoried roadless areas are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 33 

mapped with prescriptions that maintain the undeveloped character because there are few other 

uses foregone. See Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-6 for roadless area disposition. 

Alternative 4 addresses the issue of ensuring biodiversity and species viability project by 

project by emphasizing requirements of various conservation strategies as constraints on 

commodity production and in project design. The 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment 

established desired future conditions for rangeland ecosystems (riparian areas, uplands, aspen, 

and alpine areas) along with monitoring requirements. Projects such as prescribed burns and 

timber harvest are used to move vegetation communities toward or maintain them within the 

historic range of variability based on properly functioning condition assessments. Wildland fire 

use has been approved Forestwide. Noxious weeds are controlled contingent on budget 

available. Specific knowns (i.e. actual presence, nests, etc.) about species distribution and 

habitat needs guide management practices. Where there are unknowns, management flexibility 

for sustained commodity outputs is tempered by best available guidance provided on a projectby-project basis. Road density standards call for any new construction to be matched with equal 

road mile decommissioning. Habitat improvement (USDA Forest Service 1985: 350-354) 

focuses on big game winter range (burning, seeding, pruning), aspen restoration, snag and old 

growth marking, wildlife water development and aquatic structural improvements (lake aeration, 

in-stream structures), all investments contingent on actual budget allocations. Rangelands in 

unsatisfactory condition are addressed in Allotment Management Plan Revisions. Watershed 

improvement projects are listed (USDA Forest Service 1985: 377-382) with accomplishment 

contingent on budget allocations. More recent priorities for watershed restoration have been 

established through the Inland West Watershed Initiative and Clean Water Action Plan. Existing 

Research Natural Areas are maintained (Mollens Hollow, Morris Creek, Red Butte). 

Alternative 4 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the Forest through emphasis on predictable sustained commodity outputs 

constrained by conservation strategies, Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, and project specific 

mitigation. Forested lands are managed for timber production (with direction for priority on 

those lands susceptible to mountain pine beetle epidemics). Exceptions to these are areas 

removed because of high water table, regeneration difficulties, and where project-level 

environmental analyses have established additional objectives. Economic contributions from 

timber harvest have proved to be substantially less than the 1985 plan projected. Reevaluation in 

1992 found timber volume objectives were inaccurate because of problems with volume 

conversions, timber availability assumptions, and technical concerns with implementation. 

Methods of timber harvest have more recently integrated ecosystem management principles 

through project-by-project analysis. 

Except where Allotment Management Plan revisions have established adjusted combinations of 

multiple use emphasis based on integration of resource management needs, forage for livestock 

grazing is the emphasis on rangelands. Investment in numerous range structural improvements 

was anticipated in the 1985 Plan, however implementation contingent on budget allocations has 

been significantly less affecting output capabilities. Vacant allotments are dealt with on a caseby-case basis. However, given recent funding levels, stocking of vacant allotments is unlikely. 

Oil and gas leasing specifics were decided in 1994 for all but the appeal settlement zone, which 

is about 68,300 acres of inventoried roadless area on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. 

That area remains unavailable pending additional analysis. Existing leases (on about 19,000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 34 

acres) in this area (see oil and gas topic in Chapter 3) would continue as they exist now until they 

expire. Recreation related economic benefits are a function of roaded natural ROS, which 

maintains some roads associated with timber harvest as motorized and nonmotorized access to 

the Forest. Ski area boundary expansion is not allowed as recent Master Development Plans 

have resulted in decisions not to allow boundary expansions on National Forest System Lands. 

No new ski areas are allowed. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-2 and 2-7 for activities 

and outputs.

Alternative 4 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development

by listing all facilities along with projected development standards as well as identifying areas 

intended for additional development. However, available budgets did not match those 

projections and subsequent development has been less than anticipated. Reevaluation in 1992 

found that the developed recreation site program needed to emphasize maintenance of existing 

facilities and correction of resource problems prior to construction of new facilities. New 

facility construction, including trail construction, in this Alternative would continue to be 

addressed in project-by-project analyses, contingent on budget allocations. Facilities in Ski 

Areas are consistent with decisions made in Master Development Plans. 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities Alternative 4 

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness Alternative 4 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing1 Wildland Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.4 No No No No Yes Yes No No 

1

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas Alternative 4 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity Alternative 4 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1 

3.2

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 35 

Yes 

Prescription Category 4. Recreation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 4 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 4

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1 

5.2

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 

No 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 4 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas Alternative 4

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

8.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 36 

Figure 5: Alternative 5 Acres

By Management Prescription

186,000 Acres 

5.2/6.2

3,000 Acres 8.1

191,900 Acres 

6.1-6.2

182,200 Acres 

5.1-5.2 117,700 Acres 

4.3-4.5

308,900 Acres 

1.1-1.4

31,400 Acres 

2.4-2.7

95,000 Acres 

3.1-3.2

124,500 Acres 

4.1-4.2

Alternative 5 

Background/Theme

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 nonexclusive 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 and its resources, 

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. 

Response to Issues 

Alternative 5 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management by 

increasing motorized access over current and identifying potential areas and/or times for 

motorized and non-motorized winter uses to reduce conflicts. Additional areas (including some 

big game winter ranges) are opened to snowmobile access to reduce user densities and improve 

distribution of growing demand. Areas closed to winter motorized uses because of critical big 

game winter range total 129,500 acres or 10% of total Forest acres. Heli-skiing continues in 

currently permitted terrain. The roaded natural and semiprimitive motorized Recreation 

Opportunity Classes are the most common, expanding access, additional facilities, and dispersal 

of current uses to accommodate growing recreation demand. This alternative reduces some of 

the existing semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities. See Comparison of 

Alternatives Tables 2-4 and 2-5 for acres of different recreation opportunities. 

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 year-round 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 37 

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 5 addresses the issue of roadless area management by recommending no 

additional areas for Wilderness designation consistent with the view that the existing 309,000 

acres of Wilderness areas meet needs for wilderness and are an appropriate relative proportion of 

the forest. About 117,100 acres or 19 percent of inventoried roadless areas where few other uses 

would be foregone are managed to protect roadless area values. Remaining inventoried roadless 

areas are managed to provide access for timber and grazing management, oil and gas exploration 

and development, and recreation with project-by-project attention to critical habitats for wildlife, 

fish, and plant population viability. See Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-6 for disposition of 

inventoried roadless areas.

Alternative 5 addresses the issue of ensuring biodiversity and species viability by 

emphasizing prevention of listings with minimum requirements of various conservation 

strategies. Highest priority areas are protected through project-by-project mitigation measures. 

Specific knowns (presence, nests, etc.) about species distribution and habitat needs guide 

management practices. Where there are unknowns, management flexibility for sustained 

commodity outputs is given priority. Already designated Wilderness areas are provided for 

connectivity and low influence from human activities for wildlife habitat. Prescribed fire and 

wildland fire use in forested landscapes are allowed in areas with very low or no commercial 

timber value. Vegetation treatments are focused on forage production while being sensitive to 

protection of soils and vegetation. Areas in unsatisfactory condition are managed for restoration 

to forage production through proper grazing and recreation management. Special habitats are 

managed through mitigation of activities and regular monitoring to insure that populations are 

not significantly declining. Existing Research Natural Areas are maintained (Mollens Hollow, 

Morris Creek, Red Butte). The lower boundary of Red Butte Research Natural Area is adjusted 

to create a Special Interest Area. 

Alternative 5 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the Forest through emphasis on predictable sustained commodity outputs 

constrained project-by-project with application of conservation measures and mitigation 

requirements of law (endangered species, clean water and air, soil productivity, cultural 

resources protection). An aggressive management program for forested lands emphasizes 

sustained yield, and health of the forest (prevention of insects and disease, reduction of fuels, 

thinning of dense, slowly growing stands and increasing diversity of age structure). In cases 

where project environmental analyses or monitoring identify direct conflicts with plant or animal 

population viability, mitigation of livestock grazing is applied. In rangeland areas, prescribed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 38 

fire and wildland fire use are allowed to reduce brush canopy cover for increasing forage 

production although treatments are timed to minimize impacts to on-going grazing operations. 

Vacant allotments are available for use based on completion of required environmental analysis. 

Given recent funding levels this analysis would not be completed any time soon. The Burro, 

Thompson Peak, and West Beaver Allotments in the Uinta Mountains would remain vacant 

because of conflicts with bighorn sheep. Lands in the appeal settlement zone are available for oil 

and gas leasing under standard lease terms. Commodity outputs include recreation related 

services that produce economic benefits for local communities. Ski area boundary expansion 

would be allowed at Nordic Valley, The Canyons, Solitude and Snowbird. This alternative 

allows new ski areas. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum mapping meshes with access for timber 

and forage production as well as oil and gas exploration and development. Commodity outputs 

for this Alternative are expected to be the highest of the six Alternatives. See Comparison of 

alternatives Tables 2-2 and 2-7 for activities and outputs. 

Alternative 5 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development 

by accommodating current and future demands for recreation opportunities with development of 

appropriate facilities to expand multi-seasonal uses. More areas (primarily adjacent to current 

ski areas) are identified as Resort Natural Setting landscape character theme for scenery 

management. Ski area expansion is allowed as well as additional parking in various high demand 

areas throughout the Forest. Facilities are developed and new trails constructed to disperse 

and/or mitigate concentration of recreation in areas, especially those along streams and lakes. 

However, resources available for this development are expected to be a limiting factor 

considering recent funding levels. 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities Alternative 5 

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness, Alternative 5 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing1 Wildland Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.4 No No No No Yes Yes No No 

1

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas, Alternative 5 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Ye

No

Yes

No 

No

No 

Yes 

No1

Yes2

1

Trail reconstruction and realignment are allowed to correct resource problems 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 39 

2

Associated with resource interpretation and public use

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity, Alternative 5 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1 

3.2

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes1

Yes2

1

Trail construction allowed if consistent with riparian management objectives 

2

Trail construction is allowed with consideration of existing trail densities 

Prescription Category 4: Recreation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 5 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 5

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1 

5.2

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 5 

Prescription Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building

Grazing Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas, Alternative 5 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

8.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 40 

Figure 6: Alternative 6 Acres

by Management Prescription

404,300 Acres 

3.1-3.2

133,500 Acres 

2.4-2.7

69,400 Acres 

1.5

308,800 Acres 

1.1-1.4

17,300 Acres 

5.1/6.1

39,900 Acres 

4.1-4.2

93,600 Acres 

4.3-4.5

108,300 Acres 

5.1-5.2

61,600 Acres 

6.1-6.2

3,000 Acres 8.1

Alternative 6 

Background/Theme

This Alternative was developed after 

comments on the five “Preliminary 

Alternatives” had been compiled. The 

purpose was to round out the range of 

alternatives and provide some 

combinations of management 

prescriptions and emphasis in specific 

areas that were not represented by the 

other alternatives. 

Alternative 6 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 limited consistent with the National 

Roadless 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 learning – Research Natural Area/Special Interest Area). 

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. 

Response to Issues 

Alternative 6 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management by 

allowing winter motorized use except where there are specific reasons not to allow it. These 

include portions of big game winter ranges, specific areas for cross-country skiing, areas 

recommended for wilderness, and some areas where a motorized boundary is difficult to manage. 

Conflicts between winter motorized and non-motorized uses are resolved through identification 

of desirable snowmobiling and cross-country skiing areas, analysis of overlaps and determination 

of areas to separate these uses. Areas closed to winter motorized uses because of critical big 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 41 

game winter range total 166,700 acres or 13% of total Forest acres. Heli-skiing continues in 

currently permitted terrain. Summer motorized recreation is allowed on routes designated as 

open in current Travel Maps. Areas recommended as wilderness do not contain any currently 

open motorized roads or trails. Some routes not currently open on 1988 travel maps for Ogden 

Ranger District would be evaluated for potential motorized trail development. Primitive and 

semiprimitive recreation opportunity classes (both motorized and nonmotorized) are managed 

(potential permit system) to maintain low user densities. Other opportunity classes are managed 

to allow for increases in demand by more intensive measures such as site hardening and 

designation of dispersed campsites. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-4 and 2-5 for 

acres of various recreation opportunities. 

Alternative 6 addresses the issue of roadless area management by adjusting allowed activities 

for prescriptions in inventoried roadless areas to be consistent with the National Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. Road construction and reconstruction are not allowed in these areas, nor is 

cutting, sale, and removal of timber except: for the cutting, sale or removal of generally small 

diameter trees which maintains or improves roadless characteristics and 1) to improve habitat for 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species, or 2) to maintain or restore ecosystem 

composition and structure, such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. About 

70,000 acres or 12 percent of inventoried roadless areas are recommended for Wilderness 

designation. Areas selected have the highest quality wilderness characteristics and relatively 

easily managed boundaries, but minimize conflicts with existing uses and other uses foregone. 

Inventoried roadless areas not recommended for wilderness apply prescriptions that protect 

roadless character. See Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-6 for disposition of inventoried 

roadless areas and FEIS Appendix C1 and C2 for details about individual inventoried roadless 

areas. 

Alternative 6 addresses the issue of ensuring biodiversity and species viability (including 

watershed functions) by emphasizing factors known to contribute to conservation biology with 

a combined approach of active human intervention in some areas and minimal intervention in 

others by taking actions as follows: 

a. Identifying current or managing to create a system of areas representing all native 

ecological units and seral stages across their historic range of variation. 

b. All known wildlife corridors managed to maintain function of corridor (regionally 

significant Bear River and currently designated western portion of East Fork Smiths Fork 

Uinta Mountains). 

c. Manage and/or restore rangelands and manage livestock grazing (through Allotment 

Management Planning) to restore proper functioning of watersheds, riparian areas, and 

lands in unsatisfactory condition. Three vacant sheep allotments in the Uinta Mountains 

(Burro, Thompson, and West Beaver) are closed for bighorn sheep habitat. Other vacant 

allotments are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for use in conjunction with existing 

active allotments to restore desired conditions or for removal from allotment status. 

However, given recent funding levels, stocking of vacant allotments is unlikely. 

d. Active vegetation management practices such as suppression of fire for protection of life 

and property, timber harvest, thinning, mechanical treatment of fuels, and/or seeding with 

native species is applied primarily to lands already roaded or developed, mimicking 

natural disturbance processes including insects and disease where possible; while 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 42 

practices including prescribed fire, and wildland fire use are emphasized in undeveloped 

lands to move landscapes within the historic range of variability to the degree that is 

compatible with other objectives. 

e. Maintain inventoried roadless areas as undeveloped.

f. Road decommissioning is pursued as consistent with Travel Maps (upon evaluation for 

potential motorized trails for 1988 Travel Maps) and priority placed on improving water 

quality, fish habitat, and watershed functions and reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

g. Take aggressive actions to greatly reduce noxious weeds. 

h. Maintain or restore connectivity of forested lands. 

i. Discourage introductions of non-native species, especially in wilderness. 

j. Monitor and assess for viability groups of species identified as management indicator 

species and/or focal species (categories of species used to assess ecological integrity). 

k. Protect and/or restore special habitats (3 grazing allotments in the Uinta Mountains would 

be phased out from allotment status if permits are voluntarily waived without preference, 

to provide for bighorn sheep habitat). 

l. Encourage restoration of native cutthroat trout to key drainages (Hayden Fork, Whitney, 

Temple Fork, Beaver Creek, Causey, South Fork Weber). 

m. Maintenance of existing Research Natural Areas (Mollens Hollow, Morris Creek, and 

Red Butte) except for realignment of the lower portion of Red Butte to create a Special 

Interest Area; include additional acreage with current Morris Creek RNA. 

n. Designate special interest areas in Willard Basin, and lower Logan Canyon for botanical 

values, and the T.W. Daniels Experimental Forest for educational purposes.

Alternative 6 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the Forest through using opportunities for economic benefit from active vegetation 

management areas, while mitigating for maintenance of biodiversity, species viability, and 

watershed health. Values for water quality, air quality, natural ecological functions, and 

perpetuation of species, as well as administrative and environmental costs of commodity outputs 

are recognized and included. 

Some forested lands are identified as suitable and mapped with prescription 5.2 for emphasis on 

timber production. Other tentatively suited lands are available for timber harvest where that 

activity can be mitigated to meet habitat objectives and/or to mimic natural disturbance 

processes. Livestock grazing is managed on suitable rangelands to meet standards associated 

with habitat and watershed needs. Allotments with substantial areas in unsatisfactory condition 

will be highest priority for Allotment Management Plan revision. Where movement of livestock 

or other structural means does not accomplish satisfactory conditions (based on monitoring), or 

are not economically feasible, livestock grazing will be removed. Vacant allotments are 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis for either use in conjunction with improving conditions on 

other active allotments or for removal from allotment status. However, given recent funding 

levels, stocking of vacant allotments is unlikely. Lands in the appeal settlement zone 

recommended as wilderness in the Uinta Mountains are not available to lease for oil and gas 

development. The remaining lands in the appeal settlement zone are available for leasing 

primarily with no surface occupancy. About 3,600 acres are available with surface occupancy. 

Recreation related opportunities for economic benefits are tied to the ROS classes. Ski area 

boundary expansions are not allowed nor are new ski areas. In general, outputs are somewhat 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 43 

less than in recent years and are dependent on ability to mitigate for biodiversity, species 

viability and watershed health. See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-2 and 2-7 for activities 

and outputs.

Alternative 6 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development

by allowing some additional facility development primarily in roaded natural, rural and urban ros 

classes. Replacement of current facilities that have unacceptable impacts to resources is 

emphasized along with site designation and access hardening in heavily used or potentially 

heavily used dispersed recreation areas to prevent impacts. Facility design and construction must 

include mitigation for maintenance of biodiversity, species viability and watershed health. Trail 

construction is allowed consistent with management prescriptions to provide a variety of 

opportunities, particularly in already developed areas. Facilities at ski areas would be consistent 

with Resort Natural Setting landscape character theme. 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities Alternative 6 

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness, Alternative 6 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire1

Road 

Building Grazing2 Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.5 No No Yes No Yes Yes No No 

1

As allowed to meet wilderness objectives 

2

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas, Alternative 6 

Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

No

No 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

No

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No

No

No 

No

No 

No 

No 

No 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

No

No

No 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No1

Yes 

No1
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 44 

2.7 No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes2

1

Trail reconstruction and realignment are allowed to correct resource problems 2

Associated with resource interpretation and public use 

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity Alternative 6 

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1 

3.2

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No 

No

Yes1

Yes2

1

Trail construction allowed if consistent with riparian management objectives 

2

Trail construction is allowed with consideration of existing trail densities 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1 

3.2

No 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes1

Yes2

1

Trail construction allowed if consistent with riparian management objectives 

2

Trail construction is allowed with consideration of existing trail densities 

Prescription Category 4: Recreation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 6 

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas: 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

No 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

No 

No

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 45 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 6 

Within Inventoried Roadless Areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1-5.2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas:

Prescription Timber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building

Grazing Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1-5.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities Alternative 6 

Within Inventoried Roadless areas:

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 

Outside Inventoried Roadless areas: 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas Alternative 6 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 46 

8.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 47 

Alternative 7 

Background/Theme

This Alternative 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). 

• An additional Guideline for lower allowed forage utilization on rangelands in 

unsatisfactory condition in response to concerns about rangeland conditions. 

• 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. 

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 7 Acres 154,600 Acres 

3.1w

28,300 Acres 

3.1a

16,500 Acres 

4.1-4.2

92,900 Acres 

4.3-4.5

115,600 Acres 

5.1-5.2

61,600 Acres 

6.1-6.2

2,800 Acres 8.0-

8.1

89,200 Acres 

3.2d

122,300 Acres 

3.2u

17,300 Acres 

5.1/5.6

308,800 Acres 

1.1-1.4

73,500 Acres 

1.5

156,100 Acres 

2.4-2.7
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 48 

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 semiprimitive 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 acres or 44% of total Forest acres 

(25% of which are Congressionally designated Wilderness). Areas closed to snowmobiling 

specifically for providing quality non-motorized winter opportunities total 7,500 acres or .8% of 

total Forest acres. Areas closed to winter motorized uses because of critical big game winter 

range total 190,700 acres or 15% of total Forest acres. 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. 

Response to Issues 

Alternative 7 addresses the issue of recreation use conflicts and access management in winter

by providing for winter motorized use consistent with growing demand and the nature of the 

activity (i.e. large distances can be covered), while identifying selected areas for separation of 

non-motorized winter opportunities. Portions of big game winter ranges, specific areas for 

cross-country skiing, some areas recommended for wilderness, and some areas where a boundary 

is impractical to manage are identified and mapped as non-motorized. Designated routes are 

indentified through some big game winter ranges to allow snowmobile access to desirable higher 

elevation areas. Snowmobiling use where it exists now (Lakes and portions of High Uintas 

roadless areas) within areas recommended for wilderness continues to be allowed as interim 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 49 

management until such time that Congress acts on wilderness designation. Heli-skiing continues 

to be allowed in currently permitted terrain. 

Opportunities for summer motorized recreation are provided on routes designated as open in 

current Travel Maps. Some areas with potential routes not currently open on travel maps for 

Ogden and Logan Ranger Districts are identified for potential future motorized trail development 

(See Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4.B. Management Area Direction- Desired Future 

Conditions). Also the Shoshone Trail System is emphasized connecting existing motorized 

routes on National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and State lands to provide extended 

riding opportunities between communities while providing an alternative to the unauthorized 

trails in sensitive watersheds along the Wasatch Front. Primitive and semiprimitive recreation 

opportunity classes have identified ranges of user densities to allow for monitoring of use 

patterns. Upon approaching thresholds, this Alternative proposes public notification and 

evaluation of whether to initiate management actions (potential permit system or other actions) 

to maintain, limit, or allow for increases in user densities and amend the ROS Class. Other 

opportunity classes are managed to allow for increases in demand by more intensive measures 

such as site hardening and designation of dispersed campsites. See Comparison of Alternatives 

Tables 2-4 and 2-5 for acres of various recreation opportunities.

Special emphasis on education and enforcement is proposed through an objective in the Revised 

Forest Plan in response to public comments. Off Highway Vehicle use, watershed health, and 

user ethics are identified as key focus areas for education and enforcement. 

Alternative 7 addresses the issue of roadless area management by applying evaluation of 

individual roadless area values (FEIS Appendix C2) and resource capabilities/conditions to 

mapping of management prescriptions that either maintain or mostly maintain undeveloped 

character (75% of roadless acres) or allow varying types and degrees of development for specific 

purposes consistent with the prescription emphasis (25% of roadless acres). Road construction 

and reconstruction are not allowed in most roadless areas, nor is cutting, sale, and removal of 

timber. In most of these areas, prescribed and wildland fire use will be the primary approach to 

returning vegetation to properly functioning conditions. Timber harvest and road construction 

are allowed in portions of some roadless areas for purposes of improving habitat for terrestrial 

wildlife (prescription 3.2D) and to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure 

and/or reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects (prescription 5.1), and for purposes of 

timber production (prescription 5.2). About 73,300 acres or 12% of inventoried roadless areas 

are recommended for Wilderness designation because of their high quality wilderness 

characteristics and minimal conflicts with other uses. In this Alternative, unlike the others, the 

recommended wilderness prescription (1.5) allows prescribed fire and continuation of existing 

snowmobiling. See Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-6 for summary disposition of 

inventoried roadless areas and FEIS Appendices C1 and C2 for details about individual 

inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative 7 addresses the issue of biodiversity and species viability (including watershed 

functions) by emphasizing factors known to contribute to conservation biology with a combined 

approach of active human intervention in some areas and minimal intervention in others by 

taking actions as follows: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 50 

a. Identifying current, or managing to create, a system of areas representing all native 

ecological units and seral stages across their historic range of variation. 

b. All known wildlife corridors managed to maintain function of corridor (regionally 

significant Bear River and currently designated western portion of East Fork Smiths Fork 

Uinta Mountains). 

c. Manage and/or restore rangelands and manage livestock grazing (through the new 

Guideline for lower allowed forage utilization (30-40% rather than 50%) on lands in 

unsatisfactory condition, improved emphasis on permit administration, refined annual 

operating instructions, and Allotment Management Plan revisions) to restore proper 

functioning of watersheds, riparian areas, and lands in unsatisfactory condition. Closes 

vacant allotments (Clegg, Hardscrabble, Mill Canyon, Shingle Mill, and Wright) in the 

Salt Lake County and Davis County watersheds. Three vacant sheep allotments in the 

Uinta Mountains (Burro, Thompson, and West Beaver) are closed for bighorn sheep 

habitat. Other vacant allotments are left open pending future site-specific analysis. 

However, given recent funding levels, stocking of vacant allotments is unlikely. 

d. Active vegetation management practices such as suppression of fire for protection of life 

and property, timber harvest, thinning, mechanical treatment of fuels, and/or seeding with 

native species are applied to already developed areas and about 25 percent of inventoried 

roadless area acres, mimicking natural disturbance processes including insects and 

disease where possible; while practices including prescribed fire, and wildland fire use 

are emphasized in most (75%) undeveloped lands to move landscapes within the historic 

range of variability to the degree that this is compatible with other objectives. 

e. Maintain most (71%) high value inventoried roadless areas as undeveloped. 

f. Road decommissioning is pursued consistent with Travel Maps and priority based on 

roads analysis is placed on improving water quality, fish habitat, and watershed functions 

and reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

g. Take aggressive actions to greatly reduce noxious weeds. 

h. Maintain or restore connectivity of forested lands. 

i. Discourage introductions of non-native species, especially in wilderness. 

j. Monitor management indicator species and their habitats to validate assumptions about 

habitat relationships. 

k. Protect and/or restore special habitats (7 grazing allotments in the Uinta Mountains 

would be closed if permits are voluntarily waived without preference, to provide for 

bighorn sheep habitat; establish baselines of compacted snow within lynx analysis units 

in the Uinta Mountians). 

k. Add portions of the Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak and West Beaver Allotments to the 

adjacent, lower allotments, but maintains existing AUMs on those allotments. 

m. Encourage restoration of native cutthroat trout to key drainages (Hayden Fork, Whitney, 

Temple Fork, Beaver Creek, Causey, South Fork Weber). 

n. Maintenance of existing Research Natural Areas (Mollens Hollow, Morris Creek, and 

Red Butte) except for realignment of the lower portion of Red Butte to create a Special 

Interest Area allowing restoration research; include additional acreage with current 

Morris Creek RNA. 

o. Designate special interest areas in Willard Basin, and lower Logan Canyon for botanical 

values, and the T.W. Daniels Experimental Forest for scientific and educational purposes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 51 

Alternative 7 addresses the issue of concerns about economic contributions and social 

benefits of the Forest through using opportunities for economic benefit from active vegetation 

management on lands capable and tentatively suitable (primarily areas mapped as 5.2 and 5.1), 

while mitigating for maintenance of biodiversity, species viability, and watershed health. 

Recreation opportunities are emphasized for their value both to local economies and to quality of 

life for both urban and rural communities. Values for water quality, air quality, natural 

ecological functions, and perpetuation of species, as well as administrative and environmental 

costs of commodity outputs are recognized and included for maximizing net public benefit.

Some forested lands are identified as suitable and mapped with prescription 5.2 for emphasis on 

timber production. Other tentatively suited lands are available for timber harvest including 

salvage where that activity can be mitigated to meet habitat objectives and/or to mimic natural 

disturbance processes. Timber harvest is also allowed where it can be used to reduce hazardous 

fuels, improve aquatic or terrestrial habitat, long-term scenic or recreation site values, and/or for 

watershed improvement. Livestock grazing is managed on suitable rangelands to meet standards 

and guidelines associated with habitat and watershed needs. A lower forage utilization 

allowance (30-40% instead of 50%) is applied to lands in unsatisfactory condition. Allotments 

with substantial areas in unsatisfactory condition are highest priority for improved grazing 

administration. Where movement of livestock or other structural means does not accomplish 

satisfactory conditions (based on monitoring of key areas), or are not economically feasible, 

livestock grazing will be removed through grazing permit action until satisfactory conditions are 

achieved. Eight vacant allotments are closed and the others are left vacant pending site-specific 

analysis. However, given experienced budget levels and priority of other, active allotments it is 

expected that most vacant allotments will remain vacant during the planning period. Within the 

Appeal Settlement Zone of the Uinta Mountains 47,900 acres are available for oil and gas 

leasing. Of those, 27,000 acres allow surface occupancy. The remaining 20,400 acres in this 

Zone are unavailable. Recreation related opportunities for economic benefits are tied to the ROS 

classes. Ski area boundary expansions are not allowed nor are new ski areas. In general, outputs 

are expected to be slightly less than recent years and are dependent on the degree to which 

projects for improvement of terrestrial or aquatic habitat yield commercially viable opportunities. 

See Comparison of Alternatives Tables 2-2 and 2-7 for activities and outputs. 

Alternative 7 addresses the issue of appropriate types and amounts of facility development

by allowing some additional facility development primarily in roaded natural, and rural ROS 

classes. Replacement of current facilities that have unacceptable impacts to resources is 

emphasized along with site designation and access hardening in concentrated recreation use areas 

to prevent and/or mitigate impacts. Facility design and construction must include mitigation for 

maintenance of biodiversity, species viability and watershed health. Trail construction is 

allowed consistent with management prescriptions to provide a variety of opportunities, 

particularly in already developed areas. Emphasis is identified for completion of the Bonneville 

Shoreline and Great Western Trails and to connect the existing trail opportunities on National 

Forest (Ogden and Logan Ranger Districts) with trails on Bureau of Land Management, State 

and private lands similar to the concept of the Shoshone Trail System. Facilities at ski areas are 

consistent with Resort Natural Setting landscape character theme. The only change from 

existing conditions for recreation opportunity classes is within ski area permit boundaries where 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 52 

the designation changes from roaded natural to rural to focus growing recreation use where 

facilities are available.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 53 

Management Prescriptions and Allowed Activities Alternative 7 

Prescription Category 1: Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

1.1-1.4 

1.5

No 

No

No 

No

Yes1

Yes 

No 

No

Yes2

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No 

No

No 

No 1

As allowed to meet Wilderness Objectives (FSM 2324.21) 

2

As allowed under the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

Prescription Category 2: Special Management Areas, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

2.4

2.5 

2.6

2.7

No

Yes

No 

No

Yes

Yes

No 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No

Yes

No 

No

No

Yes

Yes 

Yes2

Yes

Yes

Yes 

Yes

No 

Yes 

No 

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes1

1

 Associated with resource interpretation and public use 

2

 Within existing Allotments 

Prescription Category 3: Aquatic/Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

3.1A 

3.1W 

3.2D 

3.2U

Yes2

No 

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No1

No

Yes 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

No 

No 

Yes 

No

Yes3

Yes4

Yes 

Yes 1

Except for road crossings. 

2

For aquatic habitat or watershed improvement/restoration purposes only. 3

Trail construction allowed if consistent with riparian management objectives defined in site-specific 

analysis. 

4

With consideration of existing road/trail densities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 54 

Prescription Category 4: Recreation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3

4.4

4.5

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

Yes

No

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Prescription Category 5: Forested Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

5.1-5.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 6: Rangeland Vegetation Needs and Opportunities, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

6.1-6.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Prescription Category 8: Concentrated Development Areas, Alternative 7 

PrescriptionTimber 

Harvest

Veg/Fuel 

Treatment

Prescribed

Fire 

Road 

Building Grazing

Wildland 

Fire Use

New Rec

Devel.

New

Trail 

Constr. 

8.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 55 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study 

A large number of alternatives were considered and eliminated from detailed study. Given the 

size of the area under consideration and the number of decisions being made, there is an almost 

infinite array of possibilities for combining different alternative components in different ways 

and for variations in mapping. Our alternative development process involved many iterations of 

developing options in various combinations and then reviewing the total range to see if we had 

included the key differences highlighted in public responses. Some respondents to the DEIS 

suggested specific line changes on maps in order to improve manageability or encompass a 

preferred outcome on a particular favorite place. While these suggestions were read and 

considered during formulation of the additional Alternative 7, we did not make these changes to 

the six alternatives presented in the DEIS because they did not make a substantive difference to 

the overall range of alternatives. A number of alternatives were not fully developed because they 

closely resembled alternatives that were considered in detail; they did not meet the needs for 

change; they were outside the realm of forest plan decisions; or they were inappropriate for 

reasons described below. 

No or Multiple Management Prescription Categories Alternatives 

During the alternative development workshops in the fall of 1999 concerns about the use of 

Management Prescription Categories were raised and requests were made either to not use them 

at all, or to place multiple prescriptions on a single area of land. The concern expressed was that 

by mapping management prescriptions, the multiple use concept would be violated and 

opportunities for conflict resolution among competing uses would be reduced. The purpose of 

prescription categories and their use in planning across the nation was explained along with 

extensive discussions about consistency with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. (See the 

Revised Forest Plan Management Direction Package for this explanation.) We explained that the 

intent of prescriptions was not to allow one use to “trump” another and that conflicts between 

uses must be resolved locally based on the specific merits of the situation using the prescription 

along with other management direction to guide decisions. After numerous letters, meetings, and 

re-writes of the Management Direction Package of which prescriptions are a part, the notion of 

using prescriptions was finally accepted by the majority of participants. However, the concerns 

raised are important and clarifications based on these concerns have become an essential 

component of our Management Direction in the Revised Forest Plan. This Direction consists of 

goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, management prescriptions, recreation opportunity 

classes, scenery management objectives, desired future conditions, and monitoring and 

evaluation. It is the essence of the revised forest plan and is integral to implementing the suite of 

laws and policies pertaining to national forest management. 

Comments on the DEIS also resulted in changes and clarifications of Management Prescriptions 

described earlier in this Chapter under the heading “Changes to Prescriptions Between Draft and 

Final”. 

Travel Management Decisions 

There were a large number of comments and suggestions related to Travel Management 

Planning. From the beginning of the revision process we informed participants that we had 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 56 

current Travel Management Plans (or are in the process of revising them in the case of Evanston 

and Mountain View Districts) with designated routes identified for non-winter motorized use and 

areas identified for winter motorized use. Our evaluation of these plans coupled with rising 

interest and concern over snowmobile access lead the Forest Supervisor to define the scope of 

plan revision analysis to include decisions about areas open or closed to winter motorized use but 

not to revisit individual routes designated as open for non-winter motorized travel. 

A number of national forest planning efforts in recent years have attempted to address the entire 

year-round, route-by-route travel management issue during forest plan revision. These efforts 

have resulted in the need for extensive site-specific analysis required for this type of decision by 

the National Environmental Policy Act, across the very large land area encompassed by a 

national forest. The contentious nature of the issues combined with this need for very detailed 

analysis has detracted from other important decisions to be made in revision and regional 

planning experts no longer recommend the practice. This fact along with the fact that we have 

completed site-specific analyses already for our travel management plans in recent years were 

the basis for eliminating alternatives based on suggestions or comments related to non-winter 

travel management. On the other hand, since forest plan decisions do include area allocations, 

and since the rapid increase in snowmobile and other winter recreation activities has happened 

since the completion of most of our current travel maps, the Forest Supervisor felt it was 

appropriate to address the decision of where winter motorized and non-motorized uses should be 

allowed in the revision and to integrate that decision with a number of other land allocation 

decisions required by the National Forest Management Act. Examples of comments that were 

related to this category of alternative include the following: 

• Develop a non-motorized access plan to forest boundaries. 

• Ban motorized recreation in the Tri-Canyon Area. 

• Prohibit OHVs in inventoried roadless areas. 

• Reopen roads that have been closed in the past. 

Comments on the DEIS and Proposed Plan highlighted concerns about the adequacy of Travel 

Management Plans for Ogden, Salt Lake, and Logan Ranger Districts given that demand 

specifically for motorized trails (50 inches wide or less) has grown so rapidly because of 

increases in the number of ATVs. Also noted was the desire for loop trails for motorized use in 

these areas. Even with these concerns highlighted, the logic explained above still holds and 

Travel Management decisions for summer will require additional site-specific analysis. The 

need for this work is recognized and addressed as an Objective in the Revised Forest Plan. For a 

discussion of the relationship of Recreation Opportunity Classes and future Travel Planning see 

the section earlier in this Chapter under the heading “Changes to ROS Application Between 

Draft and Final and Relationship to Travel Planning.” 

All Inventoried Roadless Areas Recommended for Wilderness 

Some people who commented on the DEIS stated that there should be an alternative that 

recommends all inventoried roadless areas as wilderness. A review of Appendix C1 shows that 

not all of the inventoried roadless areas within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are of equal 

quality with regard to wilderness characteristics. Capability is the first of three categories 

evaluated in making wilderness recommendations. We believe that it would be unreasonable to 

recommend areas with low quality wilderness characteristics (i.e. low “capability”) such as those 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 57 

with many roads cherry-stemmed into the area, a high degree of evidence of past human 

activities (i.e. a low degree of naturalness), limited opportunities for solitude because of nearby 

development and or existing heavy use patterns, just because the areas met the definitions used in 

inventory of roadless areas. Alternative 1 was designed to provide the maximum reasonable 

recommendation for wilderness from the larger pool of inventoried roadless areas. 

No Livestock Grazing Alternative 

Some plan revision participants requested that a “no grazing alternative” be analyzed or that we 

should consider phasing out livestock grazing in roadless areas or wilderness as an alternative. 

The National Forest Management Act does require that we address rangeland capability and 

suitability, which we have in this FEIS. We have analyzed alternatives using different suitability 

criteria such as removal of riparian areas and/or uplands in unsatisfactory conditions, or removal 

of areas because of conflicts with bighorn sheep or heavy recreation use, however none of these 

results in “no livestock grazing.” We do not believe it is reasonable to use a criterion such as 

“roadlessness” for determining suitability for livestock grazing. There is no direct relationship 

between roadlessness and any conflict with or impact from livestock grazing. As for using 

Wilderness as a suitability criterion, Section 303 of the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 specifically 

states that recreation conflicts alone would not be the determining factor in the removal of 

livestock from those newly established Wilderness Areas, however, resource conditions could be 

cause for reductions in livestock numbers.

Allotment Management Planning generally does include analysis of a “no grazing alternative” 

with the necessary Allotment level site-specificity for making such a determination. Grazing 

Permits are a long-term authorization to graze livestock subject to Forestwide Standards and 

Guidelines, as well as Allotment Management Plans and Annual Operating Instructions. 

Changes to these direction documents must be based on site-specific environmental analysis 

and/or monitoring and administrative actions not encompassed at the broad scale of Forest Plan 

Revision. 

This FEIS addresses the disposition of vacant allotments, and compares alternatives that use 

differing criteria for rangeland suitability. See FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 7 for a discussion of 

livestock grazing related decisions being made in this Plan revision. The Revised Forest Plan 

does include standards and guidelines designed to improve conditions of rangelands on the 

Forest. It also includes Objectives specifically aimed at improved management of livestock 

grazing. 

Human Carrying Capacity Determinations and User Densities 

A number of revision participants requested that an alternative include either a determination of 

human carrying capacity for key areas or a commitment to complete such a study as part of an 

alternative. The revision team spent considerable time exploring various approaches to 

addressing this. We reviewed research on the subject, talked to other recreation managers both 

in the Forest Service and in other agencies, and met with local academic experts on the subjects 

of social science and recreation management. We are incorporating our conclusions into this 

revision and they are as follows. Research has shown that people are more willing to accept 

numbers of other people than impacts from other people (Dale Blahna, personal communication, 

2000). Carrying capacity conceptually is about “outputs”, not “outcomes”. Most current 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 58 

ecosystem management and even strategic planning emphasizes outcomes. At this time we think 

qualitative descriptions of conditions visitors can expect to find are a more useful tool for 

managing sustainable recreation than focusing on numbers of people. 

The carrying capacity concept came from natural and biological systems in which the 

implication is that there is a point of biophysical collapse. For recreation, any concept of 

capacity must come from a description of a desired future, very little of which will be 

represented by numbers. The critical indicators are where, how and when people are recreating. 

Recreation user’s behavior and expectations are more defining than numbers of people. 

Furthermore, there is more merit to limits being applied to low-use rather than high-use areas. 

Placing upper-limit capacities on highly used areas only displaces that use to more lightly used 

areas, spreading and increasing impacts to biophysical resources, affecting experiences of people 

already using the lower density areas, and ultimately homogenizing recreation experiences. It 

may be more appropriate to harden highly used sites to reduce biophysical impacts and keep 

people where this mitigation is provided. Finally, any consideration of user density problems 

needs to be addressed at appropriate scales. Both broader scale regional assessments and finer 

scale local analysis are needed. Research has shown significant differences even between what 

adjacent communities may want from their public lands. The forest plan revision cannot 

accomplish this specific need. 

Therefore, we have incorporated two changes between Draft and Final to address some of these 

concerns. First, given that the original concerns about human carrying capacity were focused on 

the Central Wasatch area because of the public supply watersheds there, Alternative 7 applies the 

Management Prescription 3.1w emphasizing watershed, rather than the series of recreation 

focused prescriptions applied in the Draft Preferred Alternative 6. This change was made to 

ensure that watershed protection is appropriately emphasized as demand for recreation in these 

canyons continues to grow. Second, with regard to the social concerns about user densities and 

providing for some areas with relatively lower densities in the future, we have refined the 

primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunity classes (see FEIS Appendix D-2) to include 

ranges of user contacts that will establish thresholds. When monitoring shows that thresholds are 

being approached in areas mapped with the semi-primitive class, that will be the trigger for 

initiating public involvement in evaluation of whether to take actions to maintain densities below 

thresholds (through permit systems or other mechanisms) or to amend the recreation opportunity 

class to allow for growth. 

No New Special Uses for Commercial Purposes 

While this particular suggestion is not a part of any specific alternative, it is addressed in the 

Revised Forest Plan. Direction for Special Uses is included in the Forestwide Goals, Guidelines, 

and in Revised Forest Plan Appendix X Implementation Guidance where criteria are provided 

for evaluating proposed outfitter guide special uses. 

Wilderness Recommendation in Alternative 4 (No Action) 

It was suggested that wilderness recommendations should be included in this alternative because 

of the requirement to reevaluate inventoried roadless areas as a part of revision. After 

development of the full range of alternatives we believe that an adequate range of reasonable 

alternatives for wilderness recommendations is presented without adding this to the No Action 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 59 

Alternative. This alternative serves as a baseline for contrasting other alternatives with 

continued management under the 1985 Forest Plan as amended. 

Add Large Predators as Management Indicator Species 

Some revision participants requested that large predators should be used as management 

indicator species (MIS). 

The 1982 NFMA planning regulations at CFR 219.19 (a) (1) state “In order to estimate the 

effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or 

invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as management 

indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be stated. These species shall be 

selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management 

activities (emphasis added). In the selection of MIS, the following categories shall be 

represented where appropriate: Endangered and threatened plant and animal species 

identified on State and Federal lists for the planning area; species with special habitat needs 

that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; species commonly 

hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special interest; and additional plant or 

animal species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects 

of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on 

water quality. On the basis of available scientific information, the interdisciplinary team 

shall estimate the effects of changes in vegetation type, timber age classes, community 

composition, rotation age, and year-long suitability of habitat related to mobility of MIS. 

Where appropriate, measures to mitigate adverse effects shall be prescribed.” 

Large predators were not chosen as MIS because they did not meet three of the six criteria used 

to select MIS (Appendix J). Criteria not met were: 1-MIS must have a strong (but not exclusive) 

affinity for the habitat type; 2- The habitat type is key habitat in the life cycle of the MIS; and 4-

The MIS is relatively easy to monitor, i.e., high visibility and in adequate numbers, above. 

The CUFF Alternative 

This Alternative was proposed in public comments on the DEIS. It suggested several 

prescriptions for suitable timber that would allow harvest in inventoried roadless areas. DEIS 

Alternative 5 already did this, Alternative 3 allows harvest in most roadless areas, and FEIS 

Alternative 7 allows timber harvest in selected roadless areas by applying prescriptions that 

allow this activity. New prescriptions were proposed: Timber with Wildlife Emphasis, was very 

similar to DEIS prescription 5.1 although it included road density and opening size restrictions 

for wildlife habitat. The Revised Forest Plan which could be implemented with any Alternative 

includes standards and guidelines that address both road construction and patch sizes desired for 

various vegetation types. Big Game Winter Range, while not a separate prescription, is 

addressed in numerous places in the Revised Plan including standards and guidelines, winter 

recreation mapping, mapping of Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis (prescription 3.2) and desired 

future conditions. Backcountry Motorized Emphasis, would allow cross-country motorized 

travel. This conflicts with both Wasatch-Cache National Forest policy and the Statewide 

agreement for an open on designated routes approach to OHV management. Visual Quality 

Protection would emphasize maintaining existing visual quality within major travel corridors. 

The Scenery Management System applied in all FEIS alternatives achieves this emphasis while 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 60 

allowing for a variety of multiple use prescriptions. The CUFF Alternative is similar enough to 

Alternative 5 to be represented by it with very similar environmental effects. 

The Balanced Alternative 

This Alternative was proposed in public comments on the DEIS. It started with DEIS 

Alternative 5 and made changes to provide additional protection in some areas. This Alternative 

set forth detailed recommendations for prescriptions to be mapped in particular areas of the 

Logan Ranger District. It suggested that additional motorized trails be allowed on the easterh 

half of Logan and Ogden Districts, which is a future site-specific Travel Planning decision. It 

suggested ski area expansion be allowed and least constraints which Alternative 5 does, and it 

suggested watershed protection in specific areas which Alternative 7 does. The 

recommendations for this Alternative with detailed responses can be reviewed in FEIS Appendix 

A, Comment #151. Components suggested are included in one or more alternatives and 

analyzed in this FEIS. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section is a summary of key differences between alternatives for management prescriptions, 

projected activities and outputs, suitable lands, summer and winter recreation opportunities, 

inventoried roadless area disposition, and annual employment and labor income. Additional 

important details for each resource topic area are found in Chapter 3. 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives Acres2 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

 

2

 Rounded to nearest 100 acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 61 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

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

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 

Assumptions For Projected Activities and Outputs 

The following listing of activities and projected outputs is based on best estimates of some of the 

types and amounts of various work that could be completed to move toward desired conditions 

for the Forest during the planning period (10 years). A number of factors can affect whether and 

how much of any given activity actually can be implemented. Budgets are determined annually 

based on what Congress appropriates for Forest Service projects and operations. Dollar amounts 

are allocated for specific “program areas” such as watershed, wildlife and fish, recreation, timber 

minerals, range, etc. at the national level. These funds are then allocated to each of the Regions 

of the Forest Service and subsequently divided among all of the National Forests within a given 

Region. The mix of funds at the individual National Forest level can vary based on how much 

and in what program areas Congress appropriated dollars as well as how these dollars are then 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 62 

allocated to each level of the Forest Service. In the case of activities such as oil and gas 

exploration and development, implementation is dependent on private sector proposals and 

actions rather than Forest Service action. Prior to implementation of most projects, there is 

required environmental analysis and planning that includes public review and comment as well 

as opportunities for appeals and litigation. Projects may be changed, delayed or even abandoned 

depending on the results of these processes. As new issues and new information arise changes in 

priority and needs for action may change. Recent emphasis on fire management and wildland 

urban interface fuels reduction through the National Fire Plan is a good example of this. 

Therefore the following should be viewed as a set of estimates or projections subject to 

numerous adjustments based on the factors described above. 

Table 2-2. Comparison of Alternatives For Projected Activities and Outputs 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Watershed Health (Total for 10 year planning period) 

Soil and Water Improvement 

Projects1

0 20 20 20 20 20 20 

Aquatic Resources Improvement 

Projects1

0 50 15 20 10 25 25 

Vegetation Treatments (Total acres for 10 year planning period) 

Prescribed Fire- Aspen & 

Aspen/Conifer Mixed2

0 80,000 32,000 7,200 7,200 32,000 32,000

Aspen/Conifer Vegetative 

Treatment2

0 6,500 5,250 6,250 3,100 3,000 5,000

Aspen/Conifer Commercial Harvest 

(acres) from MPC 5.22 

0 0 2,250 6,250 12,400 2,000 3,500

Prescribed Fire- Douglas-fir (nonlethal) 20 4,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000

Prescribed Fire- Sagebrush9 0 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 30,000

Mechanical Treatment- Oak2 0 16,000 8,000 0 8,000 8,000 20,000

Prescribed Fire- Oak2 0 40,000 20,000 8,000 20,000 20,000 8,000

ASQ/TSPQ Volume (MMBFAnnual) 3

0 / 0 0 / 2.1 1.6 / 

3.2 

3.3 / 

6.2 

6.2 / 7.8 2.0 / 3.9 2.0/4.5

Range Livestock (annual) 

Cattle 

Average AUMs 31,980 28,820 33,940 34,180 34,180 31,980 33,560

Sheep 

Average AUMs 23,160 20,870 24,580 24,750 24,750 23,160 24,300

Forest-wide Livestock 

Average AUMs4 55,140 49,690 58,520 58,930 58,930 55,140 57,860

Roads and Trails (Total for 10 year planning period) 

New Timber Harvest Road 

Construction (miles) 1

0 6 39 49 49 6 7

Projected New Oil and Gas 

Exploration Roads (miles) 5 

3 3 6 0 10-11 6 7.5
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 63 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Projected New Oil and Gas 

Development Roads (miles) 5

0 0 4 0 4 4 4

Roads Closed to Motorized Use 

from Wilderness Recommendation 

(miles) 6

2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use from 

Wilderness Recommendation 

(miles) 7

76 7 0 0 0 0 0

Recreation 

Projected Number of New 

Developed Recreation sites during 

Planning Period1

0 2 2 2 2 2 2

Projected Number of Recreation 

Facilities Maintained or 

Rehabilitated during Planning 

Period1

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Concentrated Use Areas Managed 

Ski Area Expansion 0 0 0 0 1-5 0 0

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (Total for 10 year ) planning period 

Projected New Oil and Gas 

Exploration Well Pads4

2 2 4 0 7 4 5

Projected New Oil and Gas Fields 

Developed5

0 0 1 0 1 1 1

1

 Source: K:\pao\forest_plan\deis\alternatives\comparison.assumptions_by_resource_area_03082001.doc 2

 VDDT model was used to estimate how vegetation would change over time. Estimates for prescribed fire, 

mechanical treatments, and harvest levels were based on budget constraints, mitigation requirements, standards and 

guidelines, and resources expected to be available to accomplish project planning. 

3

 Source: ASQ/TSPQ values from Appendix B-1, Vegetation Modeling. 

4

 AUM projections for Alternative 7 are based on 4.78 acres/AUM on satisfactory range, 6.70 acres/AUM on 

unsatisfactory range. For all other Alternatives AUM projections based on average of 4.78 acres/AUM on all 

suitable acres. 5

 WORD memo from Julie Hubbard titled “Oil and Gas Activities for Specialists While Estimating Effects 

07/24/02”. 

6

 From GIS information compiled by Michael Barry. 

7

 From GIS EXCEL output file “miles_motorized_trails_rla_mp_alts” in K:\pao\forest_plan\deis\effects\gis_tables. 8 From GIS EXCEL output file “acres_ros_winter_forest_FINAL.xls” in 

K:\pao\forest_plan\feis\acres_comparison_win_rec_a1-ec_010903 

9 10% of these acres will be treated to return juniper to sagebrush dominance.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 64 

Table 2-3. Suitable Lands, Acres by Alternative 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Suited1 Lands for 

Aspen Timber 

Production 

0 0 1,600 27,800 74,500 1,200 1,200

Suited1 Lands for 

Conifer Timber 

Production 

0 0 36,400 166,100 151,500 27,700 27,700

Timber Harvest 

Allowed 

“Unsuited”2

0 79,900 131,600 55,200 71,800 72,100 171,400

Forest-Wide 

Suitable Range 

Lands3

 251,900 299,700 300,100 300,100 288,300 288,300

Lands Available 

for Oil and Gas 

Leasing, ASZ4

0 40,100 50,100 N/A 68,300 48,300 47,900

Lands Not 

Available for Oil 

and Gas Leasing, 

ASZ4

68,300 28,200 18,200 N/A 0 20,000 20,400

Total Lands 

Available for Oil 

and Gas Leasing5

140,400 180,500 190,500 140,400 208,700 188,700 188,300

1

 Suited by definition is only available capable lands within Prescription 5.2 or 6.2. 2

 Areas with characteristics conducive to timber harvest (capable and available), Prescriptions that allow timber 

harvest to meet other needs, but are “unsuited” by definition because they are not mapped with Prescription 5.2 or 

6.2. 

3

Table RN-4, FEIS Appendix B-9 provides discussion of basis for projections. 

4 North Slope Appeal Settlement Zone area only. 

5 North Slope Uinta Mountains, 1994 Leasing Decision plus Revised Forest Plan Decision. 

Table 2-4. Acres of Summer Recreation Opportunity Classes Existing Conditions and Alternatives 

ROS Category Alternative and Existing Condition (EC) 

 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 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 65 

1 Wilderness (Prescription 1.1 only) 

2 Wilderness Classified as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

3 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Recommended Wilderness (Prescription 1.5) 

4 Semi-Primitive Motorized 

5 Lands acquired after 1985 Forest Plan 

6 Totals differ due to GIS mapping accuracy and rounding. 

Table 2-5. Winter Recreation Opportunities Alternatives and Existing Condition 

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

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

 Existing Condition

Table 2-6. Inventoried Roadless Acres Disposition by Alternative 

Alternative (Acres) 

Acres in Prescriptions that: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

606,000 546,200 366,900 0 7,200 191,200 188,700 

Maintain1 Roadless Area 

Values Acres 

Percent of Total Roadless 100% 90% 60% 0% 1% 32% 31% 

0 39,200 58,100 131,900 109,900 389,400 267,400 

Mostly Maintain2 Roadless 

Area Values Acres 

Percent of Total Roadless 0% 7% 10% 22% 18% 64% 44% 

0 20,600 180,900 474,000 488,800 25,300 149,900 

Allow Development Acres 

Percent of Total Roadless 0% 3% 30% 78% 81% 4% 25% 

1

No new road construction, timber harvest, new trail or recreation facilities construction, or mechanical 

fuels treatments allowed. 

2

No road construction and/or timber harvest allowed; New trail construction, minimal recreation facilities 

construction, and mechanical fuels treatments are allowed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 - 66 

Table 2-7. Average Annual Employment 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%

Source: MIG 2002. 

Table 2-8. 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. 

The Preferred Alternative 

The Regional Forester has selected Alternative 7 as the decision (selected) alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 1 

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 

Delineating Ecosystems 

Originally, in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (USFS, 1999) we identified 

delineating ecosystems as the first in a series of steps for implementing ecosystem management. 

Because the planning regulations require decisions be made at the national forest administrative 

boundary level, we must use the national forest boundary as one broad scale. We recognize the 

artificial nature of this delineation so we have chosen to reference broad, mid, and fine scales for 

the revision analysis. 

Both biophysical (plants, animals, land, and water) and human (social, economic, and political) 

scales to be considered vary with activity and/or issues. For example, vegetation can be easily 

described at a relatively broad scale because of similar land capabilities and common 

associations of plant communities. Recreation uses on the other hand are more easily and 

appropriately described at a finer scale based on facilities and access from population centers. 

Broad Scale - Ecological Sections 

At the broad biophysical scale the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is a part of three large 

geographic areas (“Sections”) – the Uinta Mountains, Overthrust Mountains, and Bonneville 

Basin Sections as defined by McNab and Avers (1994). Each Section has its unique geology, 

climate, vegetation, wildlife and associated ecologies. The Wasatch and Bear River Ranges of 

the Overthrust Mountains Section, the Stansbury Mountains portion of the Bonneville Basin, and 

the Northern portion of the Uinta Mountains Section are used for description and analysis of 

vegetation as well as disturbance processes such as fire, insects and disease, and noxious weed 

invasion. 

Mid and Fine Scales - Management Areas and Watersheds 

As work proceeded we discovered that our earlier delineation of fine scale areas (watersheds at 

the 5th hydrologic unit code) dividing the Forest into 36 areas was too fine a scale for the data we 

have on hand and for some of the types of decisions being made in Forest Plan revision. We 

have now grouped those 36 watersheds into 7 “Management Areas” for the purpose of this FEIS. 

These are delineated on watershed boundaries, which combine similar lands with common 

access to people into recognizable but larger areas for description and analysis. These are shown 

on the map “Management Areas for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest” in this section. In 

cases where there is a specific need to consider a finer scale, we have used the original watershed 

delineations for reference. We have used the Management Areas for description and analysis of 

watersheds and aquatic resources. For recreation we have used portions of Management Areas 

(with data compiled by Ranger District) because of specific access or issues. Much of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 2 

economic analysis is based on County boundaries because that is how the available data is 

organized. There is also a full ten county scale with rural portions of those counties highlighted 

separately. 

Management Areas 

The following Setting descriptions of each Management Area are provided to “paint a picture” 

for the reader of the prominent features in the area and what one might expect to see if the area 

was traversed. The remainder of the Chapter is arranged by Topic such as “Watershed Health” 

with affected environment and environmental consequences described at the scale or scales most 

appropriate to that topic. 

Bear Management Area Setting Description: 

The Bear management area is located along the western front of the Bear Lake valley in 

Northern Utah. It forms the east slope of the Bear River Range and creates the border for three 

ecological subsections Bear River Highlands, Bear Lake Section, and Monte Cristo-Weber 

Valley Hinterlands (Bailey, 1994). This transition area has a mosaic of vegetation types, with 

conifer, aspen and mountain mahogany at higher elevations and sagebrush and grass on the 

lower slopes. Infrequent broad canyons descend from the upland to the base of the Bear Lake 

valley. The Ogden River scenic byway (Highway 39), and Logan Canyon scenic byways wind 

their way down the slope of the Bear management area. Scenic overlooks provide exceptional 

views of Bear Lake, contrasted with the upland desert beyond. Year-round recreationists can find 

trails, primitive roads, camping spots, and open snow play fields to explore. Cattle and sheep 

can be seen grazing on rangelands in the area. Forest openings resulting from vegetation 

management approximate historic patterns. Monte Cristo and Sunrise campgrounds provide a 

pleasing setting for recreation amidst quaking aspen, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir. 

Cache Box Elder Management Area Setting Description: 

The Cache-Box Elder management area is located in the northeast mountain ranges of northern 

Utah. The management area covers three ecological subsections (Bailey, 1994), Bear River 

Highlands, Cache Front and Wellsville Mountains. The diverse character of the well-defined 

plateaus, wide valley floor, and sharply rising mountains is the consequence of a turbulent 

geologic history. The limestone walled canyons are a result of sediment left by a shallow 

tropical sea. Glaciated cirques and upland basins are the result of ancient glaciers. Faults and 

sinking valley blocks created the steep mountain slopes and the multi level lineal benches are the 

remnants of Lake Bonneville. The two mountain ranges included in this unit are the Bear River 

Mountains and the Wellsville Mountains, with elevations ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 feet. 

The portion within the Bear River Highlands on the east has rolling uplands cut through by 

valleys. Mixed conifer stands (Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and 

Douglas-fir) form a mosaic with aspen, maple, shrublands and grasslands. In many aspen stands 

the dark green conifers can be seen rising up through older, decadent aspen. Livestock can be 

seen grazing on gentler slopes throughout the area. Fences and water developments are 

constructed to better distribute livestock for appropriate use of forage. The mostly unpaved road 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 3 

system forms a series of corridors along which recreation thrives, primarily on weekends. 

Visitors engage in activities including scenery viewing, camping, hunting and fishing, all terrain 

vehicle (ATV) riding, hiking and horseback riding. In the winter, deep snow packs blanket open 

flats and rolling hills, providing outstanding recreation opportunities, such as snowmobiling, 

skiing, snow shoeing and sledding. In the higher elevations, snow covered peaks and bowls with 

wind swept cornices provide a contrast to the gentle slopes and flat lands. 

Canyons within the Cache Front are deep, with sheer limestone walls and cliffs. These canyons 

provide unique habitats for a number of endemic plants. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway 

(Highway 89) travels along the Logan River and Beaver Creek, dropping down into the Bear 

Lake Valley below, providing outstanding opportunities for scenery viewing. Recreation is a 

major feature in these canyons. Developed recreation facilities include campgrounds, summer 

homes, picnic areas and trails. Popular recreation activities in this unit include fishing and 

hunting, kayaking, picnicking, biking, rock climbing, hiking, snowmobiling, and ATV-riding, as 

well as scenery and wildlife viewing. North facing slopes in these canyons support mixed 

conifer-aspen stands at the higher elevations contrasted with maple and mountain brush at lower 

elevations. Oak occurs in the southern portion of the unit. Junipers dot the south and west 

facing, grass covered slopes. The contrast between these vegetation types is especially apparent 

in the fall as the aspen, maple and oak leaves change colors, creating a remarkable scenic 

attraction. Wilderness opportunities for solitude, challenge and primitive recreation are provided 

in the Mount Naomi Wilderness. 

The Wellsville Mountains are at the northern end of the Wasatch Mountains, jutting out of the 

Cache and Great Salt Lake valley floors, creating a north-south wall between these valleys. On 

the east side, maple dominates the lower slopes and is interspersed with aspen at mid elevations. 

Conifers reach down from higher elevations along north-facing slopes of the steep, short side 

canyons, creating fingers of dark green. On the west facing side, steep, rocky slopes and 

extensive cliffs are prominent. The Wellsville Wilderness provides opportunities for solitude and 

challenge, with hiking and horseback riding being the dominant recreation uses. 

North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area Setting Description: 

The North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area is located in the Wasatch Mountains of 

northern Utah. The Area covers two ecological subsections, Monte Cristo Hinterlands and 

Northern Wasatch. Managed by three Ranger Districts, Logan, Ogden, and Salt Lake, this 

Management Area forms the west-facing slope of the Wasatch front and goes east to the divide 

between the Cache and Bear Lake Valleys. The Wasatch Front is composed of deep V-shaped 

canyons cut through the benches of ancient Lake Bonneville and forming pyramidal shapes that 

mirror into the Great Salt Lake. North facing slopes support mosaics of dark green conifer of 

varying densities. Scrub oak and mountain mahogany are found on the dryer slopes along with 

talus, rock cliffs and grassy side hills creating scattered openings. Cottonwood, dogwood, 

willow, birch and cherry occur along streams to their headwaters. Horizontal lines can be seen 

on the upper slopes left from early efforts to stabilize watersheds. 

The northwestern part of the North Wasatch is characterized by jagged, craggy pinnacles and 

ridgelines supported by eroded rock ramparts. Ben Lomond Peak spires to an elevation of 9,712 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 4 

feet, overlooking surrounding landscapes. To the east from Ben Lomond, Mount Ogden, and 

Francis Peak abut moderately defined drainages through subalpine stands of coniferous forest. 

Large basins include talus slopes, conifer patches, and aspen groves. On lower slopes oak, 

mountain shrub, and maple cover rolling foothills into the valleys. In Ogden Valley, Pineview 

Reservoir’s footprint is surrounded by a rural patchwork of fence farmsteads, pastures, farmlands 

and small rural communities. Trappers once called the valley of the convergence of three rivers 

“Ogden’s Hole” because of the plentiful trapping for beaver. The valley has changed over time 

and now includes the rural communities of Ogden Valley along with the popular water 

playground Pineview, attracting visitors from Ogden and surrounding communities. 

Ridgelines and broad valleys covered in aspen, scrub, and sage flat mosaics create a landscape 

prime for both winter and summer recreation. Connecting canyons provide places for weekend 

campers who enjoy developed and undeveloped camping. Conifer stands of lodgepole pine, 

Douglas-fir and subalpine fir, mingled with aspen cover the eastern flank of this unit where cattle 

and sheep graze the grassland openings. 

Near Causey Reservoir numerous rock outcrops can be seen jutting from the mountainsides. 

Mostly subalpine fir is found on north facing slopes in the Monte Cristo area, while Douglas fir 

is on north facing slopes along the Wasatch Front. An intermingled public/private land 

ownership pattern is evident across much of the area. Watershed improvements from 1930’s 

Civilian Conservation Corps work is still evident in the Davis and Willard Peak areas. Most of 

the Front is acquired private land that did not become National Forest until the 1930s’ after 

floods and degradation in the earlier part of the century. Major utility corridors are located across 

the forest in this area. Davis County, especially the area along the Front, is very arid even at the 

higher elevations. East and West Canyons are also a part of this Management Area. 

Central Wasatch Management Area Setting Description: 

Located east of Salt Lake City in the Wasatch Mountain Range, the Central Wasatch 

Management Area extends from the Davis and Salt Lake County line on the North to the Salt 

Lake and Utah County line on the South. It contains three designated Wilderness areas, Mt. 

Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak and four major ski areas, Brighton, Solitude, Alta and 

Snowbird. The canyons in this area are valuable watersheds for Salt Lake and adjoining cities 

along the Wasatch Front. 

Seven major canyons comprise the Central Wasatch Area. These range from broad, gentle 

sloping drainages in the north to steep narrow drainages in the south. Mountain peaks rise nearly 

seven thousand feet above the Salt Lake Valley. Lone Peak reaches an elevation of 11,253 feet 

and provides an impressive backdrop to the valley below. The U-shaped canyon of Little 

Cottonwood Creek rises from typical stream bottoms of cottonwood, willow and dogwood to the 

granite, red-quartzite and limestone walls of the upper mountainside. The circular basin at 

Brighton to the north drains into the V-shaped canyon of Big Cottonwood Creek. The ski areas 

include runs that appear similar to avalanche chutes falling from open glacial troughs through 

aspen and conifer stands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 5 

Small communities such as Alta and Brighton have developed in these canyons supporting 

recreation, skiing, and in the past, mining activities. Each of these communities has a character 

of its own set within aspen and conifer stands. Developed campgrounds, picnic areas, and 

trailheads are located in the major drainages providing refuge from the summer heat in urban 

areas below. The variety of vegetation and rock types from low to high elevations provides 

remarkable scenery enjoyed both within the Canyons and as the backdrop to the cities along the 

front. Mill Creek Canyon is a highly popular area for evening and weekend picnics, hiking, 

biking, and running or walking with only a short drive from the city below. A wide variety of 

recreation opportunities are provided for a growing urban population. 

Drier, more rolling mountains typify the northern end of this area in Lambs, Emigration, and Red 

Butte Canyons. Lower elevations, poorer soils, past fires, and historic activities have created a 

vegetation mosaic with patches of scrub oak, maple, grasses and forbs. Cottonwood trees and 

other hardwoods occur along streams in the area. Rock outcrops are common along ridges and 

on sideslopes creating an interesting variety of colors and textures across the landscape. 

Stansbury Mountains Management Area Setting Description: 

The Stansbury Mountains Management Area is located at the south end of the Great Salt Lake 

between Tooele Valley on the east and Skull Valley on the west. It occupies the south end of the 

Stansbury mountain range. North south trending, the unit rises from the valley floor and varies 

in elevation from 5400 feet to 11,031 feet at the top of Deseret Peak in the Deseret Peak 

Wilderness. This is a semi-arid range created by basin and range type faulting and defined by 

steep V shaped canyons, juniper forests and craggy mountain peaks. Many of the north-facing 

slopes are accented by dark green fingers of conifer extending down the ridgelines. Vegetation 

is a mosaic of juniper and Douglas-fir at lower elevations and Spruce/Fir at higher elevations. 

Hardwood bottoms and openings of sagebrush and grass/forb meadows also occur. Crested 

wheat grass was planted in the 1960’s, and covers large areas at lower elevations on the east side 

of the Stansbury range. Native species are beginning to reestablish in these communities, but the 

crested wheat grass is likely to persist for decades into the future. The replacement of aspen by 

conifers due to fire suppression has likely resulted in lower water flows in the streams. Few 

perennial streams and springs are found on the Area. South Willow Canyon is the location of the 

only developed campground facilities. In addition, South Willow Creek is essentially completely 

diverted at the Forest boundary so no perennial flow occurs east of the Forest. Mining Fork has 

been diverted from its natural stream channel into South Willow Creek at a location near the S 

curves. Historically mining occurred although its remnants are no longer dominant on the 

landscape. Primitive roads that go up many of the canyons are braided and are creating a high 

impact on the landscape as people drive vehicles further up the mountain and off designated 

routes. 

Western Uintas Management Area Setting Description: 

Located in the Northeastern corner of Utah, next to the Southwestern border of Wyoming in the 

Uinta Mountains. The area rises in elevation from 6,800 in the foothills to 12,718 feet on Ostler 

Peak. This Management Area contains four ecological subsections: West Flank Uintas, High 

Uintas, North Slope Outwash and Monte Cristo-Weber Valley Hinterlands (Nelson, 1993) and is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 6 

managed by two Ranger Districts, Kamas and Evanston. The Western Uintas Management Area 

includes diverse landscapes of open sagebrush flats, aspen, and coniferous forests, high 

mountains, semi-circular cirque basins, deep U-shaped river valleys, grassy meadows, alpine 

tundra and an abundance of lakes, streams and wetlands. The high amount of wetlands in the 

area is a unique feature compared with other areas in the intermountain west. It offers a wealth 

of recreation opportunities such as backcountry hiking and horseback riding, ATV trails, flyfishing, scenic driving, rock climbing, backpacking, mountain biking, hunting, peak bagging, 

large group/family camping, snowmobiling, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. Cattle or 

sheep can be seen grazing in portions of the area, as well as elk, deer, and moose. 

Created by glaciers, this landscape is composed of broad vistas of deep U-shaped valleys coursed 

by mountain streams that tumble down steps of hard quartzite stone, and meander through open 

grassy meadows with lush riparian borders. At the heads of these U-shaped valleys are majestic 

domed peaks and stacked blocked ridgelines whose concave bases are blanketed with conifer and 

patches of aspen. Large and small lakes that reflect the surrounding peaks are scattered across 

the landscape. Rolling uplands provide large open snowfields mingled with conifer and aspen 

stands in winter that in summer provide a vivid display of colorful wildflowers. Campgrounds, 

trailheads and visitor pullouts follow the gentle weaving alignment of Mirror Lake Scenic 

Highway as it climbs from broad valleys through the Upper Provo River Canyon to the summit. 

There, Bald Mountain is at the headwaters of four of the most important river systems in Utah 

(Duchesne, Provo, Bear, and Weber) and swirled quartzite originally arising from ancient ocean 

bottoms has been polished smooth by Pleistocene Glaciers. Bald, Murdock, Hayden and many 

other peaks stand on the horizon as sentinels with coats of talus and craggy cliff bands. 

Eastern Uintas Management Area Setting Description: 

Located in the Uinta Mountains, the largest east/west mountain range in the lower 48 States, and 

found in the northeastern corner of Utah and the southern border of Wyoming, the Eastern Uintas 

Management Area ranges in elevation from 8,000 feet along the northern Forest boundary to 

13,442 feet at Gilbert Peak. Within this Management Area there are three ecological 

subsections: High Uintas, North Slope Outwash, and Phil Pico Highlands (Nelson, 1993) that are 

managed by two Ranger Districts- Evanston and Mt. View. The diverse landscapes of the 

Eastern Uintas include open sagebrush flats, aspen, mixed conifer, and pure coniferous forests, 

high jagged mountains, semi-circular cirque basins, deep U-shaped river valleys, grassy 

meadows, alpine tundra and a profusion of lakes, streams and wetlands. 

The area offers a variety of recreation opportunities such as backcountry hiking, horseback 

riding, fishing, camping, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, ATV riding and hunting. The area 

is also rich in history and community ties to national forest resource uses from extensive tie 

hacking for construction of railroads, to livestock grazing, oil production, timber harvest, and 

reservoirs for agricultural irrigation. A network of roads and trails criss-cross the lower slopes 

providing access for a variety of recreation opportunities and other forest uses. Traveling these 

routes one climbs from southern Wyoming’s gray-green sage prairies and shimmering aspen 

groves through deep green conifer to views of jagged barren peaks. Upper portions of the area 

are primarily undeveloped (unroaded) where semi-circular glacial basins pour surround streams 

with rich riparian vegetation. These streams often flow from mountain ice and snow melting to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 7 

lake to reservoir to mountain plain through concave valleys. Giant rock ramparts can be seen at 

the entrance of the three main rivers: Beaver, Henrys and Blacks Fork flowing from their 

headwaters in the High Uintas Wilderness. Oil wells and oil production facilities are sprinkled 

through the lower uplands of the landscape, mostly hidden from a distance by careful design and 

placement in pockets of vegetation. Remnants of bygone eras can be found throughout the 

landscape in sagging log cabins, wooden check dams, stumps cut waist high and historic ranger 

stations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 8 

Topic 1 – Watershed Health 

Soils, Water, and Geologic Resources 

Introduction 

This section will address existing watershed conditions and analyze the effects of the different 

alternatives on these resources. Within the affected watershed environment subsection, 

information is presented on the physiographic (geology and soils), hydrologic (streams and 

lakes), and climatic (precipitation and temperature) components of watersheds found on the 

Forest. Within the environmental consequences subsection, the direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects on soil and water quality are disclosed in terms of the various activities proposed in the 

alternatives. Comparisons are then drawn between the effects on watershed health between the 

action alternatives and the no action alternative. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

Numerous legal directions pertains to soil and water resources on federal, state and private lands 

in the United States. Those most applicable to National Forest Lands include: 

• The Organic Administration Act (1897) -- Recognizes watersheds as systems that have 

to be managed with care to sustain their hydrologic function. It states that one purpose 

for establishing national forests is to secure favorable conditions of water flow. 

• The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972) -- Commonly known as “The Clean 

Water Act”, an act and series of amendments passed to maintain and restore the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. It requires compliance with state 

and federal pollution control measures; no degradation of in stream water quality needed 

to support designated uses; control of nonpoint sources of water pollution through 

conservation or “best management practices;” federal agency leadership in controlling 

non-point source pollution from managed lands; and rigorous criteria for controlling 

pollution discharges into waters of the United States. 

• The National Forest Management Act (1976) -- Directs national forests to protect 

watershed conditions from irreversible damage and to protect streams and wetlands from 

detrimental impacts. Amended RPA by adding sections that stressed the maintenance of 

productivity and need to protect and improve the soil and water resources, and avoidance 

of permanent impairment of the productive capability of the land. Fish habitat must 

maintain viable populations of existing and desired non-native vertebrate species. 

• The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA)(1974) --

Requires an assessment of the present and potential productivity of the land. Regulations 

are to specify guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of the 

program that “...insure that timber will be harvested from NFS land only where...soil, 

slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 9 

• The Endangered Species Act (1973) -- Requires federal agencies to conserve threatened 

and endangered species and the ecosystems they depend on, including riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

• The Safe Drinking Water Act (1976) -- Requires federal agencies having jurisdiction 

over any federally owned or maintained public water system to comply with all 

authorities respecting the provision of safe drinking water. The State of Utah has primary 

enforcement responsibility through its drinking water regulations. 

• Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 -- Direct federal agencies to avoid to the extent 

possible the impacts associated with the destruction or modification of floodplains and 

wetlands. Agencies are directed to avoid construction and development in flood plains 

and wetlands whenever there are any feasible alternatives. 

• Forest Service Manual (Section 2500) -- Provides additional laws and executive orders 

as well as agency policy pertaining to watershed management. 

• Forest Service Manual, Soil Management Handbook (FSH R4 Supplement 2509.18-

95-1) -- Provides direction for the protection and monitoring of long-term soil 

productivity through the establishment of soil quality standards. 

• R1/R4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) -- Provides 

standards that must be followed. 

• Federal Agency Source Water Agreement -- effort to coordinate among federal 

agencies the increasing numbers of individual programs to protect drinking water 

sources. 

Affected Environment

Watersheds contain terrestrial, aquatic, riparian, and wetland resources that include both physical 

and biological components. They provide critical habitat for wildlife and serve as important 

links between upland sites and streams by providing shade, bank stability, and filtration of 

pollution. Watersheds are dynamic systems that respond to disturbances by both human and 

natural agents. Disturbances can cause direct impacts such as flow reduction, wetland loss, and 

bank instability, or can produce indirect impacts in the uplands of a watershed, such as soil loss 

or landslides that introduce sediment to the stream. These impacts are of concern to overall 

watershed health. They can affect water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife habitat, and soil 

productivity. 

Soils and geology are an integral component of ecological groupings. They influence vegetation, 

watershed condition, mineralogy, and land uses. Soils and geology have been used to determine 

the suitability of forestlands for timber sales and the effects that land management projects may 

have on watersheds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 10 

In stream flows in alluvial, perennial, and fish-bearing streams are an important component of 

aquatic and riparian resources also. When high and low flows occur without significant artificial 

influence, important stream processes are maintained that protect riparian habitats and recreation 

and aesthetic values. 

Healthy watersheds are critical to protecting water quality, sustaining dependent ecosystems, 

providing a reliable water supply, and preventing or reducing the downstream impacts of high 

runoff events. In a natural state, watersheds are in a dynamic equilibrium determined by 

geologic and climatic variables. Significant disturbances, whether caused naturally (e.g., 

landslides, stand-replacement fires, or floods) and/or by human impacts (e.g., roads, large-scale 

timber removal, or ground disturbance), can throw a watershed out of equilibrium. Often a 

watershed will recover from such disturbances with a balance of vegetation cover and stream 

flow. However, chronic impacts that severely impair watershed recovery can affect the longterm health of watershed resources as well as their benefits to ecosystems and human 

settlements. 

The WCNF provides water for aquatic and riparian habitat and domestic, agricultural and 

recreational uses. Water is the main component of productive fisheries and riparian habitat, and 

wetlands. Domestic uses include drinking water for campgrounds, picnic areas, rest stops, and 

Forest facilities. Agricultural uses include water for crops and livestock grazing. Recreational 

uses include aesthetics, fishing, and boating. They also support habitat for fisheries and wildlife 

and contribute to aesthetic values important to many Forest users. 

Climate 

The major forest areas in Utah occur in the high mountains where the climate is humid and the 

precipitation is 22 to 40 inches annually. Generally, precipitation is the result of three types of 

storm systems: (1) winter storm fronts which move across the state from the west or northwest 

primarily from October through May; (2) cold lows which form over Nevada or southern Utah 

principally during October or late April and May and then drift across the state accompanied by 

gentle rain or snow; and (3) summer thunderstorms which develop in the summer months from 

the Gulf of Mexico (Wilson et al. 1975). 

Strong temperature inversions occur in most valleys during the winter months. The freeze-free 

season ranges between 160 to 180 days on elevations near the tops of the inversions. It is 80 to 

90 days in the bottoms of some of the colder valleys and less than 20 days on the tops of the 

higher mountains. Average wind speeds generally range between 7 and 12 miles per hour in the 

lower valleys but increase to 15 to 20 miles per hour on the tops of the mountains (Wilson et al. 

1975). 

Physiography 

There are three major physiographic provinces in Utah of which the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest (WCNF) is in two: the Basin and Range Province and the Middle Rocky Mountain 

Province. On the WCNF, the Stansbury Mountains and the Wasatch Front (Central Wasatch and 

Stansbury Management areas), west of the crest of the Wasatch Range from Point of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 11 

Mountain in Salt Lake Valley to the northern end of the Wellsville Range, is within the Great 

Basin section of the Basin and Range Province. The Great Basin section consists of a large 

number of separately enclosed basins scattered throughout the region. The dominant land forms 

are lake terraces, bars, beaches, fans and valley plains. During the Pleistocene geologic period, 

many of the basins were filled by Lake Bonneville (Wilson et al. 1975). 

In Utah, the Middle Rocky Mountain Province occurs in two mountain ranges: the Wasatch and 

the Uinta. On the WCNF (Eastern and Western Uinta Mountains, Bear, North Wasatch, and 

Cache Box Elder Management Areas), east of the crest of the Wasatch Front; Cache Valley; Rich 

County; the Bear River, Blacks Fork, and Henrys Fork drainages on the north side of the High 

Uinta Mountains; and the Weber and Provo River drainages on the western part of the Uinta 

Mountains are in the Middle Rocky Mountain Province. The western slope of the mountains is 

very steep and remarkably straight, but on the eastern side it is generally less steep and irregular. 

Generally, the range grades into dissected plateaus in the east. For a distance of about 35 miles 

between Salt Lake City and Provo, the range was glaciated. The longest glaciers descended 

westward from the mountain crests at an elevation of 11,000 to 12,000 feet from a distance of 

about 10 miles to an elevation of about 5,000 feet (Wilson et al. 1975). 

Status of land types and soil surveys 

Soil resource inventories have been prepared for most of the Forest. Approximately 90,000 acres 

of National Forest land are not covered by a modern soil survey. Areas not covered include the 

Bountiful Front of the Wasatch Mountains from North Ogden to North Salt Lake, and the Curtis 

Ridge area of the Ogden Ranger District. The inventories map unique combinations of landforms 

and soils called land-types. The WCNF has about 225 land types delineated and stored on digital 

soil maps in the Forest GIS system. The forest maintains an active updating program for these 

inventories, creating a periodic need to revise the GIS land-type layer. Recent updates on the 

Kamas and Logan Ranger Districts have resulted in a need to re-enter soils information from 

about 25 quadrangles into the corporate database. In the near future, a relational database will be 

available for the storage, display, and manipulation of soil chemical and physical information 

associated with the inventories. Future inventory updates will be directed towards populating 

this database with more accessible information that provides better support to land management 

planning activities. 

Management Area Descriptions 

The geology, soil, and water characteristics are described for each of the management areas. The 

geologic units are based on information from ecological subsections of the Forest. The soils 

description is a compilation of many different soil types and represents the range of soil 

conditions on the Forest. Information for geology, and soils is mainly from LeMoyne Wilson 

(1975) and DeVon Nelson (1994). 

Bear Management Area 

Geology - Bear River Highlands – These are gently sloping, eastward tilting uplands at 

elevations ranging from 5,200 to 9,500 feet. The structure is a plateau-like surface of uplifted 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 12 

portions of overthrust fault zone and the lithology is Wasatch limestone, dolomite and quartzite 

with Cambrian rocks (Tintic quartzite, Maxfield limestone) on the west side. Geomorphic 

processes are fluvial and glacial; peri-glacial features are widespread. 

Monte Cristo-Weber Valley Hinterlands – These are a modified ridge and valley network 

between the Wasatch Front and the high Wyoming Basins at an elevational range of 5,400 to 

9,000 feet. The structure is graben-like and the lithology is Wasatch sandstone, limestone, 

conglomerates with pockets of Tertiary volcanics and Precambrian crystalline rocks. Alluvium 

is in the valleys and drainage ways. The geomorphic processes are fluvial and colluvial. 

Soils - Soils are deep to moderately deep at elevations from 6,000 to 12,000 feet. Slopes are 

mostly steep to very steep with some slightly steep slopes on the alluvial fans along the foothills. 

The soils are moderately well to somewhat excessively drained. Permeability is slow to 

moderately rapid. Runoff is slow to rapid and sediment production is low to moderate. The 

hydrologic groups are mainly B and C. 

Water - This unit is in Rich County from the Idaho border to Monte Cristo. No major rivers flow 

through this area but the area is the headwaters for streams flowing into the Bear River and Bear 

Lake. There are no large bodies of water in this unit but numerous small ponds and springs are 

found throughout the area. Most of the drainages have intermittent stream channels. 

The main human influences that affect watershed condition are timber, livestock grazing, 

recreation, and roads. Timber has been harvested in many of the drainages and livestock graze 

throughout the area. This area was overgrazed in the late 1800s and early 1900s and poor soil 

productivity is found in some areas. Topsoil losses through erosion have been particularly severe 

in the tall forb communities, where low ground cover annuals such as tarweed have supplanted 

the native forbs. Undeveloped recreation use occurs along many roads and trails. There are a 

few main dirt roads through the area and many trails. Some of the roads and trails are located 

along riparian areas and contribute sediment to the streams. In general, the downward trends in 

topsoil losses had been reversed through a combination of allotment stocking reductions, 

livestock exclusion from riparian area and tarweed eradication efforts. Recent expansions in offroad and all-terrain vehicle use threaten to reverse the trend once again by creating a new cycle 

of accelerated erosion. Overall watershed condition trend in this unit is stable to downward. 

The watershed conditions are good from Laketown Canyon to the north. The Woodruff, Big 

Creek, and Otter Creek drainages contain some areas with poor soil productivity and ground 

cover. Remnants of past beaver activity indicate much more water used to be in the drainages in 

the past. 

Wetlands are found mostly near numerous springs and seep areas. Narrow riparian corridors are 

found along the main streams that drain the area. Some of the drainages have beaver that 

impound water behind their dams and create larger riparian areas. 

There are no impaired water bodies in this unit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 13 

Cache – Box Elder Management Area 

Geology - Bear River Highlands – These are gently sloping, eastward tilting uplands at an 

elevational range of 5,200 to 9,500 feet. The structure is a plateau-like surface of an uplifted 

portion of overthrust fault zone and the lithology is Wasatch limestone, dolomite and quartzite 

with Cambrian rocks (Tintic quartzite, Maxfield limestone) on the west side. Geomorphic 

processes are fluvial and glacial; peri-glacial features are widespread. 

Cache Front – These are wall-like mountain slopes and ridge systems along the east edge of 

Cache Valley at elevations ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 feet. The structure is an up-thrown side 

in a block fault and the lithology is dolomite, sandstone, limestone, mudstone, and tuffaceous 

sediments. Geomorphic processes are fluvial, colluvial, glacial, and peri-glacial. 

Wellsville Mountains – This is a narrow ridge system forming the north end of the Wasatch 

Front at an elevational range of 5,000 to 9,000 feet. The structure is a fault block ridge with 

numerous lateral faults and the lithology is quartzite, dolomite, and limestone. The geomorphic 

process is fluvial and nivational on the upper east slopes. 

Monte Cristo-Weber Valley Hinterlands – This is a modified ridge and valley network between 

the Wasatch Front and the high Wyoming Basins at elevations ranging from 5,400 to 9,000 feet. 

The structure is graben-like and the lithology is Wasatch sandstone, limestone, conglomerates 

with pockets of Tertiary volcanics and Precambrian crystalline rocks. Alluvium is in the valleys 

and drainage ways. The geomorphic processes are fluvial and colluvial. 

Soils - Soils are deep to moderately deep at elevations from 4,300 to 12,000 feet and slopes that 

are rolling to very steep. On some low elevation areas, slopes are nearly level to gently sloping, 

but have some steep terrace escarpments. The soils are moderately well to somewhat excessively 

drained. Permeability is slow to rapid. Runoff is slow to rapid and sediment production is 

moderately to low. The hydrologic groups are mainly B and C. 

Water - This unit includes the area draining into the Bear River in Cache Valley and the 

Wellsville Mountains. The Logan River and Blacksmith Fork flow through the Forest into the 

Bear River. High Creek and Summit Creek are good size creeks that flow from the Forest. A 

very small part of the headwaters of the Little Bear River drainage is within Forest boundaries. 

No large bodies of water occur, but a few small lakes, such as Tony Grove and White Pine, are 

found in this unit. Many small springs and seeps occur throughout the area. Almost all of the 

Wellsville Mountains are within the Wellsville Mountain Wilderness area and most of the 

watershed area from High Creek to Green Canyon is within the Mt. Naomi Wilderness area. 

The Logan FERC project is located on the Logan River near the mouth of Logan Canyon. The 

Hyrum FERC Project is located on the Blacksmith Fork River just above the Left Hand Fork. 

The main human influences that affect watershed condition are timber, livestock grazing, 

recreation, and roads. Timber has been harvested in Logan and Blacksmith Fork Canyons and 

livestock graze through much of the area. Most of the developed recreation sites are located in 

riparian areas along the Logan River causing bank trampling and bare soils at these sites. During 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 14 

high runoff years, flooding occurs at some of the developed recreation sites. Undeveloped 

recreation occurs throughout the area and during hunting season many of the roads and trails 

become rutted from OHV use. Roads have constricted the streams in most of the main canyon 

bottoms. 

Tony Grove Lake is listed as impaired because dissolved oxygen does not meet State water 

quality standards. 

Central Wasatch Management Area 

Geology - Central Wasatch – These are rugged ridges, scenic canyons, and high basins forming a 

front along the east side of the Salt Lake Valley and northern Utah Valleys at elevations ranging 

from 5,000 to 11,300 feet. The structure is an uplifted fault block with numerous internal faults 

and plutonic stock; the lithology is granite, quartzite, argilite, tillite, and limestone. The 

geomorphic processes are glacial, stream cutting, and mass wasting. 

Soils - Most of the soils are shallow to deep soils at elevations from 5,800 to 12,000 feet and 

slopes that are rolling to very steep. They are moderately well to somewhat excessively drained. 

Permeability is slow to rapid. Runoff is slow to rapid and sediment production is moderate to 

low. The hydrologic groups are mainly B, C, and D. 

Rock land occurs in the Wasatch Mountains in the vicinity of Alta. Areas of this land type are 

mainly on steep to very steep rocky colluvial areas that are above timberline, usually above 

11,000 feet elevation. Rock land occupies about 70 percent of the area, and the other 30 percent 

is shallow to very shallow, stony soils. Because of their high elevations, these areas are 

important watershed. They receive large amounts of precipitation much of it as snow and these 

snowfields are important sources of late summer stream flows. 

Water - This unit is located in the Wasatch Mountains east of Salt Lake City. Large streams 

drain out of Big Cottonwood, Little Cottonwood, and Mill Creek Canyons and smaller streams 

drain from Emigration, Red Butte, and City Creek Canyons. These canyons are important public 

water supply watersheds. Some small lakes are found in the headwaters areas of Big and Little 

Cottonwood Canyons and two public water supply reservoirs are located off-Forest in Parleys 

Canyon. The Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak Wilderness areas are located between 

Mill Creek and Lone Peak. Large slope wetlands are found in the upper parts of Little and Big 

Cottonwood Canyons such as Albion Basin and Brighton. 

The main human influences that affect watershed condition are recreation, homes, historic 

mining, hydropower, and roads. Most of the developed recreation sites are located in riparian 

areas in Mill Creek, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood Canyons causing bank trampling 

and bare soils at these sites. Four ski resorts are located in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. 

Watershed conditions are affected by development along the riparian areas, ski run land terrain 

and vegetative changes, and snowmaking water use. With the exception of City Creek and Red 

Butte Canyons, many homes are located on public and private land with many of them in stream 

riparian corridors. Historic hard rock mining took place from the late 1800s through the early 

1900s in the upper part of Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons releasing metals into surface and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 15 

groundwater. Hydropower projects in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons have reduced the 

amount of water flowing below the projects. Roads in the Canyons have constricted the stream 

channels and contributed sediment and salts into the streams. 

Two FERC projects are located in this unit, Stairs Project on Big Cottonwood Creek and the 

Murray/Whitmore projects on Little Cottonwood Creek. A non-FERC regulated hydroelectric 

facility, the Granite project, is located at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. In Little 

Cottonwood Canyon, a small hydropower facility is located on private land at the mouth of the 

Wasatch Tunnel at Snowbird. 

A minimum in-stream flow is required on Little Cottonwood Creek for snowmaking water 

diversions at Alta and Snowbird Ski Resorts and on Big Cottonwood Creek below Brighton Ski 

Resort. Through the regimenting process for dams regulated by FERC, an in-stream flow of 4 

cubic feet per second (cfs) in Big Cottonwood Creek is required to be released past the Stairs 

Gulch Plant (FERC, 1999). 

Salt Lake City regulates the flows from several reservoirs in Big and Little Cottonwood 

Canyons. Regulated flows from storage water in Cecret Lake in Little Cottonwood Canyon and 

Lake Mary and Twin Lakes in Big Cottonwood Canyon provide culinary water for Salt Lake 

City. 

Two stream segments in this unit are considered impaired by the State: Mill Creek and Little 

Cottonwood Creek. Mill Creek is listed because of stream sedimentation and has received 

funding through the Clean Water Act Section 319 funds. Little Cottonwood Creek is listed 

because zinc concentrations exceed State water quality standards. A multi-agency study is 

currently underway to evaluate the sources of metals in Little Cottonwood Creek. Mill Creek 

has had several stream rehabilitation projects helping to stabilize stream banks impacted by 

recreation use.

Historic overgrazing occurred throughout this unit until the early 1900’s. Loss of vegetation and 

topsoil became so severe that flooding and landslides were common occurrences during the 

1930’s. Property damage and loss of life prompted the elimination of livestock grazing from the 

Wasatch front at this time, followed closely by a large program of watershed study and 

restoration that continued until the early 1970’s. By that time, watersheds had mostly been 

stabilized and downward condition trends reversed. Current watershed conditions are still stable, 

however the potential for fire caused erosion and flooding is very high due to the almost uniform 

overage condition of the mountain brush communities that are common to the Wasatch Front. 

Eastern Uintas Management Area 

Geology - High Uintas – This is the glaciated center of the Uinta Mountains with elevations 

ranging from 8,000 to 13,578 feet. The structure is a broad, arculate, anticlinal fold slightly 

overturned to the north; the lithology is quartzite and shale of the Uintah Group with 

Mississippian limestone, Weber sandstone, and extensive glacial and fluvial deposits. The 

geomorphic processes are glacial and peri-glacial with secondary fluvial action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 16 

North Slope Outwash – These are gently sloping benches and valleys forming the lower north 

slopes of the Uinta Mountains at elevations ranging from 8,000 to 10,000 feet. The structure is 

benches on north anticline limb and the lithology is quartzite, conglomerates with thick glacial 

outwash overburden extending out into the Wyoming Basin. The geomorphic process is fluvial 

over earlier glaciation. 

Phil Pico Highlands – These are a series of hogback ridges along the north flank of the Uinta 

anticline with an elevational range of 6,500 to 9,000 feet. The structure is a hogback ridge and 

the lithology is limestone, siltstone, shale and sandstone. The geomorphic processes are 

colluvial and fluvial being secondary. 

Soils - Most of the soils are deep to moderately deep soils, 30 to 36 inches deep, at elevations 

ranging from 8,000 to 11,000 feet and slopes that are rolling to very steep, mainly 15 to 65 

percent. They are well to excessively drained. Permeability above bedrock is very slow to very 

rapid. Runoff is slow to medium and sediment production is low. The hydrologic groups are 

mainly B and C. 

A small area of the very northeast part of the WCNF contains soils that are shallow to deep and 

moderately deep at elevations ranging from 6,000 to 7,000 feet. The rock outcrop is exposure of 

bare sandstone. These soils are well drained and permeability is moderate to slow. Runoff is 

medium and sediment production is moderate. The hydrologic groups are mainly D for the 

Lithic Argiborolls and C for the Typic Argiborolls. 

Rock land is located in the High Uinta Mountains. Areas of this land type are mainly on steep to 

very steep, rocky, colluvial areas that are above timberline, usually 11,000 to 13,500 feet 

elevation. Rock land occupies about 70 percent of the area, and the other 30 percent is shallow 

to very shallow, stony soils. Because of their high elevations, these areas are important 

watershed. They receive large amounts of precipitation much of it as snow and these snowfields 

are important sources of late summer stream flows. 

Water - This unit is located on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. The main rivers that 

drain this unit are the Blacks Fork, Smiths Fork, Henrys Fork, and Beaver Creek. Many small 

lakes and ponds and three large reservoirs, Meeks Cabin, Beaver Meadow, and Hoop Lake, are 

found in this unit. Many large riparian areas and wetlands are located along most of the main 

rivers and tributaries and around the small lakes and ponds. A few irrigation diversions are 

located near the Forest boundary. 

The main human influences affecting watershed condition are timber, livestock grazing, 

irrigation, recreation, and roads. Timber harvest has occurred and livestock graze most of the 

area. Historic overgrazing created conditions of accelerated erosion and gully formation, most 

noticeable in the large wetland meadows and riparian parks that are common in both the Eastern 

and Western Uinta Mountains. One of the main watershed concerns is the sheep driveway that 

has erosion problems occurring over many years. Extensive restoration efforts have almost 

completely reversed the historic downward trends in watershed condition, to the point where 

most gully complexes are revegetated and healed over. Some segments of streams are dewatered 

from irrigation diversions. Some developed recreation sites are located along riparian areas of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 17 

the main rivers. Some of the roads contribute sediment to the stream because of poor road 

drainage features. 

Altered flow regimes occur on the Smiths Fork River below State Line Dam, the Blacks Fork 

River below Meeks Cabin Reservoir, Beaver Creek below Hoop Lake, and Lost Creek below 

Beaver Meadows Reservoir. 

Smiths Fork in Wyoming on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains is listed by the State of 

Wyoming as impaired for habitat degradation and an evaluation of stream conditions is planned. 

Bridger Lake, China Reservoir, Lyman Lake, and Marsh Lake do not meet State of Utah water 

quality standards for dissolved oxygen. 

North Wasatch – Ogden Valley Management Area 

Geology - Monte Cristo-Weber Valley Hinterlands – This is a modified ridge and valley network 

between the Wasatch Front and the high Wyoming Basins at an elevational range of 5,400 to 

9,000 feet. The structure is graben-like and the lithology is Wasatch sandstone, limestone, 

conglomerates with pockets of Tertiary volcanics and Precambrian crystalline rocks. Alluvium 

is in the valleys and drainage ways. The geomorphic processes are fluvial and colluvial. 

Northern Wasatch – This is a bold, straight mountain front crossed by large east-west canyons at 

elevations ranging from 5,000 to 9,700 feet. The structure is an uplifted fault block; the 

lithology is mostly Farmington Canyon crystalline rocks, gneiss, quartzite, and dolomite. The 

geomorphic processes are fluvial, glacial, and colluvial. 

Wellsville Mountains – This is a narrow ridge system forming the north end of the Wasatch 

Front at an elevational range of 5,000 to 9,000 feet. The structure is a fault block ridge with 

numerous lateral faults and the lithology is quartzite, dolomite, and limestone. The geomorphic 

process is fluvial and nivational on the upper east slopes. 

Soils - These are deep to moderately deep soils at elevations ranging from 5,200 to 10,000 feet 

on slopes that are steep to very steep with some that are gently rolling. The soils are moderately 

well to somewhat excessively drained. Permeability is moderately slow to rapid. Runoff is slow 

to rapid and sediment production is low to moderate. The hydrologic groups are mainly B and C 

with some D. 

Water - This unit is located from Brigham City to Bountiful to the Monte Cristo area. Two main 

rivers, the Weber and Ogden Rivers, drain large areas of this unit. Along the Wasatch Front, 

most of the drainages have small intermittent streams. However, when there is high winter 

precipitation, large debris flows have come out of many of the drainages during spring runoff. 

This part of the Wasatch Front is considered a high hazard area because of high debris flow 

potential. This unit has a few small lakes and ponds but for the most part is fairly dry. Pineview 

Reservoir is a large body of water located near Huntsville used extensively for water-based 

recreation. Riparian areas and wetlands occur mainly along the South Fork Ogden River. A 

large wetland meadow is located on Wheeler Creek near the Snowbasin Ski Resort. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 18 

The main human influences affecting watershed condition are livestock grazing, recreation, and 

roads. Livestock graze in the drainages above Causey Reservoir. Most of the developed 

recreation sites are located in riparian areas along the South Fork Ogden River causing some 

bank trampling and bare soils. ATV use has had a sharp increase in the last few years and many 

small two-track trails are found near Willard Peak, along the foothills and top of the Wasatch 

Front range. 

FERC projects are located at Pineview Dam on the Ogden River and Causey Dam on the South 

Fork Ogden River. A minimum stream flow has been set for Wheeler Creek as part of the Phase 

I planning for the Snowbasin Ski Resort development and a flow monitoring study is currently 

being conducted to provide better water flow information near the resort. The Ogden River 

Water Users Association maintains an in-stream flow of at least 10 cfs in the Ogden River below 

the Pineview Dam during normal water years, but flows may be reduced if water rights in the 

basin are shorted (FERC, 2000). 

Pineview Reservoir does not meet State water quality standards for Total Phosphorus and 

dissolved oxygen and is listed as high for conducting a TMDL. 

Stansbury Management Area 

Geology – Stansbury Range - This is a fault block mountain range in the eastern Great Basin at 

elevations ranging from 5,500 to 11,100 feet. The structure is a tilted block with western dip 

slopes and eastern scarp face and the lithology is mostly Prospect Mountain quartzite and rocks 

(limestone, dolomite, and shale) of the Oquirrh Group. The geomorphic processes are fluvial, 

glacial, and nivational. 

Soils - Soils are deep to moderately deep at elevations from 6,000 to 12,000 feet. Slopes are 

mostly steep to very steep with some slightly steep slopes on the alluvial fans along the foothills. 

The soils in this association are moderately well to somewhat excessively drained. Permeability 

is moderately rapid to slow. Runoff is slow to rapid and sediment production is moderate. The 

hydrologic groups are mainly B and C. 

Water - This unit is a mountain range in the Great Basin west of Tooele, Utah. There are no 

large rivers flowing in this area and the largest streams are about 10 to 20 feet wide. There are 

no large bodies of water in the area, although Grantsville Reservoir is located in the Willow 

Creek drainage off the Forest. The Deseret Peak Wilderness occupies a large area in the center 

of the unit. 

Gradual shifts over the last century towards a drier and warmer climate have resulted in degraded 

watershed conditions. The climatic changes have enhanced the ability of poor ground cover 

species such as cheat grass and pinyon/juniper to invade the sagebrush grass communities 

common to this area. Increased runoff and soil erosion have been a product of these invasions. 

Past attempts at eradicating cheat grass and at slowing pinyon/juniper encroachment have been 

successful in restoring favorable soil hydrologic conditions in isolated areas. Overall, these 

efforts have had little effect on reversing downward watershed condition trends in this unit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 19 

Along with the North and Central Wasatch Management areas, this area has experienced the 

most active wildfire history on the WCNF. Past wildfires have burned at high intensities, 

creating an acute need for post fire rehabilitation. Monitoring has shown these efforts to be 

generally successful in restoring proper watershed function and protecting long-term soil 

productivity. 

The main human influences affecting the watershed are livestock grazing, recreation use, and 

mining. A few water diversions are located near the Forest boundary. 

Wetlands are found mostly near numerous springs and seep areas. Several of the springs are 

fenced to protect from livestock damage. The riparian areas are found along the main streams 

that drain the area. Riparian areas that are located by campsites and picnic areas in North and 

South Willow Canyons have bare stream banks and vegetation trampling. 

There are no impaired water bodies in this unit. 

Western Uintas Management Area 

Geology - West Flank Uintas – These are ridges, valleys, and benches forming the west end of 

the Uinta Mountains at elevations ranging from 7,000 to 12,000 feet. The structure is an 

anticline with exposed curve; the lithology is Uinta quartzite and glacial deposits in the center, 

and limestone and Weber sandstone mostly on the sides. The geomorphic processes are glacial, 

peri-glacial, stream cutting, and mass wasting. 

High Uintas – This is the glaciated center of the Uinta Mountains with elevations ranging from 

8,000 to 13,578 feet. The structure is a broad, arculate, anticlinal fold slightly overturned to the 

north and the lithology is quartzite and shale of the Uintah Group with Mississippian limestone, 

Weber sandstone, and extensive glacial and fluvial deposits. The geomorphic processes are 

glacial and peri-glacial with secondary fluvial action. 

North Slope Outwash – These are gently sloping benches and valleys forming the lower north 

slopes of the Uinta Mountains at an elevational range of 8,000 to 10,000 feet. The structure are 

benches on north anticline limb and the lithology is quartzite, conglomerates with thick glacial 

outwash overburden extending out into the Wyoming Basin. The geomorphic process is fluvial 

over earlier glaciation. 

Soils - Most of the soils are deep to moderately deep, 30 to 36 inches deep, at elevations of 8,000 

to 11,000 feet and slopes that are rolling to very steep, mainly 15 to 65 percent. The soils are 

well to excessively drained. Permeability above bedrock is very slow to very rapid. Runoff is 

slow to medium and sediment production is low. The hydrologic groups are mainly B and C. 

Soils in the lower elevations of the Weber River and Beaver Creek drainages are deep to 

moderately deep at elevations from 5,200 to 8,000 feet on slopes that are steep to very steep but 

with gently rolling included. The soils are well to somewhat excessively drained. Permeability 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 20 

is slow to moderately rapid. Runoff is medium and sediment production is low. The hydrologic 

groups are mainly B and C. 

Rock land is located in the High Uinta Mountains. Areas of this land type are mainly on steep to 

very steep, rocky, colluvial areas that are above timberline, usually 11,000 to 13,500 feet 

elevation. Rock land occupies about 70 percent of the area, and the other 30 percent is shallow 

to very shallow, stony soils. Because of their high elevations, these areas are important 

watershed. They receive large amounts of precipitation, much of it as snow; these snowfields 

are important sources of late summer stream flows. 

Water - This unit is located in the drainages east of Kamas including the Bear River drainage. 

The headwaters of the Weber, Provo, Duchesne, and Bear Rivers are located in this unit. These 

large rivers provide drinking and irrigation water to many users. Many small lakes and 

reservoirs are located in this unit. Large reservoirs in the area include Washington Lake, Trial 

Lake, Smith and Morehouse, and Whitney Reservoirs. Large areas of wetlands and riparian area 

are found in the High Lakes Country and along the Weber, Provo, and Duchesne Rivers. Part of 

the High Uintas Wilderness is located in this unit. 

The high lakes area of the Kamas Ranger District has many of the reservoirs on the Forest. 

Notch, Ibantec, Fish Lake, Sand, Castle Lake, Kamas Lake, and Abes Lake are active reservoirs 

operated by irrigation water users under special use permit. Washington Lake, Trial Lake, and 

Lost Lake are reservoirs operated by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and are 

withdrawn under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. Since 1994, 12 reservoirs were 

stabilized as part of the Central Utah Project mitigation project to reduce the hazard of the dams 

to a low or no hazard. The reservoirs are Star (1994), Crystal (1995), Long (1995), Duck (1996), 

Lilly (1996), Fine (1997), Island (1997), Pot (1997), Marjory (1997), Weir (1997-98), Big Elk 

(1998), Wall Lake (1999). 

The main human influences that affect watershed condition are timber, livestock grazing, 

recreation, irrigation, and roads. Timber harvest has occurred and livestock currently graze in all 

of the main drainages. This area was overgrazed in the late 1800s and early 1900s and poor soil 

productivity is found in some areas. Topsoil losses through erosion have been particularly severe 

in the tall forb and aspen communities, where low ground cover annuals such as tarweed and 

coneflower have supplanted the native forbs. Expansions in off-road and all-terrain vehicle 

(OHV/ATV) use in the 1980’s contributed to the general downward trend in watershed 

condition. In general, the downward trends in topsoil losses had been reversed through a 

combination of allotment stocking reductions, livestock exclusion from riparian area and tarweed 

eradication efforts, and confinement of OHV/ATV use to a system of designated trails. Overall 

watershed condition trend in this unit is stable. 

Most developed recreation sites are located along riparian areas of the Weber, Provo, and Bear 

Rivers. Many watershed improvement projects that protect riparian areas and stream banks have 

been done along the Mirror Lake corridor. Irrigation diversions withdraw water and augment 

water flows in several basins. Some roads and trails contribute sediment to streams particularly 

during the fall hunting season. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 21 

A diversion is located on the Duchesne River East Portal of the Duchesne Tunnel. Water flows 

from the East Portal through the Duchesne Tunnel to the upper Provo River above Soapstone 

Campground. 

The City of Oakley has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for Sole Source Aquifer 

Designation for the aquifer located in the Weber Canyon area east of Oakley. 

Mirror Lake does not meet State water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. 

Geologic Hazards 

The main geologic hazards that affect the WCNF are earthquakes and landsides. For the most 

part, the earthquake hazard is low to very low. Landslides are very common geologic hazards in 

Utah and many have occurred on the WCNF. Utah is among eight states with a landslide hazard 

of “severe,” the highest hazard class. Conditions favorable to landslides exist primarily in 

mountain ranges and along the edges of high plateaus. However, shallow landslides on steep 

mountain slopes generate debris flows causing damage and loss of life in urban areas at canyon 

mouths far removed from the source of the slope failure. In northern Utah’s Davis County 

residential areas on alluvial fans were especially hard hit by debris flows in the 1920s, 1930s, 

and 1980s (Harty 1991). 

Landslides in Utah are most common in the Middle Rocky Mountain Province, and in the High 

Plateau Province. These regions contain a high density of steep slopes and the highest average 

annual precipitation in Utah (Harty 1991). 

Geologic formations on the WCNF commonly involved in landslides are the Lake Bonneville 

Formation, the Farmington Canyon Complex, and the Ankkarah Formation. The Farmington 

Canyon Complex and the Ankarah Formation are two of five formations producing most of the 

shallow landslides within Utah. The Bonneville Formation is located along the west flank of the 

Wasatch Range (Salt Lake, Weber, Davis Counties) and between the Wasatch Range and the 

Great Salt Lake (Weber and Davis Counties). The Farmington Canyon Formation is located on 

the west flank of the Wasatch Range between Bountiful (Davis County) and Willard (Box Elder 

County). The Ankarah Formation is located in the Wasatch Range east of Salt Lake City 

between Mill Creek and Parleys Canyon (Salt Lake County) (Harty 1991). 

Almost all of the historic landslides occurring on the WCNF are located along the west face of 

the Wasatch Front from Pleasant View to Draper. While most are small, shallow slides less than 

2000 feet long, several large, shallow slides occurred in the canyons from Bountiful to Kaysville 

and from Weber Canyon to Ogden Canyon. Several large deep-seated prehistoric slides were 

identified in the Blacks Fork and Smiths Fork drainages on the North Slope of the Uinta 

Mountains and in the Wasatch Range east of Willard. Most of the small deep-seated prehistoric 

slides less than 2000 feet long are located along the foot of the mountains of the east side Cache 

Valley and the west side of the Wasatch Range (Harty 1991).

Most communities in Utah experience severe rainstorms causing flooding and landslide damage, 

such as in Davis County during the 1920s and 1930s. However, landslides resulting from rapid 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 22 

snowmelt are more geographically widespread than rainstorm-related landslides. During the 

record-breaking years between 1982-1984, the resulting damage from flooding and landslides 

was so extensive that 22 out of 29 counties were declared eligible for national disaster assistance. 

In 1983, a debris flow from Rudd Canyon in Davis County deposited 80,000-90,000 cubic yards 

of debris throughout a 9-block square residential area in Farmington, resulting in damage to 35 

houses (Harty 1991). 

All mapped landslides should be considered hazard areas. The distribution of the most recent 

(historical) landslides can be used as a guide to landslide susceptibility in that it shows areas that 

may continue producing landslides under current climatic conditions. However, many of Utah’s 

largest and most destructive landslides were reactivations of prehistoric landslides. The hazard 

potential of “older” landslides should not be underestimated but investigated in further detail 

when development is considered (Harty 1991). 

Surface Water 

The WCNF is within 15 fourth-order watersheds, 28 fifth-order watersheds, and 119 sixth-order 

watersheds. The WCNF straddles the Colorado River Basin and the Great Basin watersheds. 

The Henrys Fork, Smiths Fork, Blacks Fork, Muddy Creek, and upper Duchesne River 

watersheds drain into the Colorado River Basin. The upper Bear River, Weber River, Ogden 

River, Provo River, and Jordan River drain into the Great Basin watershed. 

The WCNF contains more than 1178 miles of perennial streams and numerous natural springs 

and seeps. Many small natural lakes and reservoirs supplying water for wildlife, grazing 

animals, recreation sports fisheries, and irrigation are found in the Uinta Mountains. Several of 

the natural lakes in the system have been dammed and converted to reservoirs. 

The conversion of aspen to conifer due to fire suppression during the 1900s has increased the 

amount of water that is transpired and has reduced the amount of water available for stream flow 

and other vegetation. On the WCNF, it is estimated that there is about a 60 percent reduction in 

the amount of aspen communities from historic levels. 

Groundwater 

Forest snowmelt recharges ground-water aquifers. Recharge to deep, confined aquifers occurs 

almost exclusively near or at mountain fronts. Streams originating on the Forest contribute to the 

recharge of aquifers within and outside the Forest boundary. 

In general, groundwater quality on the WCNF is good to excellent. Groundwater wells are used 

for domestic purposes at campgrounds and administrative sites. And, groundwater from springs 

is used for domestic livestock and wildlife. Typical forest management activities have limited 

impact on groundwater. Activities that pose the greatest risk to groundwater quality are hard 

rock mining and oil and gas development. In the late 1800’s, hard-rock mining in Big and Little 

Cottonwood Canyons exposed mineral bearing ore in underground shafts and adits causing 

increased metals concentrations in groundwater. As a result, the groundwater flows to the 

surface into Little Cottonwood Creek causing zinc concentrations to exceed state standards for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 23 

aquatic life. No problems are known to have occurred to the groundwater from oil and gas 

development occurring along the north slope of the Uinta Mountains on the Evanston/Mountain 

View Ranger District. 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains 

Wetland and riparian areas occupy a small amount of the lands managed by the WCNF. Most of 

the wetlands occur on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. Composed of sedges and willows, 

they are found in broad meadows, potholes and wide floodplain areas along the major river 

bottoms. Other areas having large wetlands include the Beaver River near Kamas, the Provo 

River, and Wheeler Creek. Large slope wetlands are located in Big and Little Cottonwood 

Canyons. The remainder of the Forest has small or narrow wetlands associated with streams 

flowing through narrow valley bottoms along the Wasatch Front and in the Logan/Ogden areas. 

Wetlands are key to productive fisheries and wildlife habitat, attenuated flooding, quality water 

for downstream users, continuous ground water recharge, diverse scenery, recreation sites, and 

sustaining timber and forage production. 

Riparian ecosystems constitute the transitional area between the aquatic ecosystem and the 

adjacent terrestrial system. The aquatic ecosystem includes the streams, ponds, lakes, and the 

biotic communities and habitat found in these features. Wetlands are found on land that is 

inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation or aquatic 

life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 

marshes, bogs, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. 

Floodplains are relatively flat areas adjoining a river way that are prone to flooding. 

Statistically, these areas are subject to a 1 percent (100-year recurrence) or greater change of 

flooding in any given year. Floodplains occupied by healthy vegetation communities reduce the 

severity of floods by allowing water to spread out over the floodplain. Vegetation slows the 

speed of the water and allows sediment to settle out and water to infiltrate. Water is slowly 

released from alluvial aquifers back to the channel during drier periods of the water. 

Large floodplains occur along the main rivers including Beaver Creek near Lonetree, Henrys 

Fork, Smiths Fork, Blacks Fork, Bear River, Provo River, Beaver Creek near Kamas, Ogden 

River, the Blacksmith Fork, and the Logan River. These floodplains are up to several hundred 

feet wide and may have several channels. Most of the streams on the Forest have small 

floodplains adjacent to the channel. 

Water Uses 

Water uses on the Forest include livestock stock water, irrigation-diversion flows, irrigationaugmentation flows, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower projects, 

recreation uses, and road maintenance. Livestock water use is very small compared to the water 

yield of the Forest. Most water diversions are near the Forest boundary and are used to irrigate 

land outside the Forest boundary. Road maintenance water use is a temporary use for dust 

abatement. Culinary water is used in campgrounds, picnic areas, and Forest administrative sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 24 

Five hydropower projects regulated by FERC are located on the Forest. In 1995, relicensing was 

initiated on the Stairs Project in Big Cottonwood Canyon and the Pioneer Project at Pineview 

Reservoir. As a result, minimum instream flow requirements below the Stairs project for the 

protection of fisheries and aesthetics and mitigation on the tailrace section (off-Forest) of the 

Pioneer Project to provide water for fisheries and to enhance aquatic habitat conditions are now 

in place. 

Many reservoirs have been constructed on the WCNF. Large reservoirs, more than 1000 acrefeet of volume, are Pineview, Causey, Meeks Cabin, Beaver Meadow, Whitney, Hoop Lake, 

Washington Lake, Trial Lake, and Smith and Morehouse. These reservoirs store more than 

176,000 acre-feet of water and have a surface area greater than 4,500 areas. Many small 

reservoirs are located throughout the Forest. 

Public Supply Watersheds 

A public supply watershed is defined as the portion of a river basin consisting of lands that 

contribute surface water, groundwater, or both, to a public water system as defined in the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, as amended. There are several key public supply watersheds whose source 

partially or almost entirely drains from the WCNF. 

The main watersheds supplying water for public consumption are the Provo River, Weber River, 

Big Cottonwood Creek, Ogden River, and the Logan River. Almost 60 percent of the watersheds 

draining from the Forest provide water for public drinking water needs. Many of the watersheds 

supply drinking water from springs and well developments. These watersheds are located in 

major population areas such as Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Logan that are currently experiencing 

a steady increase in population growth. 

As an example of the importance of Forest water supplies, currently within the Jordan River 

Basin (primarily Salt Lake County), only 26 percent of presently developed water supply for 

municipal, industrial, irrigation, domestic and stock-watering purposes is from ground water 

sources (Utah, State of 1997b). The remaining 74 percent is from surface water sources of which 

most originate from the mountains draining into the Jordan River Basin. The protection of the 

large amount of drinking water sources that originate on the WCNF is very important to the 

adjacent communities. 

Public supply water is used on the Forest for campgrounds, picnic areas, and administrative sites. 

Public supply water used at these sites are transient water sources that are used less than 6 

months out of the year supplying a small amount of water, for example providing water needs for 

2 to 68 units per campground. 

Sewer lines are installed in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons to protect the public health. The 

Little Cottonwood Canyon sewer line was installed in the early 1970’s and the Big Cottonwood 

Canyon sewer line was installed in the early 1990’s. These lines have worked well although 

some temporary blockages with spilled sewage have occurred. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 25 

The City of Oakley has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for Sole Source Aquifer 

Designation to acknowledge that Cottonwood Springs and the recently installed Humbug Well 

are the only water sources available to the community and to raise awareness about the 

importance of keeping the aquifer free of contamination (Jarvis, T. 1999). The aquifer is located 

along the south side of Weber Canyon east of Oakley and is the only Sole Source Aquifer 

petitioned on the WCNF. 

Instream Flows and Water Rights 

Irrigation diversions and hydropower storage or diversions have reduced the flow of several 

streams on the Forest. Most of these streams are at or near the Forest boundary. De-watered 

stream conditions occur mostly off the Forest. 

The Forest does not have instream flow water right claims recognized by the State of Utah. 

However, minimum instream flow requirements are set through special use authorization for a 

few streams. 

Water Quality 

Overall, water quality is good. Active and inactive mining sites have contributed to degradation 

of water quality in several streams within the Forest. Other impacts to water quality are 

associated with natural debris flows, roads, water diversions and augmentation, livestock 

grazing, and recreation activities. 

The State of Utah has designated the waters above the Forest boundary as Antidegradation 

Segments indicating that the existing water quality is better than the established standards for the 

designated beneficial uses. Water quality is required by state regulation to be maintained at this 

level. The beneficial uses of streams within the Forest, as designated by the Utah Department of 

Minimum instream flow requirements are set through special use authorization for a few streams. 

Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, are Class 2B – protected for recreation; Class 

3A – protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic species; and 

Class 4 – protected for agricultural uses. Also, the beneficial use of streams draining into the 

Logan River watershed include Class 3D – protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other waterrelated wildlife, and necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. The numeric water quality 

standards are in Section R317-2, Utah Administrative Code, Standards of Quality of Waters of 

the State (Utah, State of 2000a). 

Water bodies are assessed by the states of Utah and Wyoming to determine if the water bodies 

are meeting water quality standards. Most water bodies on the WCNF are fully supporting their 

beneficial uses. In Utah, two streams and seven lakes or reservoirs are listed as impaired on the 

WCNF (Utah, State of. 2002a). In the State of Wyoming, the East and West forks of the Smiths 

Fork to the Utah Wyoming boundary, and Willow Creek to the Utah Wyoming boundary is listed 

as impaired based on a 319 Watershed Improvement project on the Smiths Fork (Wyoming, 

State of 2002). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 26 

Table GEO-1. Streams, Rivers, Lakes, and Reservoirs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that 

are on Utah’s and Wyoming’s 2002 303(d) List. 

Waterbody HUC Pollutant or Stressor 

East Fork Smiths Fork (in Wyoming) 14040107 Habitat degradation 

West Fork Smiths Fork (in Wyoming) 14040107 Habitat degradation 

Willow Creek (in Wyoming) 14040107 Habitat degradation 

Bridger Lake 14040107 Dissolved oxygen 

China Reservoir 14040107 Dissolved oxygen 

Marsh Lake 14040107 Dissolved oxygen 

Lyman Lake 14040107 Dissolved oxygen 

Mirror Lake 14060003 Dissolved oxygen 

Tony Grove Lake 16010203 Dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus

Pine View Reservoir 16020102 Dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus

Emigration Creek 16020204 Fecal coliform 

Mill Creek 16020204 Sediment, habitat alteration 

Little Cottonwood Creek 16020204 Zinc 

Every two years, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality submits a list of waters in a 

report to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) containing those water bodies in 

Utah that are considered impaired and not meeting its beneficial uses. In April 2002, Utah 

submitted its 2002 303(d) list to the USEPA for review and approval. On the WCNF, water 

bodies that are listed on the Utah’s 2002 303(d) list are shown in Table WA-1. Several water 

bodies on the WCNF have been requested for removal from the 2000 303(d) list. From table 

WA-1, Emigration Creek for Fecal coliform, and Tony Grove for total phosphorus are new 

additions within the WCNF on the April 2002 list. Mill Creek is on the list of water bodies to be 

removed from Utah’s 2000 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for fecal coliform, sediment, and 

habitat modification. For the last several years, stream bank improvement projects have been 

implemented in Mill Creek in order to reduce sedimentation of Mill Creek and to improve 

streamside habitat. 

The State of Utah has submitted several lake and reservoir waterbodies and specific parameters 

for removal from Utah’s 2000 303(d) list. If approved, Pineview Reservoir will be removed 

from the list for dissolved phosphorus and dissolved oxygen because a TMDL is submitted, and 

for temperature because of a beneficial use classification change. If approved, China Reservoir 

will be removed from Utah’s 2000 303(d) list because more information is needed to determine 

if this reservoir should be listed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 27 

Figure GEO-1. Locations of Impaired Water Bodies and Watersheds in need of Restoration 

The WCNF is working with the State of 

Utah to determine the causes of water 

quality impairment. The WCNF has been 

working with the Little Cottonwood 

Group since 1998 assessing the effects of 

mining on Little Cottonwood Creek. 

Field data on water quality, stream 

morphology, and aquatic health has been 

collected and a Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) assessment is being 

reviewed by the USEPA. In the Smiths 

Fork drainage, water quality samples are 

being collected and stream condition 

surveys have been completed for the 

purpose of assessing the quality of water 

on Forest Service land. 

As part of a cooperative monitoring 

program with the State of Utah, the Forest 

Service collects water samples in selected 

drainages and sends them for analysis. 

Other water quality monitoring activities 

include macro-invertebrate sampling on 

selected streams to determine aquatic 

biological health and stream stability 

surveys. In addition to this, several cooperative efforts concerned with water quality are ongoing 

between the WCNF, state and local governments, regional planning agencies, and state colleges 

and universities. 

Since 1985, the WCNF has completed R1/R4 level II riparian surveys on 54 streams, stream 

stability surveys on 14 streams, chemical water quality monitoring on 34 streams, and 

macroinvertebrate sampling on 7 streams. This data indicates that several areas of the Forest are 

in need of improvement in channel stability, vegetative density and structure, and riparian 

conditions. 

Watershed Condition Assessment 

Under the Inland West Watershed Initiative, a course filter assessment at the watershed scale was 

conducted on the sixth-code watersheds of the WCNF to identify the probable condition of 

watersheds, identify locations of critical water-dependent resource values at risk needing priority 

protection, and to identify locations of damaged soil, riparian, and aquatic resource values 

needing to be restored. The assessment was qualitative and relied on the knowledge of resource 

specialists and on-the-ground personnel. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 28 

The assessment was used to classify the watersheds according to condition classes (FSM 2521). 

Briefly, Class I watersheds are described as providing a robust basis for sustained production of 

goods and services with no long-term changes occurring even when major storms occur. Class II 

watersheds are those not attaining the requirements for Class I but not requiring capital 

investments to restore watershed conditions. These watersheds can be restored through 

integrated, ecological approach to management. Class III watersheds require technological and 

economically feasible capital investment to restore watershed conditions to a level consistent 

with management goals. At the sixth code watershed scale, the assessment shows four Class I 

watersheds, 91 Class II watersheds, and 24 Class III watersheds. 

Watersheds that are highest priority for watershed improvement are those that have water quality 

impairment, those that have the greatest threat to riparian health and aquatic habitat conditions, 

and/or those that have partnership opportunities to accomplish work. Priority watersheds 

needing restoration are listed in Table WA-2. These watersheds have one or more resource 

concerns such as poor riparian and stream conditions, potential for large wildfires, lack of woody 

debris, channel scour from tie hacking, lack of aspen and beaver habitat. Poor riparian and 

stream conditions are those that have conditions such as high streambank instability, areas with a 

lot of trampling within riparian areas, or low vegetative cover. 

Future trends 

Water supply will become a more critical issue as population increases in the communities 

adjacent to the Forest. Water rights held by the Forest Service will become important in meeting 

management goals such as maintaining adequate stream flows for healthy riparian areas and 

developing recreation sites. As snowmaking increases at ski resorts, water withdrawals during 

critical base flow periods will require alternative methods of diversion to ensure that ecosystems 

and fisheries are maintained downstream. 

In Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, water quality will continue to be a concern as runoff 

from mining sites carries toxic pollutants downstream. Sediment sources such as roads and 

diversion ditches will continue to require regular maintenance to ensure that water quality is not 

adversely affected. OHV/ATV use will increase dramatically on the forest and will result in 

watershed damage where it is not managed and confined to suitable areas and designated trails. 

Oil and gas development, with its potential for affecting surface and ground water, will require 

inspections to protect these resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 29 

Table GEO-2. Wasatch-Cache National Forest High Priority Watersheds Needing Restoration 

Fifth Code 

Watershed 

Subwatersheds with 

Resource Concerns Resource Concerns 

1404010606 West Fork Beaver Creek Fire exclusion, potential for large fires, lack of 

woody debris 

1404010706 West Smiths Fork headwaters Channel scour form tie hacking 

1404010706 Willow Creek Lack of aspen resulting in lack of quality 

riparian and beaver habitat 

1404010707 East Fork Blacks Fork area 

Erosion on sheep driveway and channel scour 

from tie hacking, poor beaver habitat from fire 

exclusion and livestock. 

1404010707 Lower Blacks Fork River area Gully system and poor riparian conditions 

from grazing 

1404010803 West Fork Muddy Creek Riparian impacts from grazing 

1601010101 Hayden Fork Channel scour from tie hacking, roads near 

stream in Gold Hill area 

1601010101 West Fork Bear River Extensive off road vehicle trails, poor soil 

productivity 

1601010102 Mill Creek area (Bear River 

drainage) 

Channel scour from tie hacking, roads near 

stream 

1601010105 Upper Woodruff Creek (Wheeler 

Ck) 

Poor soil productivity and ground cover, poor 

stream stability, lack of beaver habitat 

1601010105 Sugar Pine Canyon Poor soil productivity and ground cover, poor 

stream stability, lack of beaver habitat 

1601020101 Laketown Canyon Poor soil productivity and ground cover, poor 

stream stability, lack of beaver habitat 

1601020301 Right Hand Fork Logan Canyon Poor riparian conditions from roads 

1601020302 North Logan area Poor riparian conditions from roads and water 

pipeline in Green Canyon bottom 

1601020303 Saddle Creek Poor riparian conditions from roads and 

grazing 

1601020303 Left Hand Fork Blacksmith Fork Poor riparian conditions from roads and 

grazing 

1601020303 Providence/Millville area Poor riparian conditions from roads, gravel 

quarry, and heavy ATV and 4X4 use 

1601020304 South Fork Little Bear River Poor ground cover conditions from roads, and 

heavy ATV and 4X4 use 

1601020405 Box Elder Creek Poor riparian and upland conditions from 

roads, grazing, and OHV use 

1602010101 Swifts Canyon to Stillman Creek 

area 

Poor riparian conditions from roads, grazing, 

and OHV use 

1602010206 North drainages of Causey 

Reservoir (Wheatgrass Ck) 

Poor riparian conditions from roads, grazing, 

and OHV use 

1602020301 Upper Provo/Soapstone area Poor stream stability below Duchesne Tunnel 

from water augmentation. 

1602020401 Mill Creek (SLC front) Poor riparian conditions from use in 

developed recreation sites. 

1602030403 East Hickman Canyon Poor upland conditions from OHV use 

1602030404 East Stansbury Mountains area Poor upland conditions from OHV use and 

poor riparian conditions near dev rec sites 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 30 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

Management activities affecting watershed processes are described in terms of their potential to 

increase erosion and sediment yields, their ability to alter the physical, chemical, or biological 

properties of both soil and water, or by their influence on the timing or magnitude of surface 

water runoff. Management activities may directly or indirectly impact riparian and wetland 

habitats, resulting in impacts to channel stability, water quality, and aquatic habitat quality. 

Impacts to stream channels, floodplains and wetlands may also lead to increased flooding 

downstream by reducing the capacity of floodplains to store floodwaters and increasing the rate 

of watershed runoff. Most of the management activities on the WCNF have the potential to 

impact water quality and quantity. Some of these activities have the potential to increase the 

magnitude of the relatively small but frequently occurring floods to which natural stream 

channels are adapted and which control the form and dimension of the channel (Wolman et al. 

1960, Andrews 1980). Activities that influence the rate of watershed runoff and the resulting 

magnitude of individual flood peaks can have long-term impacts on channel stability leading to 

increased bank erosion, channel degradation, and sedimentation in alluvial channels. Individual 

activities generally do not, by themselves, result in this kind of change, depending on their 

severity, but the impacts of multiple management activities over long time periods can. This is 

very important in central and northern Utah where large floods occur periodically that are much 

greater in magnitude than the average of floods in all other years. In northern Utah, the 

recurrence interval of large floods has been approximately 30 years. Such floods can cause 

significant damage and channel change in streams previously impacted by land management 

activities and potentially result in changes in riparian habitat, increased erosion and loss of 

aquatic habitats. 

Many activities on the forest result in mechanical ground disturbance that reduces vegetative 

ground cover and exposes soils to wind and water erosion. Where activities involve heavy 

equipment, compaction and rutting of soils can occur. The short-term effect of these changes is 

to cause increases in runoff and sediment delivery to surface waters. Where these effects are 

prolonged in duration, a degradation of long-term soil productivity will occur. Fine sediments are 

the primary agent responsible for reduced water quality in forested watersheds. Fine sediments 

reduce water clarity and increase turbidity. Sediments reduce the quality of aquatic habitat by 

filling gravel interstices, affecting fish as well as aquatic insects and other life. Increased fine 

sediment loads result in reduced water and oxygen flow in spawning gravels that, in turn, result 

in reduced spawning success in cold-water fish. 

Many management strategies can, at least partially, alleviate these adverse effects. Providing 

adequate road maintenance, improving road drainage, and removing or re-aligning damaging 

road segments can greatly reduce the adverse impacts of roads. Changes in grazing management 

strategies, such as those developed over the last 20 to 30 years, allowing for retention of ground 

vegetation and protection of riparian areas can also result in improved stream channel and 

aquatic habitat conditions. Streamside buffer zones protect channel stability and water quality by 

maintaining the integrity and function of riparian and wetland areas. Minimizing ground 

disturbance in riparian areas and on hill slopes protects soils from erosion, avoids compaction, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 31 

preserves soil organic matter, all of which help reduce excess erosion and runoff. Dispersing 

activities such as timber harvest over time and space can allow natural recovery processes to take 

place. 

Issues 

There are three issues tracked through effects analysis on soil and water resources. They are, soil 

productivity, water quality, and water yield. There are eight principle categories of management 

activities generally having the potential to affect one or more of the three issues. Of the eight 

categories discussed below, most have no potential to affect water yield. Only one, “Timber 

Harvest/Vegetation Management” discusses this issue. All eight have the potential to affect soil 

productivity and water quality, and those issues are discussed throughout. No impacts to 

geologic resources have been identified from activities expected to take place on the WCNF in 

the next planning period. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Roads and Access Management 

Roads represent a total commitment of the ability of the soil resource to support vegetation 

communities. In the absence of extensive restoration efforts, even temporary roads or timber 

harvest skid trails will result in a loss of long-term soil productivity. System roads create an 

irretrievable loss of the soil resource, while temporary and non-system roads can cause a similar 

loss if not closed and restored to productive condition. 

Roads modify natural drainage networks and accelerate erosion processes resulting in increased 

stream sedimentation, degraded aquatic habitats and altered channel morphology. Road impacts 

increase as they become more hydrologically connected to the natural channel network (Jones et 

al. 1996). Roads and their drainage systems typically act to intercept surface and subsurface 

runoff and route excess runoff into the channel system (Hauge et al. 1979, Megahan 1972), 

resulting in both increased stream flows (Harr et al. 1975) and increased sediment delivery to 

streams (Wemple et al. 1996). Especially in steep terrain, roads increase the rate of hill slope 

failures and soil mass wasting (Swanston et. al. 1976, Swanston 1991). Fine sediments can be 

delivered to natural streams by erosion of road surfaces as well as from non-vegetated road cut 

and fill surfaces (Reid et al. 1984). Roads impact aquatic habitats by limiting fish passage 

through culverts at road-stream crossings (Furniss et al. 1991) and increasing fine sediment in 

spawning gravels which in turn reduces dissolved oxygen levels and sub-surface stream flow and 

results in reduced spawning success by salmonids (Bjornn et al. 1991, Phillips et al. 1975). 

Some of the effects of roads can be mitigated by design changes that disperse, rather than 

concentrate road runoff by gravel surfacing (Burroughs et al. 1989, Furniss et al. 1991), seasonal 

road closures to protect roads without gravel surfaces from use during adverse weather, or by 

designating undisturbed protective buffers along streams to allow filtering of fine sediments 

(Roby et al. 1977). The effectiveness of streamside buffers generally increases with width, but 

the impacts of large-scale or chronic disturbances can still impact streams, even with relatively 

wide and intact buffer strips. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 32 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This section describes effects on soils and water from travel management of existing roads and 

trails. Soil erosion and sedimentation from new road building for timber sales and oil and gas 

exploration and development are described in sections Effects on Soil and Water Resources from

Timber Harvest/Vegetation/Fuels Treatment and Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Oil 

and Gas Activities 

Based on past road maintenance, about 23 percent of the WCNF roads have been maintained. 

Some of these roads are intentionally not maintained because some users desire a rough driving 

experience. Many of the roads that are not maintained have a cobble or gravel surface that do 

not have an adverse effect on soil and water conditions. Generally, road maintenance is done on 

roads with the highest use and helps to minimize erosion and sedimentation into streams from 

these roads by providing proper drainage from the road. The remaining WCNF roads are not 

maintained and some of these contribute sediment to streams. New roads would be designed to 

minimize erosion and would be located to provide a buffer from streams. 

During the last 15 years about 148 miles of road have been decommissioned, which is a rate of 

about 10 miles per year. Road decommissioning is anticipated to continue under all alternatives 

at a similar rate. The main difference between alternatives is the additional decommissioning of 

roads and motorized trails in recommended wilderness (Prescription Number 1.5). With respect 

to roads and trails, Alternative 1 would improve soil and water conditions the fastest by closing 

to motorized use and decommissioning 2 miles of existing roads and about 76 miles of motorized 

trails. In Alternative 2, about 7 miles of trails would be closed to motorized use and be 

decommissioned. In the long-term, these roads and trails will revegetate and soil erosion would 

be negligible. Alternatives 3 through 7 would have no roads or trails closing to motorized use 

and decommissioning in recommended wilderness (Prescription Number 1.5) and would not 

improve soil and water conditions from this activity. Since all alternatives would decommission 

some roads and rehabilitate trails that are currently in poor condition there would be an 

improvement in soil and water conditions with respect to roads and trails for each alternative. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Timber Harvest/Vegetation 

Treatment 

Timber harvest can impact stream flows by altering the water balance within a watershed or by 

affecting the rate at which water moves from hillsides to stream channels. Removal of 

vegetation in forested watersheds alters the watershed response to precipitation by reducing 

interception, evaporation and transpiration and increasing water storage and runoff. 

Opportunities to increase water yield are greater in forests associated with higher precipitation, 

and higher precipitation is associated with higher elevations in the western US. Research 

treatments aimed at increasing water yield have been applied to large portions of relatively small 

watersheds, generally less than one square mile in size. In these small watersheds, any increases 

in water yield generally occur during the wettest time periods. Studies by Hibbert suggest that 

the increase is a uniform percentage on the hydrograph over the range of flows investigated. 

This means that if low flows were increased in one study by 15% for significant treatments then 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 33 

flood peaks also increased by 15%. In areas much greater than one square mile, realities of 

generating significant water yield are limited by land ownership, land allocation, vegetation 

types, variable elevations and aspects, and other multiple resource needs (USDA Forest Service 

2002d). 

The USFS publication, Water & the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2000j) responds to the 

question “Can Forests be Managed to Improve Stream Flow? It states that: 

Flooding and sedimentation from cutover lands was one of the primary reasons for 

establishing national forests. The timing of water yields was also an important issue, 

especially the desire to augment late-season flows. 

Vegetation cover and on-site control measures effectively reduce flood peaks. 

However, significant shifts in the timing of late-season runoff are not likely to be 

achieved through managing forest vegetation and snow across national forest lands. 

Treatments that restore slopes, meadows, and channels; increase the routing time 

between precipitation and runoff; and recharge ground waters can be expected to have a 

greater effect in sustaining late-season flows. 

Although theory suggests that vegetation management can produce more streamflow, 

for a variety of reasons, general water yield increases through forest management are 

likely to fall in an undetectable range. The data suggest that relying on augmentation 

from national forests will not be viable strategy for dealing with water shortages. 

Reducing water consumption, and improving conservation, can make greater gains and 

establish water markets to allocate scarce supplies more sufficiently. 

Direct effects on soils include increased surface soil displacement and compaction from 

disturbance by road construction, log skidding, log landing construction and burning of logging 

slash after timber harvest (Christner et al. 1982, Harr 1983). Full tree skidding during harvest to 

a centralized log landing can serve to concentrate limbs and branches, and remove a source of 

valuable nutrients from the harvest area. The net result of detrimental soil disturbances can be an 

indirect loss in long –term soil productivity. The greatest ground disturbance per unit area 

usually is done by ground-based skidding equipment, where logs are hauled across the soil to 

landing areas. Yarding schemes which cause less ground disturbance than ground-based 

skidding have usually not been employed due to a local lack of alternative types of equipment, 

although availability is also affected by local economics. Slope instability and landslides may 

increase following timber harvest due to lost root strength within the soil mantle (Swanson et al. 

1976, Furniss 1991). Consequently, timber harvest and associated roads, skid trails, and landings 

can adversely affect water quality by increasing sedimentation, associated nutrient loadings, and 

decreasing dissolved oxygen.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The largest effect from timber harvest is from road building activities associated with the 

removal of the timber. These new roads represent a permanent loss of productive soil acres. 

Thus, there is a permanent conversion to non-productive ground during the life of the road. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 34 

When the roads are not to be used for timber harvest they would be decommissioned and the 

soils would regain their productivity. Alternative 1 is expected to have no adverse effects to soil, 

water and air resources from new road construction because no new roads are allowed. In 

Alternatives 2, 6, and 7, some short-term erosion from roads is expected because about 6 miles 

(10 acres) to 7 miles (12 acres) of new road is anticipated for timber harvest activities. 

Alternative 3 would have a greater potential for short-term soil erosion and sedimentation 

because 39 miles (66 acres) of new road construction for timber sales is anticipated. Alternatives 

4 and 5 have the highest potential for short- and long-term soil erosion and sedimentation 

because it is estimated that about 49 miles (83 acres) of new road construction would be needed 

over the planning period. Roads constructed under Alternatives 4 and 5 will be needed to support 

future harvest activities (prescription 5.2), and would likely be left open longer than in other 

Alternatives. In the long-term, potential soil erosion will be much less under Alternatives 2, 6, 

and 7 since new roads in prescriptions other than 5.2 would likely be closed soon after the 

vegetation treatments are completed. 

Some soil erosion and compaction is likely to occur from the harvest of timber, and would 

increase roughly in proportion to the acres proposed for harvest under each alternative. The 

acres proposed for harvest include aspen/conifer vegetation treatment and aspen/conifer 

commercial harvest from MPC 5.2. Accordingly, with a predicted harvest on about 12,500 in 

Alternative 4 and 15,500 acres in Alternative 5 during the planning period, these Alternatives are 

expected to have the highest potential for soil erosion and compaction. Alternatives 2, 3 and 7, 

with a predicted harvest between 6,500 and 8,500 acres, will have less potential for soil erosion 

and compaction than Alternatives 4 and 5, but slightly more than Alternative 6 with harvest 

levels estimated at about 5,000 acres over the planning period. Effective implementation of Soil 

and Water Conservation Practices would help to minimize these potential effects. No direct 

impact from timber harvest is expected in Alternative 1 because no harvest is allowed. 

A long-term indirect effect of Alternative 1 is the potential for a large fire that could consume 

large contiguous areas of timber since no harvest or vegetation treatment other than wildland fire 

use would be allowed. Large fires could result in extensive areas with low ground cover for at 

least the first year after a fire and would increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation 

of streams. 

An indirect effect of timber harvest is an increase in water yield from reduced evapotranspiration 

of vegetation. On a Forest-wide basis it is not likely that the water yield from any alternative 

will be either measurable or quantifiable. This is because it is not known at the Forest Planning 

level which individual watersheds will have the treatments. Furthermore, only at a site-specific 

level do we know the portions of those watersheds that might be treated (elevation, aspect, time 

of harvest), and those are the precise factors necessary to estimate a water yield. Therefore, at a 

scale as course as the Forest Planning level, the best indicator of possible water yield differences 

between alternatives would be to compare the estimated acres of vegetation removed for the 

vegetation type most likely to effect water yield (aspen/conifer). For this analysis the 

silvicultural treatment for aspen/conifer commercial harvest is assumed to be the same as 

aspen/conifer vegetative treatment. Both treatment types are included for the water yield 

indicator. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 35 

Using acres as an indicator, alternative 5 would have the highest direct potential to increase 

water yield since it treats the most acres of aspen/conifer at 15,500 acres with Alternative 4 being 

similar at 13,500 acres. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 have similar acres treated, ranging from 5,000 

acres to 8,500 acres. No direct effect to water yield from aspen/conifer treatment is expected in 

Alternative 1 since no treatment occurs. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Recreation 

Recreational impacts may include rutting, erosion, and loss of ground cover from user created 

roads and trails; trampling of vegetation; vegetation removal; and soil compaction of streamside 

and upland sites. They may be similar in type, but of a different magnitude, than the impacts 

associated with livestock grazing (Clark et al. 1991). Rutting may increase surface erosion 

associated with heavily used hiking or horse trails and off-road vehicles. High use of some 

campsites may cause root damage in trees, resulting in reduced vigor or mortality. When snow 

packs do not provide adequate cover over-the-snow vehicles can damage vegetation and cause 

ground disturbance. 

Many developed campsites occupy flood plains or are located within riparian areas resulting in 

direct impacts to streamside vegetation and alteration of the establishment mechanisms of 

riparian plants. At many sites, understory vegetation is either greatly reduced or removed 

completely over time, resulting in altered vegetative composition and stand structure as well as 

increased runoff and sediment delivery to adjacent streams and lakes. In the extreme, these 

changes can reduce stream shading, destabilize channels, and degrade water quality. Poor 

sanitary conditions at undeveloped campsites can also impact water quality with increased levels 

of coliform bacteria resulting from bathing, dishwashing, etc. Fishing may directly affect aquatic 

habitats in areas where recreation use and fishing pressure is highest, resulting in reduced fish 

populations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In Alternative 1, no new recreation development will be allowed and existing developed 

recreation sites would be maintained. Since management of developed sites is allowed, no new 

motorized recreation is allowed, and no new sites are allowed, Alternative 1 would result in the 

fastest improvement in soil and water conditions of all the alternatives. For Alternatives 2 

through 7, effects on soil and water resources would be the same from projected recreation 

outputs of 2 new developed sites and 10 recreation sites maintained or rehabilitated during the 

planning period. 

In all alternatives, OHV use is expected to increase along with improper use off of designated 

trails that may adversely affect soil and water resources. Unauthorized OHV use commonly 

occurs in areas alongside designated roads and trails because of immediate access to the area. 

Alternative 1 reduces the potential for unauthorized OHV use the most of all the alternatives by 

closing 2 miles of roads and 76 miles of trails. Alternative 2 reduces the potential by closing 7 

miles of trails. Alternatives 3 through 7 do not reduce the potential because no roads or trails are 

closed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 36 

In Alternatives 5 only, new ski area development and ski area expansion would be allowed at 

several existing ski areas which has the potential for additional erosion and sedimentation from 

road construction, snowmaking system construction, and trail modifications. Water development 

may be needed for snowmaking in expanded ski area, which has the potential to reduce flows in 

streams. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing directly impacts soil infiltration by trampling, soil compaction and loss of 

vegetative cover on both upland and riparian sites. Fecal wastes can increase bacterial 

concentrations in water through livestock defecation in a stream or riparian area. Soil and water 

quality can be indirectly affected by the resulting increased soil runoff and erosion, and sediment 

delivery to adjacent riparian areas and streams (Holechek et al. 2001). Impacts are often greater 

in riparian zones because they are preferred because of the availability of shade, water and more 

succulent vegetation (Platts 1991). Over longer time periods, grazing can result in increased fine 

sediment loads from stream bank erosion, loss of riparian habitats by stream channel widening or 

degradation, and lowering of water tables through channel degradation. 

Changes in grazing management such as rest, implementation of rest-rotation grazing schemes, 

reduced livestock numbers and adherence to forage utilization standards can lead to improved 

range and riparian conditions (Gifford 1975). Grazing may result in low magnitude but long-term 

impacts to aquatic systems, especially from changes in ground cover, species composition, and 

sedimentation rates and are difficult to detect because the aquatic systems themselves are 

dynamic and naturally variable (Platts 1991). In addition, degraded stream channels may remain 

in relatively poor condition for long periods after the original impact due to the way that 

sediment is stored and routed through natural channels making it difficult to identify the 

principal cause of degradation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Between alternatives, the effects on soil and water resources from range management are similar 

in most alternatives because the 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment will apply to all 

alternatives. There are a few key differences between Alternatives for watershed effects 

including the relative amounts and likelihood of success with implementation of removal of or 

differential forage use of areas in unsatisfactory condition, and the relative number and acreages 

of vacant allotments closed. 

Alternative 7 includes a lower forage utilization guideline for key species in uplands and riparian 

areas that are in unsatisfactory condition making likelihood of improving these areas somewhat 

higher than Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 which remove these areas from the suitable land 

classification and Alternatives 4 and 5 which depend on future site-specific analysis to identify 

approaches to improving these areas. Alternative 2 would have the greatest reduction in the 

amount of area suitable for grazing, with subtraction of unsatisfactory condition areas as well as 

26,000 acres for cutthroat trout management. Since livestock grazing could be removed from 

these contiguous watershed areas, improvements to soil and water resources would have a high 

probability. Changes to soil and water conditions expected from unsatisfactory condition 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 37 

capable acres removed (in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6) would be variable 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 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. Given that acres for this analysis 

were extrapolated forest-wide from areas with monitoring, the relative proportions of the above 

conditions are unknown. There would likely be a range of improvement probability that can 

only be predicted with site-specific assessment. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would result in this 

range of improvement on a total of 18,300 upland and riparian acres and Alternative 3 would 

result in 2,100 acres with a range of improvement on riparian acres. The Revised Forest Plan 

also guides future allotment management plans and annual operating instructions to consider 

standards for bank trampling and riparian woody utilization. 

Although currently vacant allotments are available for use in several alternatives, vacant 

allotments are not likely to be filled any time soon because of the limited budget available to 

complete analyses for and administer active grazing allotments. Therefore, the short-term onthe-ground consequences of these alternatives would be similar to closure- i.e. the vacant 

allotments would remain in ungrazed condition. Given this, closure of vacant allotments is 

considered only as a long-term effect. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the most long-term 

watershed benefits closing all vacant allotments. Alternative 7 provides somewhat less longterm watershed benefits than 1 and 2 because it focuses closures only on Salt Lake and Davis 

County watersheds and on the three allotments in the Eastern Uinta Mountains Management 

Area. Alternative 6 provides the long-term benefits for these three allotments but not for the 

other vacant allotment areas. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 do not close vacant allotments thus not 

providing for long-term benefits although as explained above, short-term the allotments would 

likely continue to remain in ungrazed condition accruing those benefits for the short-term. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Hard-Rock Mineral Development 

Within the administrative boundary of the WCNF, hard-rock mining has occurred primarily in 

Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons east of Salt Lake City and in the Stansbury Mountains. 

Most of the mines are historic, abandoned, and located on private land within the Forest 

administrative boundary. Hard-rock mining can contaminate water through acid mine drainage, 

toxic metals, chemical processing agents, and erosion and sedimentation (Da Rosa, et al. 1997). 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Currently, no hard-rock mining sites have been identified that have shown contamination of soil 

or water resources where remedial action is necessary on lands under the jurisdiction of the 

WCNF. Based on development trends on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest during the 

previous 20 years, no new hard-rock operations are anticipated during the next planning period. 

If sites are found that contaminate soil and/or water resources, Alternative 1 would not allow for 

cleanup of the site. All alternatives will allow remedial action and protection of soil and water 

resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 38 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Oil and Gas Activities

This section provides a description of potential general effects on soils, water, riparian, and 

wetland, steep slopes and geologic areas from oil and gas exploration and development. This 

section is organized by general effects and effects by each alternative. General effects are 

described as potential without protective or reclamation measures employed. 

General Effects 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal Settlement 

Zone” described in Topic 9 – Oil and Gas. It is estimated to be about 68,300 acres. 

Steep Slopes and Geologic Hazards – Although the direct impacts to steep slopes and 

geologically unstable areas as a result of oil and gas construction activities are not significant in 

and of themselves, conditions are created that cause significant impacts to surface resources and 

resource uses. Construction activities in steep slope areas result in the direct removal and loss of 

soil from steep sidehill cuts or the sidecasting of earth materials onto undisturbed slopes, lost 

vegetation, alteration of soil structures, soil compaction, and loss of topsoil resources. Surface 

disturbing activities in unstable areas and steep slopes increase surface water runoff, accelerate 

erosion, interfere with drainage systems, increase landslide and rockfall potentials. The potential 

for long-term mass movement, exposure of underlying materials, and erosion are increased 

significantly on unstable landslide and rock-fall areas. 

Locating well sites, roads, pipelines, and similar type facilities on steep slopes greatly increases 

the height of cuts and length of fills that are needed to provide sufficient room to accommodate 

the facility or the use to be made of the site. The increased cuts and fill areas also increase the 

amount of land area subjected to surface disturbance. The steeper the slopes, the greater the area 

affected. Sidehill cuts and fills on slopes greater than 40 percent require extensive highwall cuts 

that cause instability of the upper slopes. Roads and pipelines have the greatest potential to 

intercept and activate or reactivate unstable areas that are susceptible to land slides, rock fall, 

mass slumping and erosion. 

Exploratory drilling is generally only a short term activity and reclamation of disturbed areas 

follows immediately upon completion of activities. Because of the relative short time unstable 

areas are exposed to increased instability, the probability of successful reclamation and 

restoration of stability to the site is increased significantly. If field development and long term 

production of oil and gas are undertaken in areas of steep slopes and other unstable conditions, 

the probability of maintaining longterm stability is significantly reduced. The potential for 

successful reclamation, stabilization and restoration under such conditions is significantly 

reduced. 

Soils and Unstable Soils – Impacts to soil productivity range from the direct removal of 

vegetation and soils, to the burial of topsoil by sidecasting of earth materials onto undisturbed 

surfaces, soil compaction, soil alteration, displacement and loss through erosion. These lead to 

accelerated runoff and erosion, increased sediment loads in streams, alteration of drainage 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 39 

systems and reduced water quality. Impacts resulting from soil loss would be significant if 

reclamation measures are not employed. 

Most soil losses associated with oil and gas developments occur during the construction of well 

pads, roads and pipelines. The degree to which soils are impacted from oil and gas activities 

depends on the type of soils and topographic conditions at the construction sites. Unstable soils 

are particularly sensitive to road, well pad and pipeline construction. Overall, the chance for 

significant soil impacts occurring is much higher in areas of inherently unstable soils. 

Impacts to soils from exploratory drilling activities are generally short-term because access roads 

and well pads operate only long enough to determine the viability of long-term production. 

Should a discovery of oil and gas occur, the impacts to the soil resources will increase 

significantly as a result of the construction activities needed to accommodate the well sites, 

access roads, pipelines, gas processing plants, tank batteries, and other oil field support 

facilities. Disturbances and loss of soils resulting from development fields is expected to be longterm. 

Surface Water – The potential for greatest impact to water resources would be from a spill of oil 

or release of other pollutants directly into a stream or water course. Sediment loading of surface 

waters as a result of surface disturbing activities is another potential impact associated with oil 

and gas activities. Downstream effects include lower water quality and diminished aquatic 

habitat effectiveness. Under extreme circumstances, there may be a direct loss of water use, fish, 

waterfowl and other water-dependent animals as well as adverse effects to human health. 

Oil and gas construction activities that involve the removal of vegetation and earth work usually 

result in short-term increases in sediment production when water flows erode exposed soil 

materials. Some local stream reaches may be directly impacted by construction activities at road 

and pipeline crossings. Impacts from increased sedimentation are usually short term and 

insignificant if erosion and sedimentation controls, revegetation, and reclamation are timely 

implemented. 

Ground Water – Impacts to groundwater quality from oil and gas operations may result from 

either unprotected wells during drilling and production or from the intentional or unintentional 

release of contaminates to the environment. Water bearing zones may be encountered and 

penetrated by well bores during drilling. Drilling fluids and saline production water could 

impact fresh water aquifers if properly weighted drilling muds are not used and borings are not 

properly cased and cemented. Oil, drilling muds, fuels, chemicals, saline production water, and 

human biological waste can easily enter groundwater systems during storage, handling, 

transportation and disposal. Leakage from unlined reserve pits, fuel and chemical storage areas, 

and other similar type situations are also potential contaminate sources. 

Riparian and Wetland Areas – Assuming that no protection of wetlands/riparian areas was to be 

undertaken, the principal impacts to wetlands and associated riparian areas would occur during 

clearing and earth-moving operations needed to construct access roads, well pads, and ancillary 

facilities. Direct impacts could include the loss of riparian vegetation, increased erosion, soil 

loss and deterioration of water quality. Secondary or indirect impacts could include loss of plant 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 40 

and animal habitats as well as habitat diversity, alteration of plant communities and biological 

productivity. Impacts to wetland and associated riparian areas would not only include the direct 

removal of riparian vegetation and loss of wetland area, but construction activities outside the 

wetland areas may also disrupt the water sources. Oil and chemical spills could be expected to 

occur at several times during the life of an oil and gas field. These could cause severe and long 

term damage to wetland/riparian ecosystems. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Special lease stipulations affect where exploration and development occur within a lease area. 

Stipulations vary between alternatives and have a direct affect on the potential for erosion and 

sedimentation. For watershed concerns, lease stipulations vary according to how they allow 

activities on unstable soils, geologic hazards, land slopes greater than 40 percent, wetlands 

greater than 40 acres, and riparian areas greater than 40 acres. Table OG-4 lists the lease 

stipulations according to each alternative. 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases not existing ones. In all 

alternatives (except Alt 4) an area of existing leases, 19,000 acres in the Table Top Exploratory 

Unit, could be explored and result in effects to soil and water resources. The degree to which 

exploration is predicted within the Table Top Unit is affected by whether or not new leases could 

be issued and under what stipulations. 

Each alternative has new roads and pads that represent a loss of productive soil acres. Thus, 

there is a conversion to non-productive ground. The total acres for each alternative are presented 

in the individual discussion of each alternative below. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development 

of existing leases within the Table Top Exploratory Unit has an estimated 20 acres converted to 

non-productive ground because of oil and gas exploration activities. Impacts to steep slopes, 

geologic hazards, unstable soils and surface water could result from oil and gas development on 

private minerals. As existing leases terminate, lands would no longer be available for leasing. 

Alternative 2 is very similar to Alternative 1. Again, development of existing leases within the 

Table Top Unit has an estimated 20 acres converted to non-productive ground because of oil and 

gas exploration activities. Once existing leases expire, leasing availability in areas recommended 

for wilderness is precluded. On remaining available acres, new leases could be issued but surface 

occupancy would not be allowed. It is doubtful that development of oil and gas resources would 

be undertaken when adjoining Federal lands are not available for surface occupancy and there is 

no possibility of exploiting oil and gas resources from adjoining lands. 

Steep Slopes and Geologic Hazards – Except in situations where access cannot be denied to 

existing leases or private minerals, no impacts would result from construction on steep slopes or 

other unstable areas if this option were implemented. 

Surface Water, Riparian and Wetland Areas - The potential adverse effects to surface waters, 

riparian and wetland areas would not increase if this leasing option were to be implemented. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 41 

Groundwater – The potential for impacts to occur to the groundwater resources would be 

decreased significantly if this option were to be implemented. Impacts would be limited to those 

that may occur from operations currently being conducted on existing leases or interspersed 

private minerals. 

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 

(Prescription 2.6) and backcountry recreation (Prescription 4.1 and 4.2) values and terrestrial 

habitat (Prescription 3.2). Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed above 

with stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,400 acres are available 

under Standard Lease Terms. Oil and gas exploration and development activities have an 

estimated 75 acres converted to non-productive ground. Some of this development is predicted 

on existing leases within the Table Top Unit. The degree of effects depends on the leasing terms 

applied. Refer to Alternative 2 for a description of effects from No Surface Occupancy and 

Alternative 5 for a description of effects from Standard Lease Terms. 

Geologic hazards and unstable soils are leased with a Controlled Surface Use stipulation. 

The stipulation would require that activities be located so as to avoid or minimize impacts to 

these areas, and the design and reclamation plans for the activities provide for mitigation. 

However, it may not be possible in all cases to totally avoid geologic hazard areas unavoidable 

impacts could still occur from the construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and plant sites in 

these areas. Slope failures, erosion, topsoil displacement and loss and sedimentation of streams 

could still occur. Impacts from exploratory drilling would expected to be insignificant and short 

term under this leasing option, however, impacts may be significant and long term if an oil and 

gas field were to be developed. Because this alternative allows occupancy, the chances for 

significant adverse impacts have not been totally eliminated. 

Soils and Unstable Soils – Because the CSU stipulation specifies avoidance and reclamation of 

unstable soil areas, disturbances occurring under this alternative would be low and short term for 

exploration activities and moderate and long term for oil and gas field development and 

production. Increased protection of unstable soil areas reduces the probability that significant 

adverse impacts would occur. Soil losses in highly erodable soil areas would be minimized and 

may be held within acceptable limits provided that the use is made of effective erosion control, 

reclamation, and revegetation practices as well as appropriate engineering design of roads and 

well pads. The impacts to the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas is not 

expected to be significant. 

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 to soil and water resources are predicted. 

Alternative 5 would provide for leasing with standard lease terms and therefore provide the 

greatest opportunity for full field development. Oil and gas exploration and development 

activities have an estimated 105 acres converted to non-productive ground. Some of the effects 

could last 20-30 years because of field development. Other mitigation measures that could be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 42 

required as conditions of approval could include moving the site up to 200 meters (656 feet) if 

the site could be better located. 

Steep Slopes and Geologic Hazards – If steep slopes and geological instability are found to 

occupy very large areas, the lessee may not be able to move a sufficient distance to avoid 

occupying such areas. There are also situations where unstable and steep slope areas, when 

taken together with other protected areas, result in combined areas to large to require avoidance. 

When these areas cannot be avoided, reliance would have to be placed on special construction 

and reclamation techniques to mitigate impacts. Under the circumstances, this alternative is the 

least restrictive and offers the greatest potential for significant adverse impacts to occur. 

Soils and Unstable Soils – Under this option, mitigation of impacts to soils will be required as a 

condition of approval. It may be required that wellsites, roads, tank batteries, pipelines etc. be 

located at the most topographically suitable locations available consistent with the terms of the 

lease. In unstable soils areas, special measures such as contouring, terracing, gouging, scarifying, 

and installation of waterbreaks, may be needed to provide additional site stability before 

reclamation. 

Under normal soil conditions, most impacts to soil resources and soil related impacts can be 

satisfactorily mitigated under the standard lease terms, however, when steep slopes or unstable 

soil areas cannot be avoided, the impacts may be unavoidable, longterm, irrepairable, and 

unacceptable. This leasing option is the least restrictive and offers the greatest potential for 

significant adverse impacts to unstable soils. It can be expected that this leasing option will have 

a low, short-term impact to soils under normal soil conditions but high, long-term impacts when 

unstable soil conditions cannot be avoided. Impacts to soils would be low to high and short term 

for exploration activities and moderate to high and long term if oil and gas field were 

undertaken. 

Surface Water – Although this leasing option appears to have the highest potential to result in 

adverse impacts to surface waters, compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing State 

and Federal regulations is mandatory. Under most circumstances, undesirable locations for well 

sites and other facilities can be avoided, and operations can be delayed to avoid undesirable 

weather and field conditions that would result in accelerated erosion and increased sediment 

production. Under this leasing option, adverse effects to surface waters including increases in 

runoff from drill sites and access roads. Increased stream sediment derived from construction 

activities cannot be totally eliminated but can be substantially mitigated. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that oil and gas production and storage 

facilities have adequate spill protection documented in the Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan. Although threat of water contamination from oil spillage cannot be totally 

avoided; a well-devised spill plan may prevent serious damage, should a spill occur. 

It would be expected that potential impacts would be low and short-term for exploratory 

activities and low-to-moderate and long-term for oil and gas field development and operation. 

Impacts should be minor and temporary from construction activities if erosion control measures 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 43 

and reclamation are undertaken immediately after construction. There would be no irretrievable 

commitment of water resources under this leasing option. 

Ground Water – It is anticipated that the potential for impacts to groundwater to occur would be 

low for a single well and moderate for oil field development and operations. If substantial 

alteration of the groundwater quality were to occur, it would be a long-term impact and, for all 

practical purposes, irreversible. However, it is not anticipated that an irritrievable commitment 

of groundwater resources would occur under this alternative. Existing requirements in the 

regulations governing the drilling of wells, disposal of produced water provide sufficient 

opportunities to assure that impacts to groundwater would not occur. 

Riparian and Wetland Areas - Wetlands are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Under the requirements of the Act, jurisdictional wetlands and coincidental riparian areas are to 

be avoided whenever possible and the impacts mitigated when avoidance is not possible. A 

permit is required to occupy or otherwise affect a “jurisdictional” wetland/riparian area. The 

permit is normally conditioned on the protection or replacement of the wetland/riparian resource. 

However, because occupancy of all wetland/riparian areas is not precluded by existing law or 

lease terms, there is no guarantee that the potential impacts described under the General Effects 

section would not occur. Oil and gas activities in wetland/riparian areas may still occur and 

result in the loss of wetlands and associated riparian areas, including special wildlife and native 

plant habitats. Wetlands could also be adversely affected by an increase in sedimentation, and 

decreased water quality, and changes to existing drainage patterns and flows. 

In Alternative 6, leasing availability in areas recommended for wilderness is precluded in the 

future. 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 

renewed in areas managed for motorized recreation values and terrestrial habitat. Oil and gas 

exploration and development activities have an estimated 75 acres converted to non-productive 

ground. Some of this development is predicted on existing leases within the Table Top Unit. In 

this alternative geologic hazards and wetlands and riparian areas over 40 acres are protected in 

new leases with no surface occupancy so the effects to soil and water resources are similar to 

Alternative 2. 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for wilderness. On the 

remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 27,000 

acres. Oil and gas exploration and development activities have an estimated 85 acres converted 

to non-productive ground. Some development (included in the 85 acre estimate) is predicted 

within the Table Top Unit because of existing leases and new leases being offered with surface 

occupancy. 

Similar to Alternative 3, geologic hazards and unstable soils are leased with a Controlled Surface 

Use stipulation. The stipulation would require that activities be located so as to avoid or 

minimize impacts to these areas, and the design and reclamation plans for the activities provide 

for mitigation. However, it may not be possible in all cases to totally avoid geologic hazard 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 44 

areas, unavoidable impacts could still occur from the construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, 

and plant sites in these areas. Increased protection of unstable soil areas reduces the probability 

that significant adverse impacts would occur. Soil losses in highly erodable soil areas would be 

minimized and may be held within acceptable limits provided that use is made of effective 

erosion control, reclamation, and revegetation practices as well as appropriate engineering design 

of roads and well pads. The impacts of exploration, development, and production of oil and gas 

is not expected to be significant. 

Areas available for surface occupancy with more stable soil conditions would be leased with 

standard lease terms. Soil and water conservation practices would be applied to any soil 

disturbing activities caused by the developments. It is expected that through implementation of 

these practices that erosion and sedimentation would be minimized from these activities. 

Wetlands and riparian areas greater than 40 acres are available for leasing but with no surface 

occupancy. Water quality should be adequately protected because compliance with the Clean 

Water Act and implementing State and Federal regulations is mandatory. 

Further impacts to the vegetation could occur as a result of the development of private minerals. 

Oil and gas activities on lands with private minerals are not required to meet Forest Plan 

standards. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Fire Management/Fuels 

Treatments 

Fire consumes vegetation, partially or completely removes ground cover and may or may not 

result in the formation of water repellant soil layers, depending on soil temperatures during the 

burn and the characteristics of the local vegetation and soils (Debano et. al. 1966). Fires may 

result in increased stream flows following fires due to removal of vegetation and decreases in 

evapo-transpiration (Helvey 1980). The magnitude of impact on watershed processes is 

dependent on physical and biologic attributes of individual watersheds and on the severity of the 

fire. Low severity fires, by definition, have little long term effect on ecosystem functions, and in 

fact can be beneficial to soil and water quality by reducing fuels buildup and the potential for 

higher severity fires. For some vegetation types (i.e. lodgepole pine, spruce-fir forests) stand 

replacement fires were part of the normal historic range of variability. However, some 

vegetation types have changed due to the exclusion of fire (i.e. oak brush, sagebrush, Douglasfir) and current fires in these types are typically severe and the effects are outside of the historic

range of variability. Currently, high severity fires in these vegetation types alter above ground 

vegetation, soil organic material, and litter to such an extent that watershed properties such as 

runoff, erosion, and sedimentation are pushed far outside the normal range of variability (Durgin, 

1985). In central and northern Utah, areas impacted by moderate to high severity fire are 

particularly susceptible to high-intensity summer thunderstorms which can produce extreme 

surface erosion, debris flows, or landslides that, in turn, have the potential to impact downstream 

property, especially along the Wasatch Front. Erosion rates after large high severity fires may be 

elevated above background levels by more than a factor of 200 immediately after the fire (Morris 

et. al. 1987) and, in extreme cases, may persist for decades following a fire. Under controlled 

circumstances, fire use and mechanical treatments can modify existing vegetation or reduce 

excess fuel loadings that could otherwise lead to a high severity fire. In most of the forested 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 45 

areas of Utah the role of fire in maintaining forest ecosystems has been greatly altered by 

aggressive fire suppression efforts since around 1900. This may have provided near-term 

protection to local watersheds from the effects of severe fires, but it has also led to a buildup of 

fuels that makes the possibility of such fires more likely. 

Effects of mechanical treatments on soil and water resources may vary greatly. Activities such 

as cutting by hand with a chain saw, crushing, or chipping have very little impact on the soils and 

may improve ground cover. Activities such as cutting using tracked equipment and chaining 

using a bulldozer and chain may cause some short-term soil erosion from soil disturbance from 

ruts left by the tracks and/or chains or from lack of ground cover left on site when vegetation is 

removed. Chemical treatments or biological treatments may cause short-term erosion from lack 

of ground cover until vegetation establishes itself again. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Several general effects are expected to soil and water resources from fire management and fuel 

treatments. For every Alternative, short-term soil erosion and sedimentation could occur from 

fuels treatments. In oak communities over the long-term, Alternatives 2 through 7 will reduce 

adverse effects to soil and water resources from wildfire by treating oak under prescribed fire 

conditions and mechanical treatment with the objective of reducing the potential for severe, 

unwanted wildland fire in this vegetation type. In conifer, wildfire potential and subsequent 

adverse effects to soils and water resources are expected to increase over the long term because 

the amount of vegetation treatment (prescribed fire and mechanical) is so little compared to the 

total amount of forested area. 

Wildland fire use is allowed under all alternatives on most areas of the Forest and its use will not 

vary by alternative. There is a wide range of effects that could occur from wildland fire use. It is 

expected that very little adverse effects will occur to soil and water resources because wildland 

fire use will be managed to cause low impacts to resources. However, there is a potential that 

wildland fire could exceed a trigger point that would put the fire into a suppression mode and 

higher impacts to soil and water resources may occur. 

Benefits to soil and water resources from the use of fire and fuel treatments will be seen in 

Alternatives 2-7 on the small watershed scale. In a few watersheds, treatments will substantially 

reduce the risk of high severity burns. In the short-term, some increase in soil erosion and 

sedimentation may occur from prescribed fire in these smaller watersheds in Alternatives 2-7. 

For the comparison of alternatives, the effects of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments on 

soil and water resources are considered very similar because both of these activities have the 

potential for ground disturbance, ground cover reduction, and erosion; these treatments are 

expected to be done at times when impacts to soil resources are the least such as mechanical 

treatments when the soil is dry and prescribed fire and wildland fire use when soils and weather 

conditions will only cause low soil burn severity. Because site-specific actions are not described 

at the Forest Plan level, the combined treatment area for prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and 

mechanic treatments is used as an indicator of the potential for soil and water effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 46 

In Alternative 1, prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment would have the least effect to 

soils and water because its use is not allowed. In Alternative 2, prescribed fire and mechanical 

treatment have the highest potential to adversely affect soil productivity and erosion because 

these treatments would be used on most acres, about 18,000 acres per year. In Alternatives 3, 6 

and 7, prescribed fire and mechanical treatments have less potential to adversely affect soil 

resources since the amount of treatment is estimated at about 8,200 acres per year. Alternative 4 

has a slightly higher potential to adversely affect soil and water resources since prescribed fire 

and mechanical treatments are expected on about 9,000 acres per year. Of the alternatives with 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, Alternative 5 would have the least potential to 

adversely affect soil and water resources because less area is treated, being about 4,500 acres per 

year. Effective implementation of Soil and Water Conservation Practices, particularly those that 

minimize severe burns, avoid heavy equipment in riparian areas, and distribute fire use both 

temporally and spatially, would help to minimize these potential effects. 

Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Water Developments 

Hydrologic effects of water development include, flow depletion, flow augmentation, and 

flow regulation downstream of dams and reservoirs. Flow depletions can result in lost 

riparian habitat and reductions in fish populations and aquatic habitats. In-channel 

structures fragment habitats by blocking fish migration or by dewatering sections of 

streams. Increased stream flow can result in altered channel form, channel widening, bed 

aggradation, or increased channel migration rates, all of which can lead to lost riparian 

vegetation and increases in sediment loads (Dominick et. al. 1998). Numerous streams 

are diverted at or near the Forest boundary for use in irrigation, or for domestic water 

supplies. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The impacts to soil and water resources from existing permitted or authorized water 

developments will not vary by alternative. Under all alternatives, access and maintenance of 

these water development facilities will continue to be allowed. 

The effects on soil and water resources from new water developments varies by alternative 

according restrictions on the ability to develop the water. The main restrictions would be from no 

motorized access or ability to build roads in order to construct the water development. The 

potential for new future development of some water sources on the WCNF would be limited by 

recommended wilderness and/or roadless areas because no motorized access is allowed in 

wilderness and no road building is allowed in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6, and in some prescription 

categories in Alternatives 3 and 7. Water development would be restricted the least in 

Alternatives 4 and 5 because they have the least area restricted to road building or access. These 

alternatives have the highest potential for adverse effects on soil and water resources from water 

development. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 47 

Cumulative Effects 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations define cumulative effects as “the impact on 

the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or persons undertakes such actions (40 CFR Section 1508.7)”. The range of 

alternatives considered must include the no-action alternative as a baseline against which to 

evaluate cumulative effects. Cumulative effects result from spatial (geographic) and temporal 

(timing) crowding of environmental perturbations. The effects of human activities will 

accumulate when a second perturbation occurs at a site before the ecosystem can fully rebound 

from the effect of the first perturbation (CEQ, 1997). 

The approach for this analysis is to take a programmatic look at the Forest wide scale of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the WCNF that may positively or negatively 

affect soil and water. The cumulative effects analysis for soil, water, and geologic resources 

considers activities that affect soil and water resources. Since the Forest Plan makes no “on-theground” decisions, the most appropriate indicators for cumulative effects are reflected in the size 

and magnitude of the different resource programs most likely to affect soil and water resources, 

either positively or negatively. 

Issues 

There are three issues tracked through effects analysis on soil and water resources. They are, soil 

productivity, water quality, and water yield. On the WCNF, there are eight principle categories 

of management activities generally having the potential to affect one or more of the three issues. 

Of the eight categories discussed below, most have no potential to affect water yield. Water 

yield is only discussed in relation to Timber Harvest/Vegetation Management activities. All 

eight have the potential to affect soil productivity and water quality, and those issues are 

discussed throughout. No impacts to geologic resources have been identified from activities 

expected to take place on the WCNF in the next planning period. The cumulative effects analysis 

will have a qualitative description of effects to soil productivity, and a qualitative description of 

the potential effects to water quality and yield to describe the cumulative effects of the 

alternatives on soil and water conditions. 

Cumulative Effects Area and Time Frame 

Soil productivity effects are limited spatially to the site. Activities carried out on National Forest 

System lands do not typically affect off-site soil productivity. Therefore, the cumulative effects 

area for soil productivity is limited to the Forest boundary. When water quality is affected by 

increased sedimentation, off site effects can occur. Yet, since the Forest Plan prescribes no 

specific activity in any specific area, potential spatial and temporal effects to water quality 

cannot be attributed to any specific watershed. Cumulative effects to water quality can only be 

described in terms of potential to generally effect trends on a Forest-wide scale. In other words, 

the cumulative effects of a “program” (at the Forest Plan scale) as opposed to the effects from a 

“project” (at the site specific scale) can only be discussed in terms of general programmatic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 48 

tendencies either toward improved or declining water quality at no specific site. Consequently, 

there is no easily defined “area” that may experience cumulative effects beyond the Forest 

boundary. Therefore, the potential cumulative effects from Forest programs to water quality will 

generally be discussed at the Forest scale. 

The time frame for this analysis is the next Forest planning period, about 10 to 15 years from 

now. 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

This section describes the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that may have an 

affect on soil productivity, water quality, and water yield. These include WCNF management 

actions; land use and soil and water management in areas adjacent to the WCNF; and land use, 

development, population, and recreation trends; and state and local government environmental 

protection programs. Table GEO-3 is a summary of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions that may have and affect on soil productivity, water quality, and water yield. 

On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

The management activities on the WCNF that may affect soil productivity, water quality are 

Roads and Access Management; Timber Harvest/Vegetation Treatment; Recreation; Livestock 

Grazing; Hard-Rock Mineral Development; Oil and Gas Activities; Fire Management/ Fuels 

Treatments; and Water Developments. A management activity that may have a substantial affect 

on water yield is Timber Harvest/Vegetation Management activities. 

Several activities on the WCNF have improved soil and water conditions through road and travel 

management. The WCNF has about 1,500 miles of roads. Most of the roads that are maintained 

on an annual basis are main access roads and those that have the most use. Several roads have 

been moved out of riparian areas or decommissioned, and culverts installed in several stream 

channels where ford crossings were causing sedimentation. During the last five years, many 

roads that are graded have had new surfacing such as gravel or oil put on them to reduce the rate 

of road deterioration and has reduced the rate of erosion from the road surface. The maintenance 

and decommissioning of roads are expected to be at similar or slightly increased levels based on 

experienced budget levels. In the next planning period, Level 1 and 2 roads analysis should be 

completed. The travel plan for Evanston/Mt. View Ranger Districts should be ready for 

implementation toward the end 2002 and the travels plans for Ogden and Logan Ranger Districts 

should be completed in the next few years. With the completion of the Evanston/Mt. View 

Ranger Districts travel plan, it will be WCNF policy that roads will be closed unless designated 

open. Travel plans identify roads to remain open, roads to be closed and decommissioned. 

A variety of timber harvest treatments have been used in the past and most harvest units are fully 

stocked. Since the 1940s, timber harvest treatments have occurred on almost 43,000 acres in 44 

sixth code watersheds. Most of the harvest treatments occurred in the Eastern Uintas, Western 

Uintas, and Bear management areas during the 1970s and 80s on about 11-12,000 acres each 

decade. During the 1990s, almost 6,300 acres were harvested. A variety of treatments were used 

and include clearcut, partial cut, selection cut, shelterwood, and aspen chaining. Although there 

are some small areas, such as stream crossings, where small amounts of sedimentation occurs, at 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 49 

Table GEO-3. Summary of the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that may affect 

Soil and Water Resources. 

Actions Issue that 

could be 

Cumulative1

Primary Area Affected 

On Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Road Construction S, W Eastern Uintas, Ogden 

Valley 

Road decommissioning S, W Forest wide 

OHV and ATV use S, W Cache-Box Elder, Bear, 

North Wasatch-Ogden 

Valley, Western Uintas 

Timber Harvest and Vegetation Treatments S, W, WY Eastern Uintas, Western 

Uintas, Bear 

Wildfire S, W Forest wide 

Prescribed Fire and Wildland Fire Use S, W Forest wide 

Developed Recreation Projects S, W Forest wide 

Livestock Grazing S, W Forest wide 

Abandoned Mine Land Cleanup Activities W Central Wasatch 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development S, W Eastern Uintas, Western 

Uintas 

Impaired Waters Assessment and Remediation W Central Wasatch 

Areas Adjacent to the WCNF 

Urban Expansion and Land Development S, W 

Water Development and Planning W 

Population Growth S, W 

OHV and ATV use S, W 

Wasatch Front, Kamas area, 

Bear Lake, upper Bear 

River, Meeks Cabin 

Reservoir, Ogden Valley, 

Cache Valley 

State and Local Government Environmental Protection Programs 

State of Utah W Statewide 

Salt Lake County S, W Salt Lake County 

Salt Lake City S, W Salt Lake City and 

Drainages East of SLC 1

 S = Soil Productivity, W = Water Quality, WY = Water Yield 

present, overall soil productivity and water quality have not been impacted from past harvest 

activities on the WCNF as indicated by the revegetation of treatment areas and streams in these 

drainages meeting state water quality standards. 

The WCNF averages about 60 wildfires per year and 70 percent of the fires are less than 0.1 

acres. The number of large fires (greater than 100 acres) appears to be increasing and the largest 

fire recorded since 1970 is 14,200 acres that occurred in year 2002. The use of prescribed fire 

has been very limited in the past. For the past three years the WCNF has prescribed burned 

about 1,250 acres per year, primarily in aspen stands. Dense, young vegetation has grown back 

quickly and very good ground cover currently occurs under most of the burned treatment areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 50 

These treatments have reduced the potential for wildfire and the potential for adverse effects on 

soil and water conditions resulting from severely burned and hydrophobic soils that occur from 

wildfire. Several areas along the Wasatch Front have high opportunities and needs for fuels 

treatments and it is anticipated that specific treatments, particularly mechanical treatments, will 

be used to treat fuels. 

Many recreation projects have been completed that improve water quality and protect or 

rehabilitate soils. During the last planning period and particularly during the last five years 

leading up to the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, many developed recreation sites have 

been improved by placing asphalt over gravel roads, putting cement pads in campsites, moving 

restrooms away from streams, and installing new restrooms. Hiking and biking trails have been 

relocated away from streams and wet areas, and bridges have been constructed across streams 

channels to protect water quality and aquatic resources. Soil productivity should improve in 

small areas within developed recreation areas due to adjusting the location of picnic sites and 

campsites, and roads in response to wetland concerns during reconstruction and maintenance of 

existing facilities. During developed recreation site reconstruction and maintenance in the last 

planning period, the location of campsites and restroom facilities have been adjusted for the 

protection of wet areas, improvement of soil productivity and water quality. These soil and 

water conservation measures are expected to continue in the future. 

During the last planning period since 1985, off highway vehicle (OHV) and all terrain vehicles 

(ATV) use has increased greatly on the WCNF. OHV use is expected to increase along with 

improper use off of designated trails that may adversely affect soil and water resources. 

Unauthorized OHV use commonly occurs in areas alongside designated roads and trails because 

of immediate access to the area. The highest density of OHV use is in Cache/Box Elder, Bear, 

Western Uintas, and Stansbury management areas. The WCNF has been and will continue to 

close and decommission user-created ATV trails. 

Ski resorts on the WCNF have modified some terrain and cleared vegetation for the purpose of 

improving ski trails, installing snowmaking pipelines, and installing new ski lifts, utility lines, 

and base facilities. The projects were done with specific soil and water conservation measures to 

minimize erosion and sedimentation and onsite inspections showed that these practices were 

effective in minimizing erosion and sedimentation. For example, projects at Snowbasin Ski 

Resort for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games had some of the largest land disturbing activities that 

the WCNF has ever had. The Best Management Practices that were used to minimize impacts on 

soil and water resources were very effective (USDA Forest Service 2001g). Using soil and water 

conservation measures will continue to minimize adverse effects from future activities on the 

WCNF. 

Although livestock numbers on the WCNF have not changed much since the start of the last 

planning period in 1985, some activities have helped manage livestock and improve soil and 

aquatic habitat conditions at specific areas within allotments. In 1996, the Rangeland Health 

Forest Plan Amendment was completed that established a desired future condition for the 

rangeland resource and set standards and guidelines necessary to maintain healthy rangeland. 

Several exclosures have been constructed along riparian areas that have kept livestock from 

trampling stream banks and have increased the overhanging vegetation along the stream. In the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 51 

future, it is expected that additional guidelines will address effects such as stream bank trampling 

and will reduce adverse effects to soils along stream channels and improve water quality. 

Abandoned mine clean up activities has improved soil and water conditions in specific areas on 

the WCNF and future activities have the potential to improve water quality. On the WCNF, 

most hard rock mineral development occurred at the head of Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons 

east of Salt Lake City during the mid to late 1800s and since then, only a small amount of mining 

work has been done. In Little Cottonwood Canyon since the last planning period began in 1985, 

old tailings at the Tanners Flat Campground area have been cleaned up and assessment work on 

zinc sources has been ongoing since 1997, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) has been 

submitted to the USEPA this year, and projects to reduce zinc loading into Little Cottonwood 

Creek will begin next year. No hard rock mining development is expected in the near future. 

During the last planning period, several oil and gas activities have occurred on the WCNF. A 

pipeline was constructed across the WCNF east of Bountiful, Utah. Oil and gas exploration and 

development have occurred on the Evanston and Mt. View Ranger Districts and currently, 19 

active wells are on the WCNF. New drilling activities on the WCNF in the past several years 

has been limited due to the depressed oil market and unavailability of adjacent (unleased) lands 

that create financial risk. The surge in oil and gas prices since 1999 and the spectre of potential 

hydrocarbon shortages may renew interest for exploration and development in the area. Past oil 

and gas exploration and development activities have had a very small impact on soil productivity 

and water quality. Soil and water conservation practices that were applied to these activities 

have been very effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation as indicated by streams 

meeting water quality standards of in these development areas. The largest effect to soil 

productivity has been the irretrievable commitment of soil resources from road construction and 

oil pads and, overall, has been a very small portion of the soil resource in the areas of 

development. 

For those streams of the WCNF that are not meeting water quality standards, the WCNF is 

working with the State of Utah to determine the causes of water quality impairment. The WCNF 

has been working with the Little Cottonwood Group since 1998 assessing the effects of mining 

on Little Cottonwood Creek. Field data on water quality, stream morphology, and aquatic health 

has been collected and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) assessment is being reviewed by 

the USEPA. In the Smiths Fork drainage, water quality samples are being collected and stream 

condition surveys have been completed for the purpose of assessing the quality of water on 

Forest Service land. 

As part of a cooperative monitoring program with the State of Utah, the Forest Service collects 

water samples in selected drainages and sends them for analysis. Other water quality monitoring 

activities include macro-invertebrate sampling on selected streams to determine aquatic 

biological health and stream stability surveys. In addition to this, several cooperative efforts 

concerned with water quality are ongoing between the WCNF, state and local governments, 

regional planning agencies, and state colleges and universities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 52 

Areas Adjacent to the WCNF 

Lands within the watersheds draining the WCNF have a variety of land use activities. As an 

example of the types of activities that represent this area, a description of land use is taken from 

the Utah State Water Plan for the Weber River Basin. The area is diverse in terms of naturally 

occurring landscapes and land use practices. The high mountain areas are used extensively for a 

broad variety of outdoor recreational purposes and the production of agricultural crops, livestock, 

and timber. The upper basin contains six ski resorts, seven major reservoirs, a matrix of crosscountry hiking trails, and a number of streams utilized by sport fishermen, rafters and kayakers. 

Livestock production in the high mountain valleys is limited to dairy and meat producing 

livestock, mink, and a few fish farms. Irrigated agriculture generally includes varieties of 

pasture grasses, alfalfa, small grains, some orchard crops and a variety of vegetables (Utah State 

of 1997a). 

With the exception of the Snyderville Basin and Park City Area, populated areas in Summit 

County generally consist of small rural towns with small commercial businesses. The 

Snyderville Basin and Park City Area is one of the fastest growing in the state. The area 

primarily includes residential developments with a high percentage of the populace working in 

the Salt Lake Valley. The area supports major commercial and industrial concerns including ski 

resorts, tourism, a major manufacturing business (Utah State of 1997a). 

Davis County has highly developed residential, commercial and industrial areas. Several cities 

have registered significant residential population growth rates in recent years. The northern part 

of the county supports a number of small family farms, while the southwestern part supports 

large industries including oil refineries and manufacturing facilities. Northeastern Davis County 

also supports municipal and residential developments with related small commercial businesses 

(Utah State of 1997a). 

Agricultural is the largest single land use. This includes irrigated and dry cropland, rangeland, 

and timber production (Utah State of 1997a). 

Other than Emigration Creek, there are no streams in the immediate watersheds adjacent to the 

WCNF that are listed on Utah’s 2002 303 (d) list of impaired water bodies. Emigration Creek is 

listed as impaired for fecal coliform. National Forest System lands are located in the headwaters 

of Emigration Canyon and older residences are located right next to the stream and many new 

homes have been built and are continuing to be built in the main part of the canyon. Analysis of 

fecal coliform pollution problems in Emigration Canyon is expected to begin in 2003 by Salt 

Lake County through a 319-funded project. 

Land Use, Development, Population, and Recreation Trends 

In the watersheds that drain the WCNF, land use trends over the last 20 years show that demand 

for residential and commercial land has consumed agricultural land at a rapid pace, particularly 

in Salt Lake and Davis Counties where in 1992, agricultural land occupied less than half of the 

acreage it occupied in 1974 (Utah, State of. 1998a). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 53 

Rapid urban expansion is expected in the next 20 years and as open space diminishes pressure to 

build on the foothills will increase (Utah, State of. 1998a). Private land development is 

occurring adjacent to the WCNF boundary with high density of housing along the foothills and 

in some more mountainous areas such as canyons east of Salt Lake City from Emigration 

Canyon to Little Cottonwood, upper Weber drainage, Woodland, north side of the South Fork 

Ogden River, Little Bear drainage, west of Bear Lake, near Bear River Service, Meeks Cabin 

Reservoir. 

The population of Utah is expected to increase to 3.3 million in 2020 with 2.5 million living in 

Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber Counties. The youth population will continue to be the 

largest age group in the state (Utah, State of. 1998a). 

Motorized recreation is increasing in the state. In 2000, the number of off-highway motorcycles, 

ATVs, snowmobiles and recreational 4X4s in Utah is estimated at almost 163,000 (Fisher et al. 

2001). Technology is continually making improvements to All Terrain Vehicles (ATV), 

Snowmobiles and Mountain Bikes. ATV’s are more powerful, have better suspensions and have 

better traction than they have ever had before. With lighter frames, better gearing and 

suspensions, mountain bikers are continually pushing the limits of what and where people can 

ride. 

State and Local Government Water-Related Programs

Several state and local programs control or improve water conditions on lands on or adjacent to 

the WCNF. The Utah Department of Natural Resources and the Wyoming Water Development 

Commission identify water development needs, the Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Management and Drinking Water Source Protection programs control water pollution, 

coordinate statewide watershed activities, develop source protection guidelines, assess water 

quality, enforce water quality standard compliance, provide funding for watershed improvement 

projects, and monitoring. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are involved in the management 

of watershed conditions, water quality, and riparian areas in the canyons east of Salt Lake City 

and along the Jordan River. 

The Utah Department of Natural Resources and the Wyoming Water Development Commission 

have developed water plans for major basins in Utah and Wyoming. State water plans discuss 

water development that is planned in the watersheds draining the WCNF. These are construction 

of conveyance and treatment facilities to deliver water from Willard Bay to the Wasatch Front 

and construction of a dam on the Bear River west of the Wellsville Mountains (Utah, State of. 

2002b). The Jordan River Water Basin Plan states the development of additional water from the 

Wasatch Range mountain streams but does not identify any specific project (Utah, State of. 

1997b). No projects other than existing Central Utah Project will be developed. No additional 

projects are identified in the Utah Lake Basin Plan (Utah, State of. 1997c) and no projects are 

identified in the Weber and West Desert basin plans (Utah, State of. 1997a and Utah, State of. 

2001c). Water conservation measures are considered in the water plans and include incentive 

pricing; outdoor watering guidelines and ordinances; landscape guidelines and ordinances; 

commercial and residential audits; installation of water meters on all water connections; retrofit, 

rebate, and incentive programs; and leak detection and repair programs would not directly affect 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 54 

soil and water resources of the WCNF. Wyoming Water Development Commission’s Green 

River Basin and Bear River Basin water plans do not have any on-the-ground projects that are 

identified for analysis or implementation within the cumulative effects study area and within 

planning period of the WCNF plan revision (Wyoming, State of. 2001b and Wyoming, State of. 

2001c). 

One of Utah’s key water quality programs is concerned with non-point source pollution control. 

The mission of the Utah Non-point Source Pollution Management Program is “1) to conserve the 

waters of the State 2) to protect, maintain, and improve the quality of the waters of the state ...3) 

provide for the prevention abatement, and control of new or existing sources of polluted 

runoff”(Utah, State of. 2001d). Several Clean Water Act Section 319 funded water quality 

projects in Utah that are located adjacent to the WCNF have been completed or in progress. 

These projects include on-the-ground watershed or demonstration projects; information and 

education projects; and surface and ground water investigations. Several on-the ground projects 

that are adjacent to the WCNF include Mill Canyon Watershed Project, Emigration Creek Water 

Quality Study, East Canyon Creek, and the Little Bear River. Several statewide education 

programs have been funded in part with Section 319 funds. For example, Utah State University 

has reached many educators and individuals within the state through the USU Statewide NPS 

Education program. 

Another key water quality program is the Utah Drinking Water Source Protection program that 

protects both ground water and surface water drinking sources. The program uses a watershed 

approach to assessing and protecting drinking water sources by reviewing potential pollution 

sources at various scales throughout the watershed in which a water source is located. Because 

of its proximity to the large population areas near the WCNF, many water sources are located on 

or adjacent to the forest. Water resources on and off the WCNF are reviewed, protected, and 

improved by water companies, agencies, and the general public because of the importance of 

drinking water quality to the nearby communities. 

Actions by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have protected and enhanced water quality in 

the canyons east of Salt Lake City through education, signing, enforcement, watershed 

improvement projects, and monitoring. According to the Salt Lake City Watershed Management 

Plan (Salt Lake City 1999)” the Salt Lake City Department of Utilities, and other affected 

jurisdictional parties are seeking to proactively manage this watershed [seven major watersheds 

to the east of Salt Lake City] by addressing issues that have arisen since the 1988 Watershed 

Management Plan. ...Salt Lake County has adopted master plans for Emigration Canyon (1985), 

Little Cottonwood Canyon (1973), and the Salt Lake County Wasatch Canyons Master Plan 

(1989)”. 

Cumulative Effects Among Alternatives 

This section describes the past, present, and future cumulative effects between alternatives on 

soil productivity, water quality, and water yield. The analysis takes a programmatic look at 

activities and management on and adjacent to the WCNF and considers general trends, levels of 

outputs, management controls on activities, standards and guidelines, and practices that minimize 

adverse affects of activities. The specific effects of activities on soil and water resources have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 55 

been described previously under the Watershed Health topic. The analysis looks at short and 

long-term cumulative effects and irretrievable commitments of soil and water resources. 

Soil Productivity 

Unwanted wildfire, growing population and residential development adjacent to the WCNF, and 

increasing recreation use will occur under all alternatives and has the potential to adversely affect 

soil productivity. All alternatives have about the same potential for unwanted wildfire because 

the amount of activities that would prevent or reduce wildfire is very low compared to the size of 

the WCNF. On the WCNF, where unwanted wildland fire results in a potential loss of soil 

productivity, rehabilitation work will be prescribed to mitigate these effects. Housing 

developments adjacent to the WCNF bring many more people closer to the Forest and have a 

higher potential to cause wildfire, use ATVs, and impact soil and water conditions. With a large, 

young growing population in Utah that is primarily located near the WCNF and technology that 

is continuing to allow access to land that was previously not used for recreation, recreational 

demands on the WCNF are expected to increase and a higher potential exists for adverse soil and 

water effects to occur on the forest. With the increase in OHV and ATV use, soil productivity on 

and off the WCNF may deteriorate 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. 

Short-term adverse effects to soil productivity may occur from most on the ground activities on 

the WCNF. The WCNF implements soil and water conservation practices that minimize these 

adverse effects. In reviewing all of the proposed activities and outputs in Table 2-?, Comparison 

of Alternatives for Projected Activities and Outputs, very little difference occurs between 

alternatives under Watershed Health, Range Livestock, and Recreation and the short and longterm effects to soil productivity are very little for these proposed activities. Activities and 

outputs vary substantially between alternatives under Roads and Trails, Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development, and Vegetation Treatments. Cumulatively, 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 longterm 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. The actual amounts of long-term soil resource commitment, and 

their relation to Forest wide soil quality standards, will be determined on a site-specific basis for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 56 

each proposed harvest project. Prescribed fire and wildland fire use will be implemented with 

soil and water conservation practices. These measures should minimize adverse effects to soil 

productivity. 

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. The highest potential for adverse cumulative effects to soil 

and water resources from these activities is in Alternative 5 with Alternatives 3 and 4 somewhat 

less than this. The lowest amount of irretrievable commitment of soil resources is in 

Alternative 1. 

Under all alternatives, no irreversible effects should occur from the proposed activities because 

no soil resources are affected where the soil resources cannot be returned to its previous 

condition. 

Water Quality 

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 short-term, some impacts to water quality 

may occur from on-the-ground activities on the Forest. Similar to cumulative effects for soil 

productivity, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 have the greatest potential to affect water quality because of 

they have the greatest amount of timber and vegetation treatment roads, and oil and gas roads 

and facilities. Cumulatively, Alternative 2 has the highest potential to cause short-term adverse 

affects to water quality because of the large amount of prescribed fire use in aspen and aspen/ 

conifer mixed vegetation communities. 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. 

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. No irretrievable 

or commitment of water resources have been identified in any of the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, no irreversible effects should occur from the proposed activities because 

no water resources are affected where the water resources cannot be returned to its previous 

condition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 57 

Water Yield 

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 58 

Topic 1 – Watershed Health 

Air Resources 

Introduction 

This section presents information about air quality conditions; trends; monitoring sites; resource 

protection measures; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to air resources from proposed 

activities on the WCNF during the planning period. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• The Clean Air Act (1967) and amendments to the Act (1972, 1977) -- Protect and 

enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources and protect public health and welfare. 

Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires that the federal government comply with all 

federal, state, tribal, interstate, and local air quality standards and requirements 

(Integration of Air Quality Management into Land Management Planning, pg 1-4). The 

Act established National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and gave the States 

primary responsibility for air quality management. States carry out this responsibility 

through development of a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Federal and State land 

managers must be certain that their actions comply with all procedural and substantive 

requirements contained in Federal, State, and local air pollution control regulations 

(USDA Forest Service. 2000c). 

• The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment (42 U.S.C.& 7401 et seq) -- Areas of the 

country were designated as Class I, II, and III air sheds for the prevention of significant 

deterioration purposes. Class I areas include national parks and wilderness areas 

designated before 1977 and over 5000 acres in size. Class I provides protection to 

pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of additional human-caused air pollution 

that can be added to these areas. There are five Class I areas in Utah: Bryce Canyon, 

Zion, Arches, Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National Parks. The rest of the state, 

including Forest Service wilderness areas, is classified as Class II. Presently, there are 

no haze (visibility) criteria that are enforced in Utah (USDA Forest Service. 2000c).

• The Wilderness Act (1964) -- Directs the Forest Service to preserve and protect the 

natural condition of Wilderness, including the intrinsic wilderness value of air quality. 

• The Forest and Range Renewable Resource Act (1973) -- As amended by the National 

Forest Management Act, directs the Forest Service to “...recognize the fundamental need 

to protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water and air resources.” 

• The EPA’s Natural Events Policy -- Includes a provision to prevent an area from being 

designated as “non-attainment” for particulates when high concentrations result from 

wildfires. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 59 

• The EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires -- Provides 

guidance on mitigating air pollution impacts caused by wildland and prescribed fires 

while recognizing the current role of fire in wild-land management. 

• Utah State Smoke Management Plan -- The State of Utah, Division of Air Quality 

and an interagency workgroup are presently drafting a Utah Smoke Management Plan. 

Its purpose is "... to identify the responsibilities of the Utah Division of Air Quality 

(DAQ) and Federal, and State land managers (Land Managers) to coordinate 

procedures that mitigate the impacts of prescribed fire and wildland fire used for 

resource benefits on public health, public safety and visibility.” This plan is designed 

to meet the requirements of Title R307, Utah's air quality rules and the policies of the 

EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. (Utah, State of, 

2000c). 

Affected Environment 

Monitoring Sites 

An Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring site is 

located near Timpanogos National Monument in American Fork Canyon near Orem, Utah. 

Qualitative visibility monitoring sites have been in operation on the Ashley NF and WCNF. The 

Ashley National Forest manages a visibility site near Mill Park in the High Uintas Wilderness 

area. The WCNF collected visibility data between 1995 and 1997 from two monitoring sites 

located near the Snowbird top tram terminal. Cameras took photographs to the west toward Salt 

Lake City and to the south toward Mt. Timpanogos in order to qualitatively assess the visibility 

across Salt Lake Valley and across the Wasatch Mountains near Salt Lake and Provo, Utah. The 

WCNF site has not been operating since 1997. These sites give an indication of the haziness of 

the atmosphere. 

Air Quality Conditions 

Sources of air pollution occur from activities both on and off the WCNF. Impacts to air quality 

on the Forest include regional haze, caused by transported pollutants from large urban areas 

adjacent to the Forest, including industry and manufacturing, traffic, and wood-burning stoves. 

Localized air pollution occurs from heavy traffic during peak hours and from skiers driving to 

resorts in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons in the winter months. Air pollutants of concern 

include fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfates, and carbon monoxide. These pollutants 

can affect human health, reduce visibility, and can lead to acidic deposition in high-elevation 

lakes. 

Most lands managed by the Forest currently are in attainment of national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Part of the Salt Lake Ranger District is in non-attainment areas for PM 10 

(particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter), sulfur dioxide, and ozone. Salt Lake 

County is a non-attainment area for PM 10, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. Davis County is a nonattainment area for PM 10 (Utah, State of. 2000d). Land-use practices within or adjacent to this 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 60 

non-attainment area are closely scrutinized by local and state regulatory agencies to ensure that 

further violations do not occur. 

A visibility-monitoring site is located in American Fork Canyon that represents conditions near 

the Lone Peak Wilderness. The site has collected data (Copeland et. al. 2001) since 1993 and 

complete seasonal data is available for three years from 1996-98. Interpretations are made from 

1996-98 since data is complete for each season during this period. Information on current and 

natural visibility conditions is from a newsletter about the interagency IMPROVE visibilitymonitoring program (Malm, et. al. 1994). 

Information from the site shows that winter season has greatest extremes in visibility where it 

has the cleanest of the “clean” days (average about 120 miles) and the dirtiest of the “dirty” days 

(average about 38 miles). The cleanest of the “clean” days is above the estimated natural mean 

visibility in the West, which is 110-115 miles. In comparing winter to other seasons, poor 

visibility for the dirtiest 20% of days is attributed in the most part to increases in nitrates and 

sulfates. The visibility of the mean of the median 20% of days in 1997-98 showed very little 

difference between each season. Average annual visibility for 1996-98 of the mean of the 

median 20% of days is about 75 miles and is less than the best current mean visibility in the 

inner mountain west and Great Basin regions which is 90 miles. 

Future Trends 

Sources of air pollution on the WCNF are both local and regional. As population increases in 

northern Utah, air quality effects are expected to increase. Locally, some air quality impacts are 

expected due to increased development of ski resorts and ancillary effects of increased traffic and 

residential development in the canyons along the Wasatch Front. Regionally and locally, smoke 

impacts from prescribed burns are expected to increase as attempts are made to reduce fuel 

loading. Specific impacts include reduced visibility as well as short-term increases in the 

concentration of particulate matter in communities downwind of a burn. Under wildfire 

conditions high fuel consumption often creates high particulate outputs. 

Resource Protection Measures 

The conformity regulations promulgated by the EPA in 1994 specifically require federal 

compliance with the Clean Air Act. Forest management activities must therefore be analyzed for 

their potential air quality impacts and these must be mitigated if necessary. 

A cooperative effort called the Utah Smoke Management Program is established between the 

Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) and agencies that are involved in the use of prescribed 

fire and wildland fire use. As part of this program, a Utah Smoke Management Plan (SMP) is 

developed to coordinate procedures that mitigate the impacts of prescribed fire and wildland fire 

use for resource benefits on public health, public safety and visibility. State and Federal 

agencies have signed an MOU that commits the signatories to voluntarily abide by the smoke 

management plan and are members of the Utah Airshed Group that provides overall management 

direction and guidance by functioning as an interagency steering committee to ensure appropriate 

implementation of the SMP (Utah, State of. 2000c). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 61 

Direction in the Utah Smoke Management Plan provides for organization and operating 

procedures, prescribed fire and wildland fire requirements, and program management. Under 

prescribed fire, several items are required including an annual burn schedule, prescribed fire burn 

plans, burn request form, implementation of emission reduction and dispersion techniques, a 

daily emission report form, surveillance and enforcement by UDAQ staff, and monitoring (Utah, 

State of. 2000c). Similar requirements are expected for wildland fire use. 

Environmental Consequences 

Effects on Air Quality from Fire Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The main effect to air quality from activities on the WCNF is the introduction of smoke and 

particulates into the air from fire management activities. The WCNF uses prescribed fire and 

wildland fire use for fuels reduction and resource benefits by managing a fire that is within a 

prescription. Wildland fire use differs from prescribed fire in that wild land fire use is a result 

of a lightning ignition, where prescribed fires are started by fire management personnel. 

Unwanted wildland fire is fire that is not within prescription and is managed under a 

suppression strategy. 

Alternative 1 would have the least effect to air quality from prescribed fire since its use is not 

allowed. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 are expected to have similar effects to air quality from 

prescribed fire between these alternatives since all of these alternatives would have about 

12,000 to 13,500 acres of prescribed fire per year. Alternative 2 is expected to have more 

effect to air quality than Alternatives 3, 6, or 7 since prescribed fire would be used on about 

23,000 acres per year, which is almost twice as much as Alternatives 3, 6, or 7. Alternatives 4 

and 5 would have the least potential for smoke using prescribed fire since the predicted area of 

treatment is about 5,400 acres per year. 

In all alternatives, unwanted wildland fire has the potential to cause a large amount of smoke. 

There is a trade-off between smoke generated by unwanted wildland fire and prescribed fire 

and wild land fire use, in that, when using prescribed fire or wildland fire use smoke would be 

generated under more controlled conditions and mitigated while smoke generated by unwanted 

wildfire could be much greater and unmitigated. The prescribed fire use and vegetation 

treatments in Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 would help to reduce the potential for unwanted 

wildland fire, particularly in oak vegetative communities, and should reduce smoke that would 

develop under uncontrolled conditions. When using prescribed fire or wildland fire use, smoke 

dispersal is taken into consideration in the fire plan. Prescribed fire and wildland fire use 

activities occur during the time of the year when it is less likely to have temperature inversions. 

Air quality conditions that occur in the valleys during the winter season inversions will not be 

present when prescribed fire or wildland fire use is implemented. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 62 

Effects on Air Quality from Ski Resort Management 

From years 1997 to 2001, ski area master development plan (MDP) final environmental impact 

statements (FEISs) were written for Alta (USFS 1997), Snowbird (USFS 1999e), Brighton 

(USFS 1999d), and Solitude (USFS 2001h) ski resorts. These reports analyzed the effects of ski 

area development on air quality and included the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of 

proposed activities at the ski resorts and emissions from vehicles that drive in Big and Little 

Cottonwood canyons and the main roads that lead to them. The results of these analyses indicate 

that (1) air quality impacts are minor when compared to indirect emissions under baseline 

conditions; (2) air quality is in compliance with the General Conformity thresholds for ozone 

(volatile organic carbon emissions), ozone (nitric oxides), PM10 (particulate matter), and sulfur 

dioxide; and (3) selected alternatives in the FEISs do not cause an exceedance of any National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

A main decision that the Forest Plan Revision will make is whether to allow expansion of ski 

resort boundaries. The effect on air quality from expansion of ski resort boundaries is 

complicated because of several factors. The expansion of ski area permit boundaries may 

decrease air quality due to increases in emissions from vehicles using the roads leading to the 

resorts. The increase in use of the ski areas would be a result of encouraging more visitors to 

the resort because of the larger facilities and terrain available. Since parking on federal land is 

limited to existing parking area, the potential increase may occur in more days when the number 

of vehicles approach the canyon travel capacity, than in the number vehicles in the canyon on the 

peak days. 

Air quality is not expected to decrease in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, since no expansion of 

permit boundaries is allowed. Air quality may decease in Alternatives 4 and 5 since ski area 

permit boundary changes are allowed in Alternative 5 and are considered and decided through 

master development planning and other analyses in Alternative 4. Although air quality may 

decrease on more days, it would not be expected to exceed the General Conformity based on the 

results of latest ski resort master development plan air quality analyses. The latest MDPs for the 

Big and Little Cottonwood ski resorts have recognized that air quality is a concern particularly at 

the mouths of the canyons and that traffic going to the resorts need to be managed. Management 

of traffic such as additional parking for mass transit may reduce vehicle use on roads leading to 

the canyons nullifying the concern of decreased air quality due to expansion of ski area permit 

boundaries. 

Effects on Air Quality from Snowmobiles 

An issue that has gained more attention in recent years is the effects of 2-stroke engines on air 

quality. As snowmobiling has gained in popularity over the last 20 years, the concerns related to 

effects of snowmobiles on air quality has increased. Snowmobile use on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest has increased proportionately to the increases in other locations. 

There have not been any studies done specific to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to 

determine the effects of snowmobiling on air quality. A number of studies of the effects of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 63 

snowmobiling on air quality were done as part of the “Winter Use Plans Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, 

Jr. Memorial Parkway” (Winter Use Plans FEIS), (USDI National Park Service 2000) 

(http://www.nps.gov/planning/yell/winterfinal/frames.htm). Although many of the studies were 

specific to that area, they have some applicability to effects of snowmobiling on the Forest. 

Following is a summary of analysis of air quality presented in the Yellowstone FEIS and a 

comparison of snowmobile use levels between Yellowstone and the Forest. 

The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and 

welfare. Standards have been set for six pollutants: particulate matter less than 10 microns 

(PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), and 

lead (Pb). These pollutants are called criteria pollutants because the standards satisfy criteria 

specified in the act. The areas covered by the three park units are in attainment of ambient air 

quality standards. (USDI National Park Service 2000) 

A particulate sampling station operated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is 

located outside Yellowstone National Park (YNP) in the town of West Yellowstone. As reported 

in the aerometric information retrieval system (AIRS), the second highest CO 8-hour average in 

1999 was 5.0 parts per million (ppm), and the corresponding average in 1998 was 3.6 ppm 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html). These compare to the federal and Montana CO 8-hour 

ambient air quality standards of 9.0 ppm. At the West Yellowstone monitor, the highest 24-hour 

PM10 measurement in 1999 was 61 μg/m3, and the corresponding measurement in 1998 was 40 

μg/m3. These compare to the 24-hour 150 μg/m3 federal and Montana PM10 ambient air quality 

standards. (USDI National Park Service 2000) 

To assess the relative impacts of the proposed winter use alternatives on ambient air quality in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area, short-term air quality analyses were performed by means of 

atmospheric dispersion modeling for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10). The 

air quality study includes the inherent uncertainties of the model and the temporal and spatial 

biases due to limited meteorological and emission data. The following table displays air quality 

data predicted at high use locations in YNP for current use in YNP: 

Table AIR-1: Yellowstone Air Quality Predictions 

Pollutants Modeled 

West 

Yellowstone 

Entrance 

West 

Entrance 

To Madison 

Roadway 

Corridor 

(14 Miles) 

Old 

Faithful 

Staging 

Area 

Federal 

Primary 

Ambient 

Air Quality

Standards 

Maximum 1-hr CO concentrations1 32.2 ppm 14.8 ppm 4.29 ppm 35 ppm 

Maximum 8-hr average CO concentrations2 15.15 ppm 6.96 pm 1.62 ppm 9 ppm 

Maximum 24-hr ave. PM10 concentrations3 68.19 μg/m3

 33.74 μg/m3 5.64 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

1

 Prediction of parts per million of carbon monoxide based on EPA air quality models and including background CO 

levels. 

2 Estimated from the modeled maximum 1-hour average concentration of CO based on a persistence formula. 

3 Modeled micrograms of respirable particulates less than 10 microns in size per cubic meter including background 

levels. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 64 

The modeling done for the above table was based on a substantial amount of collected data. The 

research was reviewed in a report prepared for the State of Wyoming Institute for Environment 

and Natural Resources and titled “Review of Research Related to the Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. 

Memorial Parkway” (2000) prepared by the University of Wyoming Institute for Environment 

and Cultural Resources. The authors of the review disputed the accuracy of the assessment of air 

quality based on methodological issues, but agreed that there is a genuine air quality problem. 

They stated that more monitoring and modeling is required. 

The YNP Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) concluded that based on previous 

studies and the results of air dispersion modeling conducted for this analysis, short-term, adverse 

impacts at the West Entrance would continue at times, during high winter use days. 

The highest potential for air pollution from snowmobiles on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

occurs at the Bear River Snowpark on The Evanston/Mountain View District, the Soapstone 

Basin Parking area on the Kamas District and the Tony Grove and Franklin Basin parking areas 

on the Logan District. A comparison of the estimated use on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

and known use in YNP indicates the following: 

• Estimated total snowmobile use on Forest is less than the total use in YNP. 

• Estimated snowmobile use at any one of the most concentrated spots (Bear River 

Snowpark, Soapstone Basin, Tony Grove and Franklin Basin) on the Forest is 

significantly less that the use at the most concentrated spot (West Yellowstone Entrance) 

in Yellowstone (YNP). 

Following are differences between snowmobile use on the Forest in comparison with YNP: 

• Snowmobiles are not restricted to roads on any Districts. They are restricted to 

designated roads in YNP. 

• Traffic from the West Yellowstone Entrance proceeds on a single 14 mile route to 

Madison Junction while traffic out of each of these parking lots is in at least two 

directions, Bear River Snowpark for example goes in 2 directions (about 1/3 heading east 

on the north slope road and 2/3 heading south on the Mirror Lake Highway) and then 

splits again within 2 or 3 miles going in either direction. 

• Snowmobiles idle, stop and start numerous times waiting in line at entrance booths at 

West Yellowstone. Snowmobiles at the trailheads on the WCNF are generally unloaded, 

run up and down the parking lot several times to warm up engines and then turned off 

while operators get their gear together. They then leave the lot without stopping. 

In YNP, air quality samples were collected in accordance with EPA protocol and did not exceed 

Federal ambient air quality standards. The exceedance predicted for some high use days at West 

Yellowstone was based on modeling. Based on the above estimates of use and differences in 

operations, and the intensive data collection and monitoring done at YNP, it is unlikely that 

snowmobiles would cause a violation of Federal Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest at current use levels. The trend in use has been increasing but it 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 65 

is unlikely that ambient air quality standards would be exceeded on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest under any of the Alternatives in the foreseeable future.

Cumulative Effects 

Analysis Area and Area of Influence 

The analysis area and area of influence is the airshed in northeast Utah and Southeast Wyoming. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Effects from actions can be cumulative, both spatially and temporally. Cumulative effects to 

air quality can occur from Forest Service management activities and activities occurring on 

state, tribal, and private lands. Smoke emissions from fire use, in combination with urban 

sources along the Wasatch Front, other out-of-state sources and stagnant meteorological 

conditions, have the potential to cause relatively short durations of conditions not meeting 

State Air Quality standards. However, this is not anticipated with activities being coordinated 

through the Utah Airshed Group and requirements of the Utah Smoke Management Plan. 

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to protect visibility through a number of programs. In 

1987, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibilitymonitoring network was established as a cooperative effort between EPA, USDA Forest 

Service, BLM, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and state governments. 

Monitoring results from this network have shown that, in general, visibility is improving in the 

West and is much better than in the East. From 1992 to 1998, PM 2.5 levels in rural areas in 

the western U.S. decreased by 5 percent (US EPA 2000). Coordination of air quality impacts 

through the Utah Airshed Group is expected to improve visibility and reduce public concerns 

in Utah and down-wind airsheds and communities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 66 

Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability 

Vegetation 

Introduction 

The following sections provide broad descriptions of the vegetation cover types, and disturbance 

ecology, followed by landscape vegetation patterns for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Because of differences from one mountain range to another, the discussion has been organized 

into information for each of three ecological sections (Uinta Mountains, Overthrust Mountains, 

and Bonneville Basin) in which the Wasatch-Cache National Forest occurs (Figure VEG-1). 

Table VEG-1 lists estimated acreage of each cover type (rounded to the nearest 100 acres) 

currently mapped on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portions of each ecological section. 

Figure VEG-1 – Location of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest within the Bonneville Basin, 

Overthrust Mountains, and Uinta Mountains Ecological Sections. 

Ecological

Sections 

Wyoming Idaho 

Nevada 

Utah Colorado 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 67 

Table VEG-1. Acres of each vegetation type within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portions of 

the Uinta Mountains, Overthrust Mountains, and Bonneville Basin Ecological Sections. 

Percentages are for each cover type within the Wasatch-Cache portion of those ecological 

sections and for total forest-wide area. 

Cover Type 

Overthrust 

Mountains 

Section 

Percent 

within 

Overthrust 

Mountains 

Uinta 

Mountains

Section 

Percent 

within 

Uinta 

Mts 

Bonneville 

Basin Section 

(Stansbury 

Range Only) 

Percent 

within 

Stansbury 

Range 

Total 

Forestwide 

Percent 

of Total

Alpine 1,400 0.2 17,700 3 600 0.9 19,700 1.6 

Barren1 21,100 3.7 79,900 13.7 500 0.7 101,500 8.3 

Limber Pine 11,500 2 0 0 0 0 11,500 0.9 

Spruce-Fir 24,600 4.3 127,600 21.8 1,200 1.7 153,400 12.5 

Mixed Conifer 16,000 2.8 135,700 23.2 0 0 151,700 12.3 

Lodgepole Pine 8,200 1.4 53,100 9.1 0 0 61,300 5 

Conifer-Aspen 23,400 4.1 23,600 4 0 0 47,000 3.8 

Aspen-Conifer 21,800 3.8 34,000 5.8 0 0 55,800 4.5 

Aspen 74,100 12.9 27,000 4.6 1,700 2.5 102,800 8.4 

Douglas-fir 70,000 12.2 8,500 1.5 9,100 13.3 87,600 7.1 

Ponderosa Pine 0 0 500 0.1 0 0 500 0 

Bigtooth Maple 14,600 2.5 0 0 0 0 14,600 1.2 

Gambel Oak 88,700 15.4 2,100 0.4 0 0 90,800 7.4 

Tall Shrub 15,700 2.7 300 0.1 6,100 8.9 22,100 1.8 

Mahogany 12,800 2.2 900 0.2 100 0.1 13,800 1.1 

Juniper, 

Pinyon-Juniper 43000 7.5 700 0.1 33,200 48.4 76,900 6.3 

Sagebrush/ 

Grasslands 122,100 21.2 51,800 8.9 15,700 22.9 189,600 15.4 

Tall Forb 3,200 0.6 0 0 0 0 3,200 0.3 

Bottomland 

Hardwood 2,800 0.5 300 0.1 400 0.6 3,500 0.3 

Wet Meadow 100 0 16,800 2.9 0 0 16,900 1.4 

Willow 800 0.1 3,600 0.6 0 0 4,400 0.4 

Total 575,900 100 584,100 100 68,600 100 1,228,600 100 

1

 “Barren” areas in the Uinta Mountains occur in the upper cirque basins in and below the alpine. Some have 

scattered vegetation and could more appropriately be included in the Alpine cover type.

Vegetation patterns (both distribution of cover types and the age class diversity within these 

types) in the three ecological sections of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are a function of 

numerous factors. Geology, soil characteristics, elevation (temperature) and precipitation are 

among the factors that affect the occurrence of cover types across the landscapes. Natural 

succession and disturbance factors, as well as human-induced disturbance such as prescribed fire, 

timber harvest, livestock grazing, development, and other actions can affect the extent of cover 

types, and often affect the age class diversity within each cover type on the landscapes. The 

Uinta Mountains (Uinta Mountain Section) and the Stansbury Mountains (Bonneville Basin 

Section) are geologically less diverse than the Wasatch Mountains, including the Bear River and 

Wasatch Ranges (Overthrust Mountains Section). In addition, precipitation patterns are more 

variable within the Wasatch Mountains because of the common “lake effect” from storms 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 68 

moving across the Great Salt Lake and dropping more water, often in the form of snow, in areas 

primarily to the east and southeast of the lake. Both of these factors cause the Wasatch 

Mountains to have a much greater diversity in vegetation patterns than one finds elsewhere on 

the Forest. 

The following descriptions show that vegetation rather than being a static covering of the land is 

instead an extremely dynamic patchwork with various cover types and age classes continually 

changing into and out of each other. This can create a rich mosaic of species (composition), age 

classes (structure), and distributions (pattern) of plant communities across the landscape. The 

result is a very complex, ever-changing three-dimensional “blanket” with different “ecological 

functioning” depending on the whole, as well as the parts. Ecological functioning is the value of 

the blanket in providing for essential life processes such as watershed protection, water and 

nutrient cycling, soil building, habitats for wildlife, from birds and big game to fish, insects, and 

even microbiotic communities. This blanket is also a major part of what we enjoy as scenery.

The last part of this section provides an assessment in summary form, of the status of vegetation 

types with regard to properly functioning ecosystem conditions and risks related to current status. 

Appendix B-1 contains a description of how vegetation modeling was conducted for forest 

planning. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• National Forest Management Act, 1976. This law states that forest plans must 

“provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and 

capability of the specific land area.'' 

• Ecosystem Management - In 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service issued a statement 

committing the Forest Service to the practice of ecosystem management, which is an 

ecological approach to managing national forests and grasslands for multiple uses. 

• 36 CFR 219.27(g) states that management prescriptions, where appropriate and to the 

extent practicable, shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

• 36 CFR 219.19 requires the Forest Service to identify and prevent the destruction or 

adverse modification of habitat determined to be critical for threatened and 

endangered species. It states that fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species. Viable populations are defined as those with sufficient numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure their continued existence in the 

planning area. 

• 36 CFR 219.19 (a) also directs the Forest Service to select Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) to estimate the effect each alternative has on fish and wildlife habitat 

and its subsequent effect on wildlife populations, vegetation communities, and other 

ecological components; consult with biologists from other agencies; Consider access 

and dispersal problems of hunting, fishing, and other uses; and, Evaluate the effects of 

pest and fire management and the population trends of selected MIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 69 

Affected Environment 

Disturbance Ecology and Ecosystem Resiliency

Hunter (1990) related a basic assumption that “the most efficient way to maintain biological 

diversity in a forested landscape is to have a diverse array of stands and thus a diverse array of 

ecosystems and their constituent species.” We assume that non-forested landscapes would 

follow the same connection as well. Tilman (2000) found that, in general, greater diversity 

results in “greater productivity in plant communities, greater nutrient retention in ecosystems and 

greater ecosystem stability.” Currently, diversity on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is less 

that occurred historically. Disturbance once played a much more significant role in the diversity 

of age classes, patterns, and acres of different types. Natural disturbances such as fires, floods, 

etc. were more frequent, perhaps, but because they were, their intensity was less than is seen in 

ecosystems today. Forested ecosystems, such as the aspen and lodgepole types, were 

perpetuated through regular disturbance (fire). Fire suppression has reduced the amount of the 

aspen type over what occurred on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest historically by 

approximately 65 percent (O’Brien and Pope 1997) and the age class and fuels of the lodgepole 

type have been altered as well. As a result, the resiliency of these ecosystems and their function 

has been reduced. Mangel and others (1996) noted that the maintenance of biological diversity 

at the ecosystem, population, species, and genetic levels will help secure options for the future 

and that within the “natural boundaries of variation,” resources will be conserved. Ecosystem 

resilience has bee reduce on the Forest because biodiversity at the ecosystem level has been 

reduced through a loss of diversity in age classes and the distribution of age classes within 

vegetation community types (patterns), as well as a significant reduction of certain types, such as 

aspen vegetation communities. 

A variety of insects and diseases are associated including Douglas-fir beetle, Douglas-fir tussock 

moth, and dwarf mistletoe. A Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) outbreak was 

noted in 2000 on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2002c). The extent 

of this outbreak was not identified, but it was noted that for the Intermountain Region (Utah, 

Nevada, southern Idaho, and western Wyoming) mortality from Douglas-fir beetle was static 

between 1999 and 2000. These authors noted that mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae) nearly quadrupled between 1998 and 2000 in the Intermountain Region and that it 

increased in lodgepole pine stands on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. In the Bear River 

Range, the scattered nature of these lodgepole stands creates a situation where risks of insects 

and disease are reduced so this has not been a major factor in shaping the stands, but the nearly 

continuous stands of lodgepole and mixed conifer (with lodgepole a major component) in the 

Uinta Mountains is highly susceptible. 

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) was first detected in Utah (along the Wasatch Front) in 1998 

and between 1989 and 1993 nearly 72,000 acres of Federal, State and private lands were treated 

with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (USDA Forest Service 2002c). In 1995 the moth was declared 

eradicated, but in 1997 one moth was found using pheromone traps in the same vicinity on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, and 46 moths were captured on adjacent lands. Over 750 acres 

were treated in 1999 in Salt Lake County. It is expected that treatments for gypsy moth using Bt 

will continue indefinitely, because of continued moths being introduced to the area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 70 

Broad Scale North-South Coniferous Corridor 

A description of vegetation cover in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest would be incomplete 

without mention of the regionally significant forestland “wildlife corridor”. This north-south 

linkage between large landscapes is evident when viewing maps of the ecological subregions of 

United States (McNab and Avers. 1994). The corridor connecting forests from the northern 

Rocky Mountains in Canada to the southern Rocky Mountains has its narrowest part through the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest in northern Utah. This linkage provides for sustaining biological 

diversity from the potential for exchange of genetic materials within species to the potential for 

migration of entire populations and communities as environmental conditions change (Primack, 

1993: 339) Vegetation and ecological conditions within the National Forest are even more 

important when viewed in the context of other land ownerships that are increasingly being 

developed or managed for non-wildland purposes. 

Wasatch Mountains (Wasatch, Bear River and Wellsville Ranges) 

Vegetation Cover Types and Disturbance Regimes 

Alpine: This vegetation group is characterized by patchy (not generally turf-forming) vegetation 

with thin to nonexistent soils with rocky outcrops, fell-fields and boulders. Native perennial 

plant cover includes short meadow forbs, sedges and grasses, some low shrubs, and lichens and 

bryophytes. These are sensitive to even slight disturbance because recovery is very slow within 

this harsh environment. 

Limber Pine: These open plant communities are a minor but unique component of the Wasatch 

Mountains. These stands are dominated by Limber pine, which is mostly mature with some 

younger individuals scattered among older trees. Sites supporting this type usually have shallow, 

rocky soils. Canopies do not close and trees are distributed in sparse stands or widely spaced 

clumps of trees. In the northern Wasatch Mountains Douglas-fir is present within Limber pine 

stands while in the south both Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce are intermixed. Fire regime is 

mixed severity with 100 to 150 year intervals between stand-replacing fires. 

Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir: Varying combinations of subalpine fir and Engelmann 

spruce with aspen as an important seral species make up this category. The spruce is long-lived 

(often exceeding 300 years), but susceptible to wind-throw (resulting in spruce beetle epidemics) 

while subalpine fir is shorter lived (100-150 years) and less disease resistant. Most stands have a 

multi-canopy structural condition, although much of the regeneration is subalpine fir, which is 

more shade tolerant. Historically, small fires (1/4 to a few acres) occurred regularly in this type 

either killing or weakening trees in these small areas. Large fires (a few to several hundred 

acres) every 200-300 years were common because of a combination of insect epidemics and fuel 

buildup. For the past 100 years fire suppression has allowed a buildup of fuels and higher stand 

densities which cause insect activity to be more extensive and intense than characteristic 

historically. Beetle kill is potentially very high and it has been 200-300 years in most stands 

since the last large fires occurred. These conditions provide potential for larger areas (several 

hundred to a thousand or more) to be burned at one time and the higher accumulations of large 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 71 

woody debris and ladder fuels create conditions conducive to more intense fires outside the 

historical range. 

Subalpine fir: This vegetation type occurs primarily in the Bear River Range. Stands are codominated by pure subalpine fir or a mixture of subalpine fir with Douglas-fir. Aspen is a major 

seral species, which is being replaced by subalpine fir in many areas. Subalpine fir is shorter 

lived (100-150 years) and less disease resistant than Engelmann spruce. Fire historically played 

an important role in these stands with replacement fires occurring on a 100 to 300 year cycle. 

Root disease is common and balsam bark beetle is at epidemic levels in the Wasatch Mountains. 

Currently many areas are dominated by mature to old age classes with fire suppression resulting 

in high stand densities and basal area along with ladder fuels, which could result in larger more 

intense fires than occurred historically. 

Mixed Conifer: The Bear River mixed conifer communities occur at mid to high elevations in 

the Bear River Range east of Cache Valley and Ogden Valley. They are somewhat unique in 

their overstory dominance of subalpine fir, with or without Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. 

Occasionally limber pine occurs as scattered individuals near the Sinks area of the Bear River 

Range. This type is generally at transition between the high elevation spruce-fir communities 

and the Douglas-fir or lodgepole pine communities at mid or lower elevations. 

Lodgepole pine: Only a small amount of this cover type occurs within the Wasatch Mountains, 

and it does not grow in the classic large monocultures covering thousands of acres such as in 

Yellowstone or the Uinta Mountains. Instead, lodgepole here (primarily on the east side in the 

“Bear Management Area”) grows in smaller non-contiguous stands along north facing slopes of 

ridges often intermixed with other conifers such as subalpine fir and spruce. Historically, these 

probably burned with stand replacing fires on a 150-300 year cycle, which in recent times have 

been suppressed. These areas were heavily logged in the 1880’s and again since 1960. Early 

logging slash piles were burned causing general larger stand replacement fires over much of the 

area. The scattered nature of these lodgepole stands creates a situation where risks of insects 

and disease are reduced so this has not been a major factor in shaping the stands. However, 

stand structure has been altered as a result of logging with current stands grouped primarily in 

the over 60-70 years old class or in the under 20-30 years class. 

Aspen: The aspen vegetation type may occur on sites that can be succeeded by conifers (seral 

aspen), or it can occur on drier sites incapable of supporting conifer communities (stable or 

climax aspen). On most sites, aspen is an important early seral species in the spruce-fir, mixed 

conifer, lodgepole, and Douglas-fir vegetation types and in the Wasatch Mountains, studies show 

that much of the historic seral aspen has now been replaced by spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, and 

Douglas-fir (O’Brien and Pope 1997). Historically, the aspen vegetation type may have covered 

nearly 20 percent of these mountains, but today it occupies less than 13 percent. Aspen relies on 

disturbance for sprouting and regeneration, which has been reduce through fire suppression 

actions over the past 50-100 years. These two types of aspen (seral and climax) are distinct for 

purposes of assessing ecological conditions and trends. Seral aspen historically was disturbed 

by fire maintaining patterns and structural diversity across the landscape. Patchy, low-intensity 

fires at lower elevations, and more extensive stand replacement fires at higher elevations 

historically regenerated aspen and kept conifers from replacing aspen stands. An estimated 75-
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 72 

80 percent of the aspen is now in mid-age, mature, and old-age condition. Together, fire 

suppression and livestock grazing (reductions in fine fuels) have combined to result in fewer fire 

starts and generally smaller fires in this type. Historically the fire regime was lethal fire burning 

on a 20 to 100 year cycle. Aspen regeneration after fire or cutting is often susceptible to 

browsing by wild and domestic ungulates, which can result in unsuccessful regeneration. This is 

especially true if the area treated is small (such as a stand) rather than across an entire landscape 

(multiple stands). Climax aspen is much less common than seral, often at the fringe of where 

seral aspen communities occur and adjacent to sagebrush-dominated rangelands. Present tree 

ages vary from 60 to 150 years. Historically, patchy, low-intensity fire at lower elevations and 

more extensive stand replacement fires at higher elevations were the most important disturbance 

factor maintaining structural diversity of this type across the landscape. High levels of grazing in 

this type in the past have resulted in reduced fuels to carry fire and changed species composition 

and dominance (western coneflower is a good example of this). 

White fir: This cover type has not been mapped on the Forest, but occurs in minor amounts 

along the lower, western portion of the Wasatch Mountains on steep north-facing slopes. It is not 

known in the Cache-Box Elder or Bear Management Areas, except for an isolated stand near 

Logan Canyon. Minor amounts of Douglas-fir and aspen can be present mixed with the 

predominant white fir. White fir is shade tolerant growing well in very dense conditions. Thus, 

in the absence of low-intensity fires, it increases, eventually dominating even in stands that are 

currently dominated by seral big-tooth maple and/or oak-maple. Because of the very dense, 

multi-layered canopy conditions, defoliators such as western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir 

tussock moth are accommodated resulting in significant tree mortality (40-90%) in many stands. 

Fir engraver beetle is at epidemic levels throughout the Wasatch Mountains from Ogden south. 

The historical fire cycle was non-lethal fires every 10-40 years on drier sites and every 30-60 

years on wetter sites. Some stand replacing fires, especially where Douglas-fir was seral, kept 

the white fir structure at younger stages. Fires are suppressed especially given the proximity of 

these stands to urban populations. Lack of the frequent, low intensity fires during the last 100 

years has created an accumulation of fuel, resulting in potential for fires to be more intense stand 

replacing fires rather than the white fir thinning fires of the past. White fir of 150+ years 

develops fire resistant bark similar to Douglas-fir. Currently 60-75 percent of white fir is mature 

and old with a trend toward mortality exceeding growth. 

Interior Douglas-fir: This type is restricted to steep north-facing slopes, but is adapted to a 

wide variety of site, climate, and soil conditions. Historical stand structures were primarily 

even-aged, single canopy with fire regimes usually non-lethal on a 10 to 25 year frequency on 

drier sites and 30 to 50 years on cooler/wetter sites. Most stands have not burned in the last 100 

years increasing ladder fuels and susceptibility to stand replacement fires. In many stands that 

were selectively harvested in early 1900’s Douglas-fir did not regenerate and the stands are now 

dominated by white fir. Douglas-fir beetle is at near-epidemic levels to the south and about 55-60 

percent is susceptible. Dwarf mistletoe also is present but more common to the south. Large 

stand-replacing fires or continued exclusion of frequent non-lethal fires result in compromising 

the historical balance of patterns and structures in these landscapes. 

Juniper (Pinyon-Juniper): This cover type with pinyon pine occurs only on sites where 

precipitation exceeds 18 inches annually. Both Utah juniper and Rocky Mountain juniper forms 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 73 

make up this type with Utah juniper growing on the relatively drier sites. Pinyons occur within 

the Mollens Hollow Research Natural Area, but are generally absent elsewhere. The juniper type 

currently exceeds historical distribution expanding into oak, mountain brush, and sagebrush 

communities. It is also much denser within a stand than historically as a result of livestock 

grazing of fine fuels concomitant with fire suppression and juniper’s allelopathic effects. The 

result is lack of understory vegetation for soil protection and deteriorated watershed conditions. 

Historically, this type was restricted to “fire safe” sites (fire return interval greater than 10-30 

years) while it was excluded from establishing on sites with fire returns of 10 to 30 years. The 

rooting system and year-round water use result in significant impacts to ground water and aquifer 

recharge. Fire regimes have changed because of lack of fine fuels but large fires can occur as 

wind-driven crown fires. The change from low-intensity surface fires to snag-replacing crown 

fires demonstrates a radical change in fire regime. In other areas, an increase of exotic annuals 

such as cheatgrass has enabled fires to burn more frequently than historically, and native 

herbaceous understories are replaced by weedy species such as cheatgrass, thistle, and 

knapweeds. 

Mountain Mahogany: This cover type occurs with two different species: - curl-leaf and birch 

leaf mountain mahogany. Birch leaf mountain mahogany is deciduous and sprouts following fire 

or browsing while curl leaf mahogany is evergreen, tree-like and reproduces only by seed. 

Wildlife and livestock browse both and where use is heavy, reduced soil cover results in some 

decline in watershed condition. Birch leaf mahogany on southerly aspects where wild ungulate 

winter use is heavy may be lost. 

Gambel Oak: This cover type occupies more than 15 percent of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest portion of the Overthrust Mountains Ecological Section. It occurs on foothills, along the 

Wasatch Front, but is absent, except for one isolated stand near Logan Canyon, from the Cache 

Valley area. Oak is a prolific sprouter that occurs in tree form on better sites and in a medium to 

tall shrub form elsewhere. The massive root system holds soils well for watershed protection 

and until overstories become dense, stands may support abundant understory grasses and forbs. 

Fire intervals were historically 20 to 50 years and years of fire suppression have resulted in 

somewhat greater than historical patch size and large areas of old decadent stands. Fall canker 

worm activity has increased because of reduced fire intervals causing top and branch mortality. 

However, recovery of oak communities is often rapid following disturbance. Decadent stands, 

when intermixed as they commonly are, with housing and other development, pose a risk to 

public safety from fire. Fire suppression in this type has resulted in a decrease in diversity of 

structure and pattern and increased fuels creating a much greater risk for more intense fires than 

occurred historically. 

Bigtooth Maple: This cover type is found in the foothills where it is the ecological equivalent of 

Gambel oak and in some areas is capable of succeeding oak on more moist cooler sites. Maple 

often supports a sparse understory of grasses and forbs but has heavy leaf litter. It is capable of 

sprouting following fire. Fire suppression has resulted in longer than historical intervals with 

increasing age class, decreasing diversity in structure and pattern, and with maple replacing or 

co-dominant with oak in some areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 74 

Mountain Brush Complex: Chokecherry, serviceberry, gooseberries, mountain maple, 

mountain snowberry, and elderberry make up this cover type. These include species that 

resprout after fire and are intermingled with sagebrush at mid and conifer/aspen at higher 

elevations. Insect, disease, and fire intervals were historically in 20 to 40 year cycles. 

Suppression has allowed some pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to replace these communities and 

for encroachment of species such as Douglas–fir. Historic browsing primarily by wild ungulates 

has reduced the extent and crown cover of some mountain brush communities. 

Tall Forb: This cover type is considered the “flower garden” of the mountains. Historically, 

tall forb communities were common throughout the mountains above 8,000 feet where 

precipitation exceeds 35 inches annually. More than half of these highly productive tall forb 

communities were lost years ago due to excessive livestock grazing with concurrent significant 

soil loss. Many sites are presently dominated by tarweed, knotweed, mulesear, and western 

coneflower. Site restoration is difficult or impossible because of soil losses. Except in the 

canyons of the Wasatch front, grazing continues to occur on many of the sites currently or 

historically supporting tall forb communities. 

Sagebrush/Grasslands: These types are found throughout the Wasatch Mountains, covering 

more than 20 percent of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portion of this area. While there are 

seven known species of sagebrush in the area, mountain big sagebrush makes up an estimated 

60-70 percent and spiked big sagebrush makes up an estimated 20-30 percent across the 

landscape. Mountain big sagebrush occurs at elevations from 5,500 to 10,000 feet across a 

wide variety of landtypes. Fires historically occurred at about 20-40 year return cycles being 

lethal to individual sagebrush plants and favoring understory grasses and forbs. Fire in these 

landscapes typically burned in mosaic patterns leaving patches of several age and canopy classes. 

Currently many sagebrush communities are dominated by stands with greater than 15% 

sagebrush canopy cover due to a combination of fire suppression and livestock grazing. Forage 

utilization standards and monitoring are intended to increase grass and forb cover in these 

communities. At lower elevations, especially in foothills adjacent to urban areas, invasion of 

sagebrush by cheatgrass and various noxious weeds and annuals is common. Spiked big 

sagebrush generally occurs at elevations above 8,000 feet and is relatively productive having a 

greater diversity of wildflowers than mountain big sagebrush. Historical fire return intervals 

were 20-40 year cycles in mosaic patterns with spiked big sagebrush capable of sprouting after 

fire. 

Riparian: These streamside communities occupy a relatively small proportion of the landscape, 

however, they are highly productive, and heavily used and valued by both people and animals. 

These communities are very diverse and range from tree-dominated (cottonwood, box elder, etc.) 

to shrub dominated (willow, dogwood, alder, birch, etc.) to herbaceous (wildflowers, grasses, 

sedges, rushes). 

They are indicators of watershed conditions and play an important role in maintaining stream 

channels in a state of “dynamic equilibrium” where channel changes are at a rate consistent with 

sustaining hydrologic functions over time. Some riparian areas have disappeared because of 

overuse and changes caused by humans and domesticated livestock while others have been 

severely impacted. Water diversion, roads, timber harvest, grazing, and trampling including that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 75 

from recreation have been major causes of negative impacts such as lowering of water tables, 

erosion of stream channels, exotic plant encroachment, removal of beaver populations, increased 

water temperatures, concentrated runoff and increased sediment, and changes in vegetation 

density and composition, in riparian ecosystems. Also large areas of riparian and wetland 

ecosystems have been replaced by aquatic environments as a result of lakes and reservoirs 

behind human-built dams. Changes in historic flow regimes have reduced numbers and /or 

health of cottonwood trees in many areas. Changes in fire frequency have resulted in succession 

to conifers shading out deciduous species such as willow and aspen, which can cause reduced 

flows. Aquatic habitats are intertwined with riparian and upland vegetation conditions and can 

be negatively impacted as a result of increased erosion and sediment deposited in stream 

channels. This reduces exposed gravels for native fish spawning, broadens stream channels, 

creates shallow waters, reduces abundance and quality of pools, and increases water 

temperatures. Where streams have been down cut and water tables have dropped, riparian 

communities have been replaced by non-riparian species such as mountain big sagebrush, silver 

sagebrush, and Kentucky bluegrass. Streamside vegetation, food sources, and cover are also 

reduced as stream dynamics change and the effect is a net loss of aquatic and riparian species 

diversity. 

Inventories were conducted on some high-priority stream channels on the Forest in 1992 and 

1993. Approximately 29 percent of the nearly 119 inventoried miles were sampled in this 

ecological section. Of these inventoried miles of riparian area 42 percent were at PNC (potential 

natural communities), 47 percent were late seral, 4 percent were mid seral, 6 percent early seral 

and the remaining 1 percent in very early seral ecological condition. Because not attempt was 

made to inventory all miles of riparian these percentages do not necessarily represent the overall 

conditions in this ecological section. 

Rare Communities: A few rare or unique plant communities occur in this portion of the forest. 

These include the single needle pinyon (Pinus monophylla) communities in Mollens Hollow 

RNA southeast of the Cache Valley, which are not globally rare, but are very rare in this 

ecological section. Also near Right Hand Fork, Logan River, on the Bear River Range, are 

references to disjunct occurrences of Gambel oak and white fir. These species, while abundant 

elsewhere in the Wasatch Mountains, are not known from this portion. East of Salt Lake Valley, 

there are unique side-slope thinleaf alder (Alnus incana) communities in Little Cottonwood 

Canyon. While thinleaf alder is not uncommon on the forest, it typically occurs along streams 

and rivers and does not occur elsewhere on the forest as these large, sideslope seep communities. 

In Big Cottonwood Canyon are some ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) communities that are 

likely related to plantations in the early 20th century, but that are reproducing and maintaining 

themselves. These occur in and west of Mill D North Canyon. 

Vegetation Patterns 

The Wasatch Mountains occur within the Overthrust Mountains Section (Figure VEG-1), which 

is a part of the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe – Open Woodland – Coniferous Forest – 

Alpine Meadow Province (McNab and Avers 1994). These mountains extend from just east of 

Nephi on the south to southern Idaho where the Bear River turns the bend south toward the Great 

Salt Lake (Cronquist and others 1972). In the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Wasatch 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 76 

Mountains includes the Bear River Range and Wellsville Mountains on the northern portion 

(separated by the Cache Valley) and the Wasatch Range in the south-central portion of the 

Forest. These ranges represent a transition from the Great Basin to the Rocky Mountains. 

On the west-facing slopes, juniper occurs from the Bear River Range west to the Wellsville 

Mountains and scattered along rocky ridges in the Wasatch Range. Juniper is also becoming 

more and more a part of the bigtooth maple communities between Wellsville and Brigham City. 

Sagebrush (primarily with mature and old overstories) occurs from the lowest to subalpine 

elevations all along the Wasatch Mountains. Subalpine big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, 

and low sagebrush are non-sprouting species following fire. Spiked big sagebrush and silver 

sagebrush both sprout following fire. Mountain big sagebrush is probably the most common 

variety on the Forest, occurring from 4,500 ft. to over 9,000 ft. elevation on deep, well-drained 

soil. Spiked big sagebrush is also very common in the Wasatch Mountains occurring above 

6,800 ft. in elevation and on deep, productive soils. Subalpine big sagebrush occurs in the Bear 

River Range near Franklin Basin and generally occurs on shallower, more rocky and less 

productive soils than spiked big sagebrush. Low sagebrush occurs on rockier, well-drained sites 

that typically have very low forage production. Silver sagebrush occurs in the North Sinks 

region of the Bear River Range and is not known to occur in large stands anywhere in the 

Wasatch Mountains. It typically occupies very moist, almost riparian sites. Sagebrush 

communities form relatively large stands, often included in aspen, conifer, and mountain brush 

mosaics on the landscapes. 

Tall Forbs historically occurred in the Bear River Range as well as the Wasatch Range, but have 

experienced perhaps the greatest impacts of any vegetation community from historic livestock 

grazing. Few, if any of these communities in the Bear River Range occur with the diversity of 

species that they once had. Willard Basin and Ben Lomond Peak between North Ogden and 

Brigham City, and Albion Basin in Little Cottonwood Canyon still have relatively large expanses 

of this type in more-or-less natural condition. In parts of the Bear River Range, this type has 

been converted to a tarweed-dominated type or has significantly fewer desirable species. 

Bigtooth maple forms a rim along the relatively low-elevation, eastern slopes of the Wellsville 

Mountains in Cache Valley. Maple communities also occur in the draws, often succeeding the 

Gambel oak communities described below. In the Cache Valley, these maple communities are 

similar in habitat to Gambel oak communities that do not occur on this portion of the forest, and 

that may be absent here because of colder temperatures held in the valley because of winter 

inversions. Rocky Mountain juniper is slowly increasing it occurrence in the male cover type in 

some areas, but not expected to replace maple in most areas. 

Mature to old communities of Gambel oak are abundant on the west and south-facing foothills of 

the Wasatch Mountains from Brigham City south to the Uinta National Forest, but only occur as 

a dominant overstory species as far north as Brigham City (south and east of Hwy 89). Maple 

communities tend to replace the oak, primarily in moister draws. The northern-most known 

occurrence of Gambel oak on the Forest is in Right Hand Fork Canyon south of Logan Canyon. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 77 

Douglas-fir usually occurs in mature to old forms at lower forested elevations from the northern 

to southern borders of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. They occur primarily on the western 

portions of the Wasatch Mountains. Douglas-fir may be succeeded by white fir in the southern 

portion of the Wasatch Range north to, but not including, the Cache Valley. Very little White fir 

occurs north of this area, although a few individuals have been reported in Right Hand Fork 

Canyon south of Logan Canyon. White fir has increased its distribution in some areas because it 

has succeeded Douglas-fir. Several stands along the Wasatch front have, however, been killed 

by western spruce budworm, Douglas-fir tussock moth, and the fir engraver beetle, which as 

noted above is at epidemic levels throughout the Wasatch Mountains from Ogden south. 

Lodgepole pine occurs as narrow bands on north-facing slopes on the east side of the Bear River 

Range. Timber harvest has occurred in some of these stands, which adds some diversity to the 

age classes within these stands. In some portions of these communities aspen is a co-dominant 

and the same age as the lodgepole. Both species quickly reestablish themselves following 

disturbances such as timber harvest and fire. A few populations occur in Big Cottonwood 

Canyon and may have been planted here in the early 20th Century. 

Aspen occurs in conjunction with the lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and occasionally Douglasfir and spruce-fir communities. In these areas aspen is an early seral component that has been 

largely replaced by the later-seral conifers. Climax aspen occurs in the Monte Cristo portion of 

the Forest east of Ogden Valley and in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons east of Salt Lake 

City. It is considered to be climax in these areas because a conifer component is largely missing, 

which may be the result of either different site conditions or more likely because of the lack of a 

conifer seed source. 

Spruce-fir occurs at highest portions of the Wellsville Mountains, Bear River Range and in the 

Wasatch Range east of Salt Lake City. This cover type also occurs as scattered communities in 

the areas in-between. This type is generally dominated by Engelmann spruce with subalpine fir a 

minor to dominant component and some scattered Douglas-fir at the lower range of this type. 

Limber pine occurs at high elevations in the Wasatch Mountains on sites that are typically well 

drained and unable to support Engelmann spruce or subalpine fir. Understories are usually 

sparse, often with Oregon grape and kings fescue common components of the herbaceous layer. 

Noxious Weeds 

Appendix H1 lists the Utah and Wyoming Noxious Weeds and describes in more detail the 

occurrence of these species on the forest. This ecological section has a great variety and 

concentration of noxious weeds. The most common noxious weed in this area is dyers woad 

(Isatis tinctora). While most abundant along roadsides and travel ways, it extends away from 

these areas onto adjacent foothills and slopes. It occurs at nearly all elevations in the Bear River 

and Wasatch Ranges. Estimated population sizes range from less than 0.1 acre to over 650 acres. 

Leafy spurge has been found in both the Bear River and Wellsville Mountains and has been 

noted elsewhere on the forest as well. It occurs in the Mount Naomi and Wellsville Wilderness 

Areas. Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) has been found in the Bear River Range. Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense) occurs primarily along streams throughout the area, while hemlock has been 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 78 

noted in only a few locations in this portion of the forest. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria 

dalmatica) has been noted in the Bear River Range and is abundant along the foothills of the 

Wasatch Range. Russian knapweed and spotted knapweed (Centaurea repens and C. maculosa) 

are located in only a few areas in the Bear River Range and the Wasatch Range, but are 

considered to be the highest priority for treatment because of their expansive nature in other 

places they occur. Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and whitetop (Cardaria draba) 

have been found in the Bear River Range and whitetop has also been noted in the Wasatch 

Range as well. In addition to these noxious weeds, other undesirable plants, such as 

houndstongue (Cynoglossum offionale) and black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), are also present 

in the Bear River Range. Other noxious weeds, such as field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), 

perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), diffuse and 

squarrose knapweeds (Centaurea diffusa and C. virgata), yellow starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis) and quackgrass (Elymus repens) may also be present throughout this portion of the 

Forest, but have not been noted by personnel on the Forest. 

Bonneville Basin (Stansbury Mountains) 

Vegetation Cover Types and Disturbance Regimes

Alpine: Vegetation here at elevations above tree line (greater than 9,000 feet) is patchy with 

thin soils. Even slight disturbance is significant because of slow recovery in this harsh 

environment. Past human recreation traffic and some grazing are the only disturbance to 

vegetation in the alpine area and the effects have been negligible based on limited historic 

information. 

Limber Pine and Bristlecone Pine: These cover very small acreage in this mountain range. It 

is primarily composed of limber pine but with some bristlecone present on limestone substrates. 

Given the location in steep high elevation inaccessible areas, this type appears to be protected 

from any human caused impacts. The area gets frequent lightening strikes but fuel loading is 

sparse and fires usually do not carry. 

Aspen: These communities occupy mid-elevations in canyon bottoms, near springs, and on 

moist cool side slopes. It is interspersed with Douglas-fir at higher elevations and tree ages vary 

from 60 to 150 years. Patchy, low-intensity fires at higher elevations and more extensive fires at 

low elevations historically regenerated aspen and kept age classes in balance. Fire suppression 

has resulted in some of this type being replaced by coniferous forest and cattle grazing and 

recreation can impact stands especially where cattle or people congregate. 

White fir: This cover type occupies relatively minor acreage in drainages at low to mid 

elevations. It regenerates in shade of cottonwoods and aspen and is very sensitive to frequent 

low intensity fires. In the absence of fire, white fir has increased in numbers and density. 

Douglas-fir: This cover type occupies a moderate amount of acreage in pockets on north-facing 

slopes. Historical stand structures were primarily even-aged, single-canopy stands. A variety of 

insects and diseases are associated including Douglas-fir beetle, Douglas-fir tussock moth, and 

dwarf mistletoe. Fire regimes were usually non-lethal at frequencies of 10 to 30 years on dry 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 79 

sites, and 30 to 50 years on cooler/wetter sites with lethal fires very rare. Most stands have not 

burned in the past 100 years, have few seedling or sapling stands and are not actively 

regenerating. Fires suppression appears to have allowed Douglas-fir to overtake some aspen. 

Fuels have continued to build and potential for large lethal fires has increased. Older dense 

stands of Douglas-fir are also susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle. 

Juniper (Pinyon-Juniper): This cover type is the most common vegetation type in the WasatchCache National Forest portion of the Bonneville Basin. Juniper dominate most sites, while 

pinyon pine are scattered within some communities. Both Utah and Rocky Mountain juniper 

occur with Utah juniper on relatively drier sites increasing in density due to grazing and fire 

suppression and replacing sagebrush and in some instances mountain brush. Rocky Mountain 

juniper, on more moist sties, has not expanded as much as Utah juniper. Pinyon-juniper 

currently exceeds its historical distribution and density by as much as 60 percent. These pinyonjuniper communities occur on sites that were historically maintained in a sagebrush state through 

natural fires that occurred every 20-40 years. Currently, wind-driven crown fires can burn 

thousands of acres at a time, which is a radical change from the low-intensity surface fires every 

10 to 30 years that were part of the historical fire regime. Historic grazing significantly reduced 

fine fuels and also accelerated loss of topsoils with resulting decrease in production of 

herbaceous vegetation in the undergrowth. Some stands have been chained and seeded to crested 

wheatgrass. An increase in pinyon-juniper is thought to have had a dramatic impact on local 

aquifers because of the transpiration use year-round. 

Mountain Mahogany: This cover type is not common to this mountain range. Most is curlleaf 

mountain mahogany with birchleaf as a very limited component of the mountain brush type. 

Curlleaf mountain mahogany is evergreen, has a tree-like form, and has a number of disease 

pathogens. It is a weak resprouter following fire and reproduces mostly from seed. This type 

has been heavily browsed and is primarily in an old structural condition. It is being lost on dry 

southerly slopes where livestock and large ungulates overgraze reducing groundcover and 

degrading watershed conditions. 

Mountain Brush Complex: This complex of species is relatively common and includes 

chokecherry, serviceberry, gooseberries, birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain snowberry, 

and elderberry some of which sprout after fire. This complex occurs on slightly moister areas 

than sagebrush with annual precipitation of 15 to 25 inches. It occurs in mosaics with sagebrush 

and conifer/aspen or aspen providing a highly diverse landscape cover. Fires suppression has 

resulted in mature to old age classes of dominant shrubs, which is uncharacteristic of a type that 

historically burned every 20-40 years. 

Tall Forb: While the tall forb vegetation cover type has not been mapped in the Stansbury 

Mountains, forb-dominated plant communities occur here. They are similar to forb communities 

that occupy drier, often rocky sites in the Wasatch Mountains with species such as bee balm 

(Mondardella odorotissima), spike fescue (Leucopoa kingii), scarlet gilia (Gilia aggregata), rock 

goldenrod (Petradoria pumila), and various species of beardtongue (Penstemon spp.) present. 

As vegetation mapping procedures improve, this type will possibly make up about 1 percent or 

more of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portion of this mountain range. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 80 

Sagebrush/Grasslands: Sagebrush and grasslands are common at elevations of 5,500 to 10,000 

feet, with mountain big sagebrush composing an estimated 80-90 percent of the landscape and 

other sagebrush species being minor. Fire regime historically had a return interval of 20-40 

years with fires lethal to individual sagebrush plants and favoring understory grasses and forbs. 

Historic fire patterns created a mosaic of several age and canopy classes within any given 

landscape. Many acres of mountain big sagebrush have been treated and replanted to crested 

wheatgrass on the lower eastern portion of the Stansbury Mountains and it continues to be a 

major component among a few native species. Where treatments have not occurred, sagebrush 

stands are dominated by mature shrubs with greater than 15 percent canopy cover and ground 

cover less than 85 percent of potential (which does not provide adequate soil protection). Many 

acres of mountain big sagebrush have been replaced by pinyon-juniper because of removal of 

fire and reduction of fine fuels in the understory. Soil stability and productivity may be seriously 

affected from a loss in understory vegetation and surface erosion may increase. Fires that have 

occurred recently on the Stansbury Mountains have resulted in a decrease in juniper and an 

associated increase in early seral Sagebrush/Grassland communities. Without aggressive 

reseeding of perennial grasses and forbs following fire, cheatgrass has and will continue to 

dominate many drier landscapes. 

Riparian: These communities are a small amount of the land base, but are highly productive 

and heavily used by people and animals. A Few live water streams and many seeps characterize 

the area and springs scattered over the landscape. Many water sources become subterranean 

with most of the larger stream systems becoming dry near the Forest boundary because of water 

diversions for downstream users. Recreation use is often very high wherever there is live water

adjacent to accessible roads with consequent soil compaction and loss of streamside vegetation. 

Some aquatic habitat improvements (gabions, log structures) have been installed to improve 

habitat for species including Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat, rainbow and brown trout. 

Significant negative effects from a variety of uses include lowering of water tables, erosion of 

stream channels, exotic plant encroachment, removal of beaver populations, increased water 

temperatures, concentrated runoff and increased sediment from road construction, and changes in 

vegetation density and composition. White fir has replaced some of the cottonwood stands 

shading out deciduous willows. Cytospora and scale insects have adversely affected viability of 

cottonwood and willow in some areas. Interruption of historic disturbance patterns and several 

decades of reduced flows have led to a decrease in numbers of cottonwood trees. Other changes 

resulting from fire suppression include white fir, Douglas-fir, pinyon-juniper and sagebrush 

increases with water use year round reducing the amount of water available for stream flows. 

Aquatic habitats are intertwined with riparian and upland vegetation conditions and can be 

negatively impacted as a result of increased erosion and sediment deposited in stream channels. 

This reduces exposed gravels for native fish spawning, broadens stream channels, creates 

shallow waters, reduces abundance and quality of pools, and increases water temperatures. 

Streamside vegetation, food sources, and cover are also reduced as stream dynamics change and 

the effect is a net loss of aquatic and riparian species diversity. 

Inventories were conducted on some high-priority stream channels on the Forest in 1992 and 

1993. Approximately 3 percent of the nearly 119 inventoried miles were sampled in this 

ecological section (the Stansbury Mountains have a relatively low percent of the forest’s total 

riparian areas). Of these inventoried miles of riparian area 15 percent were at PNC (potential 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 81 

natural communities), 58 percent were late seral, 14 percent were mid seral, 10 percent early 

seral and the remaining 3 percent in very early seral ecological condition. As previously noted, 

because not attempt was made to inventory all miles of riparian these percentages do not 

necessarily represent the overall conditions in this ecological section. 

Rare Communities: As noted above, there are some bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) 

communities in the Stansbury Mountains that do not occur elsewhere on the forest and that are 

generally uncommon throughout their range. These bristlecone have been described as 

infrequent, but “locally dominant on limestone slopes at moderately high elevations” (Taye 

1983). 

Vegetation Patterns 

The Stansbury Mountains are part of the Bonneville Basin Section, which occurs within the 

Basin, and Range physiographic province as described by McNab and Avers (1994). The 

relatively low precipitation in this Section (up to 18 inches on the mountains) affects the plant 

communities that occur. Salt desert communities, while generally not present in the WasatchCache are common at elevations below the forest boundary on the west side of this mountain 

range. The lower foothills on the western portion of the Stansbury Mountains are dominated by 

juniper, which has invaded many sagebrush communities that once dominated these sites prior to 

fire suppression. Fire historically played a large role in controlling the expanse of juniper on 

these lower sites. Juniper is a more natural component on rockier sites above and within these 

foothills, because fire had a more difficult time burning with the naturally lower fuels. 

Sagebrush communities, while not as expansive as they were historically, generally occur from 

low to upper elevations. On the east side of the Stansbury Mountains, crested wheatgrass was 

seeded on many acres during the 1960’s. Because of the long-lived and competitive nature of 

crested wheatgrass, this species is still the dominant species on many of these areas although 

some natives, such as bluebunch wheatgrass, are beginning to reestablish. 

While aspen communities are not as big a component as is found elsewhere on the Forest, they 

are still an important part of mid-elevations in the Stansbury Mountains. In many areas aspen is 

being replaced by Douglas-fir and occasionally by some white fir in riparian areas. 

Douglas-fir communities are common mid-elevation communities within the conifer belt of the 

Stansbury Mountains. At the upper reaches of Douglas-fir dominance there is a transition into 

spruce-fir communities. White fir is invading riparian communities along South Willow and 

North Willow channels and is becoming a minor component in Douglas-fir stands. 

The Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir (Spruce-fir) communities, while not covering large 

acres within the Stansbury Mountains, are present at elevations above the Douglas-fir as well as 

on cooler, moister sites within the Douglas-fir belt. At the highest elevations below timberline in 

the range, these communities often form a mosaic with the limber pine-bristlecone pine 

communities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 82 

Both limber and bristlecone pines occur at the upper forest zone, just below timberline in the 

Stansbury Mountains. 

Alpine and subalpine forbs occur at higher elevations in the Stansbury Mountains. Deseret Peak, 

at just over 11,000 feet elevation, offers what little alpine habitat there is in the Stansbury 

Mountains. These sites are generally rocky rather than sod forming with scattered vegetation. 

Noxious Weeds 

Appendix H1 lists the Utah and Wyoming Noxious Weeds and describes in more detail the 

occurrence of these species on the forest. Whitetop has been noted along many drainages in the 

Stansbury Mountains including, but not limited to North Willow, South Willow, Big Hollow, 

Barlow, Spring Creek, Round, Big Granite, Monument, and Chokecherry Canyons. Other 

species are likely to occur, but have not been inventoried. 

Uinta Mountains 

Vegetation Cover Types and Disturbance Regimes 

Alpine: Distribution of alpine plant communities is tied to rock type, landform, and depth and 

duration of snow cover. Lewis (1970) described the Curly Sedge/Cushion Plan, Alpine AvensSedge and Sedge-Alpine Avens, Sedge-Grass, Wet Meadow and Bog, Dry Meadow, and Alpine 

Shrub communities. We have not mapped the alpine communities to this level of accuracy. 

Areas of semi-barrens vary from year to year depending on the persistence of snow cover and in 

“good” years are covered with sparse vegetation. Talus creep and cliff faces support other plant 

communities and the Red Pine Shale formation supports the sensitive plant species, alpine 

poppy. Limestone substrates support different plant composition than the common quartzite. 

Except for the sheep driveway, at localized salting and bedding grounds, and where high 

recreation use is concentrated (Naturalist Basin), alpine plant communities appear to be much as 

they might have been prior to European settlement. However in these use areas, ground cover is 

significantly lower than potential, and erosion has occurred resulting in watershed concerns. 

High Elevation Engelmann Spruce: These communities occur from above 10,400 feet 

elevation and extend down to about 10,000 feet. Spruce trees are 300-400 years and older with 

little or no replacement by subalpine fir. Typical fire regime is small infrequent fires with long 

intervals (300 years or more) between disturbance and maturation of forests. Uneven age and old 

stands dominate. Very little of these forests have been harvested and they show comparatively 

little mortality from insects with frequency of insect epidemics much lower than for lower 

elevations. At the highest elevation, these communities are represented by stunted krummholz 

conditions because of the severe environmental conditions that occur. 

Spruce-Fir: As noted in Table VEG-1, this type covers over 20 percent of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest portion of the Uinta Mountains. Spruce-fir occurs in the western portions of the 

Uintas between elevations of 8,000 and 10,000 feet. These communities often occur as relatively 

small group stands rather than the large continuous forest more typical of mixed conifer. 

Engelmann spruce is long-lived (250 to >300 years), on cool moist sites and has shallow roots 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 83 

(susceptible to windthrow); and most stands are in multi-canopy structural condition. Subalpine 

fir is similar in ecology but shorter-lived (100-150 years). Blue spruce is a very minor 

component with aspen, lodgepole pine, and a few Douglas-fir associated in mixed or seral 

stands. Harvest of spruce-fir stands was common both prior to and after World War II. The 

majority of the type is mid-aged and mature to old with many stands uneven-aged and/or multistoried. Areas harvested are covered with sapling and seedlings with composition weighted 

toward subalpine fir. There is a dynamic cycle between spruce and subalpine fir dominance 

depending on stand conditions and insect activities with subalpine fir co-dominating during the 

first century and then declining while the stand becomes dominated by Engelmann n spruce. 

Historic fire regimes were mixed with small fires burning individual trees to a few acres on a 

relatively frequent basis within most stands. These lethal small fires served to create unevenaged stands. Less frequent stand-replacing fires occurred on a 200 to 400 year cycle creating an 

earlier seral stage with more even-aged stands. There is increasing risk from fire and insects 

because of the increasingly mature component of stands as a result of fire suppression. 

Mixed Conifer-Uinta Mountains: This type occurs between 9,000 and 10,500 ft. elevation. A 

conspicuous difference between this type in the Uinta Mountains and many other areas is the 

strong presence of mature and old lodgepole pine intermixed with Engelmann spruce with rather 

low presence of subalpine fir. Lodgepole pine often clearly dominates stands, reflecting its 

more-rapid establishment following disturbance. In places subalpine fir shows a strong presence 

in shrubby form by layering, however it appears that the vast area of quartzite materials of the 

Uinta Mountain Group present substrates on which subalpine fir fails to express dominance. As 

noted in Table VEG-1, this type covers nearly 25 percent of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

portion of the Uinta Mountains. Areas of this type outside Wilderness have been harvested and a 

mountain pine beetle epidemic swept the eastern but not western Uinta Mountains. Historic fire 

regimes were lethal fires on a 100-300 year cycle. Following fire, lodgepole pine tends to 

dominate stands for a period while spruce a shade-tolerant species, eventually again becomes a 

significant component. Without fire or other disturbance, the lodgepole pine component will be 

greatly reduced. 

Lodgepole Pine: In the Uinta Mountains lodgepole pine occupies large areas in unbroken 

stands. Historical fire regimes included large stand replacing fires at intervals of 100-200 years 

followed by rapid regeneration of trees with a resulting relatively few age classes across the 

landscape. Mountain pine beetle is also a contributor to regeneration creating conditions suitable 

for large fires. Dwarf mistletoe is an active agent throughout theses ecosystems with highly 

variable levels of infestation. Clear cutting has been widespread as well as tie-hacking in the 

Blacks Fork and Bear River drainages. Tie hacking was a process of tree harvest and placement 

of trees in waterways where streams backed up large amounts of water, then blasted to allow the 

trees to flow downstream off the forest for cutting into railroad ties. This practice affected both 

thousands of acres of upland (clear-cut) and riparian ecosystems with effects evident even today. 

Early harvests was done in blocks of 300-500 acres or more with later harvest limited to 40 acre 

blocks considering elk hiding cover. Gently sloping areas have mostly been harvested with long 

persistent lodgepole remaining on steeper or rockier areas. Mountain pine beetle heavily 

impacted lodgepole pine in the Uinta Mountains in the early 1980’s. For several years, many 

thousands of acres of lodgepole were treated to minimize impacts from the beetle, but these 

treatments were, for the most part, unsuccessful in the long term. The largest number of acres 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 84 

affected by the beetle occurred on the Ashley National Forest in the eastern portion of the Uinta 

Mountains. 

Aspen: Three distinct categories of this type have been identified. Conifers eventually replace

Seral Aspen in the absence of disturbance. Seral Aspen-Lodgepole is composed of codominate aspen and lodgepole with both regenerating after fire. Climax Aspen is usually at 

lower elevations and/or drier sites where conifer encroachment remains low with or without fire 

or other disturbance. On the north slope of the Uinta Mountains there has been a large loss of 

Seral Aspen to mixed conifer and spruce-fir as a result of fire suppression. Conifers make up 

more than 35% in most existing aspen stands except in the eastern Uintas where mountain pine 

beetle in the 1980s and harvest in the past 50 years has regenerated seral aspen. 70-80% of aspen 

stands are mature or old age classes with a resulting loss of structural diversity. Expanding elk 

herds also pose a risk to regenerating seral aspen. The historical fire regime was for lethal fires 

at intervals needed to keep aspen abundant and vigorous. Seral Aspen-Lodgepole is the largest 

aspen cover type with most stands in the mature to old age classes as a result of successful fire 

suppression. Stands are becoming dominated by lodgepole pine without lethal fire return 

intervals within the historic range but where pine bark beetle has killed lodgepole stands have 

been rejuvenated. Climax Aspen is typically adjacent to sagebrush/grasslands on lower elevation

sites that cannot support conifers. Some clones have great ability to regenerate under mature 

stems while others do not. Most of these stands are in the mature and old age classes affecting 

structural diversity but clone-by-clone evaluation is necessary to determine proper functioning 

condition. Expanding elk herds pose a risk, which has become significant in some areas. 

Interior Douglas-fir: This community is confined to a limestone belt with much in the eastern 

Uinta Mountains in mid to old age classes. Historic fire regimes were non-lethal and mixed 

severity on a 10-25 year cycle on drier sites and 30-50 years on wetter sites. Lack of non-lethal 

ground fires has allowed for an increase in the shade tolerant true firs and a build up of dead and 

down ladder fuels. In some areas this type is being replaced by White fir. Insect activities do 

not currently exceed endemic levels but conditions are such that most stands rate out at “high” 

risk because of stand densities and age. Clear cutting in this type has resulted in slow tree 

regeneration and created grass/forb openings. Douglas-fir is moving into sagebrush, mahogany, 

and mountain brush communities in the absence of fire. The lack of fires during the last century 

increases the likelihood that fires will be stand replacing and may result in greater watershed 

damage than historic fires. 

Juniper (Pinyon-Juniper): This is a minor cover type occupying less than 1000 acres in the 

western portion of this area. No pinyons are known to occur in this portion of the Uinta 

Mountains Ecological Section. Historical fire return intervals were 50-200 years. Without fire, 

juniper crown closure results in a significantly reduced understory exposing soils to erosion 

because of lack of ground cover. Old stands with risk to watershed conditions are within the 

historic range of variability. Risk of cheatgrass invasion exists especially where fires are not 

followed with the seeding of vigorous perennial species that have high ability to compete with it. 

Mountain Mahogany: Both Birchleaf Mahogany and Curlleaf Mahogany occur in the Uinta 

Mountains. Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany is a poor sprouter, readily killed by fire. It has 

winter persistent leaves and is highly hedged by wildlife, including mule deer, elk, and moose. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 85 

Stands in this area are relatively small (100 to 200 acres) and show that concentrated elk and 

moose utilization are resulting in declining conditions (vigor, density, and reproduction). Fire 

regimes were historically mixed severity/lethal on a 50 to 70 year cycle. Birchleaf Mountain 

Mahogany sprouts after fire and is found from about 6,000 to 9,000 feet elevation with lower 

areas seral to pinyon-juniper and higher areas seral to Douglas-Fir. Curl-leaf mahogany stands 

in the Kamas Ranger District are not regenerating, possibly because of lack of seed set and/or 

germination. Stands are old with tall, highlined structure and cheatgrass has invaded. 

Gambel Oak: This community is present along the western end of the Uinta Mountains. 

Gambel oak is a prolific sprouter with Bigtooth maple a common component on more moist 

sites. Oak expanded somewhat into areas of sagebrush/grass. Historic fire regimes were mixed 

severity with crown fires every 20 to 50 years. Fire suppression has resulted in reduced 

understory species and cheatgrass is common in lower elevation stands adjacent to agricultural 

lands. A variety of insects are common to the oak type; however, none of the native insect 

species has posed a serious threat to the oak to date. Residential encroachment is occurring in 

this type in many foothill areas and there is increased potential fire intensities because of fuel 

build up. 

Tall Forb: Tall forb communities occur only on the western portion of the Uinta Mountains on 

limestone-derived soils. It is estimated that about 50 percent of the sites once occupied by tall 

forbs are no longer present because of loss of productive topsoil resulting from historic impacts 

of heavy livestock grazing. On sites where potential remains, plant composition has changed 

significantly and currently many of these sites have high gopher populations, which prevents 

development of perennial forb cover. Invasion of tarweed, mulesear, and other weedy species 

are common. Risks to the type include uncontrolled livestock grazing, continued loss of topsoil, 

and invasion of annual weedy species (tarweed and knotweeds) and noxious weeds. 

Sagebrush/Grasslands: Of eight known taxa of sagebrush in the area, mountain big sagebrush 

is the most common. The fire regime historically was on about a 20-40 year return interval, with 

sagebrush having the ability to return to pre-fire cover within 20 years. The majority of 

sagebrush is currently in older age-classes with higher canopy cover and reduced grass-forb 

cover. Spiked sagebrush, while less common, occurs on more moist sites. Silver sagebrush 

occurs adjacent to many streams on the north slope, but is not common on the western portion of 

the Uinta Mountains. Silver sagebrush and spiked sagebrush both have the ability to sprout 

following fire and, therefore, these communities return to pre-burn canopy cover more quickly. 

Riparian: Inventories were conducted on some high-priority stream channels on the Forest in 

1992 and 1993. Approximately 68 percent of the nearly 119 inventoried miles were sampled in 

this ecological section. Of these inventoried miles of riparian area 42 percent were at potential 

natural community status (PNC), 47 percent were late seral, 4 percent were mid seral, 6 percent 

early seral and the remaining 1 percent in very early seral ecological condition. As previously 

noted, because no attempt was made to inventory all miles of riparian these percentages do not 

necessarily represent the overall conditions in this ecological section. In the Uinta Mountain 

Section, the PFC assessment (USDA Forest Service 1998c) divided these areas into Stream 

Canyon Riparian Complexes and Subalpine Meadow Complexes, which are described in 

more detail below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 86 

Stream Canyon Riparian Complexes: These complexes occur at all elevations with a great 

diversity of communities associated and structural diversity that exceeds all other cover 

types. Both deciduous and evergreen trees (aspen, narrowleaf cottonwood, box elder, and 

rarely bigtooth maple; limber pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, blue spruce, Engelmann 

spruce, and subalpine fir) occur along with tall shrubs and low trees (thinleaf alder, western 

birch, Bebbs willow, Scouler willow, caudate willow) and shorter shrubs (Booths willow, 

Drummonds willow, Geyers willow, red-osier dogwood, and woods rose) in addition to an 

herbaceous layer of grasses, sedges, and forbs. Because these generally narrow communities 

are often adjacent to moderate to steep gradient streams well armored by rock and adjacent to 

conifer communities, they are typically protected from large amounts of domestic or wild 

grazers. Timber harvest has been minor and structural diversity is high. Fuel loading is 

extreme in some places but in general these communities can be expected to recover rapidly 

from fire, which historically was on a 100-200 year cycle. 

Subalpine Meadow Complexes: These plant communities vary with geomorphology and 

both wet and dry conditions. Wet meadow complexes are dominated by plainleaf willow, 

water sedge, mud sedge, few-flowered spikerush, deerhair bullrush, marsh marigold, 

elephants head, and other wetland species intergrading into tufted hairgrass communities 

transitioning into dry meadow complexes dominated by timber oatgrass or sheep fescue. 

Wolfs willow is common where the water table is at or near the surface for much of the 

growing season. Red Pine Shale occurrence is accompanied by barrens and semi barrens 

with inherent infertility and varying degrees of resistance to erosion. Cattle allotments are 

common at lower elevations and some of these meadow complexes have been without 

livestock grazing for many years. Impacts from years of livestock grazing to some of these 

broad meadow complexes are apparent with ecological status ranging from very early seral to 

potential natural. Recreation stock use is common in these areas while hiking and camping 

are largely confined to trails running through meadows and in the vicinity of lakes. Beaver 

are common where willows and aspen are available for dam construction. Their activities 

store water and raise the water table expanding riparian areas and trapping stream sediments. 

Ponds provide habitat for fish, birds, and aquatic furbearers. Dry meadow complexes are 

more sensitive than wet to sheep grazing because they receive more use. Where livestock 

have been removed or numbers reduced from those of the early part of the century, 

composition and ground cover can return to proper functioning. 

Rare Communities: Ponderosa Pine communities are present and only in a small amount (about 

500 acres) on the Kamas Ranger District. This is the westernmost extent of ponderosa pine in 

northern Utah, with the exception of a few scattered individuals and small groups in the Wasatch 

Mountains. Historic non-lethal ground fires with a return interval of 5 to 25 years would have 

cleared the ground of some of the duff layer and provided favorable seedbeds for ponderosa pine 

regeneration. Successive fires would have favored continued growth of established ponderosa 

pine saplings. Planting of ponderosa pine as well as clearing of invading juniper aimed at 

perpetuating the Ponderosa pine has been completed. In addition, there are some unique spruce 

communities with water birch as a component on the lower meadows typically north of the 

forest, but also occurring in a few locations on the eastern portion of Evanston Ranger 

District/western portion of the Mountain View Ranger District. Some white fir, which is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 87 

identified as a Wyoming State rare species (S1), has been noted on the northern portions of the 

Uinta Mountains. Its presence on the Forest has not been identified to date, but if present would 

be important to protect. 

Vegetation Patterns 

The Uinta Mountains are an ecological section, which, like the Overthrust Mountains Ecological 

Section, are within the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe – Open Woodland – Coniferous Forest 

– Alpine Meadow Province (McNab and Avers 1994). The Uinta Mountains are primarily in 

northeastern Utah with a small portion occurring in southwestern Wyoming and western 

Colorado. The patterns of vegetation across the Uinta Mountains are fairly uniform from east to 

west, although landscape patterns west of Stillwater are more similar to the Wasatch Mountains. 

In addition, there are limestone uplifts within the northern portion of the Uinta Mountains that 

run east-west with north-facing slopes typically dominated by Douglas-fir and south-facing 

slopes often dominated by sagebrush. 

In general, going from north to south (lower elevation to higher elevation) on the North Slope of 

the Uinta Mountains the plant communities include open sagebrush flats, aspen, lodgepole, Uinta 

Mountain mixed conifer (a mixture of lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir), 

spruce-fir forests, high elevation Engelmann spruce, including krummholz, semi-circular rocky 

cirque basins, and alpine tundra. Interspersed at higher elevations throughout this portion of the 

North Slope are a profusion of lakes, streams and wetlands. 

While present throughout the Uinta Mountains, sagebrush communities are most evident in the 

western Uinta Mountains near Whitney Reservoir, on the western face of the range east of 

Kamas and Oakley, and on the far eastern portion of the Forest adjacent to birchleaf mountain 

mahogany, aspen and lodgepole communities. Nearly all sagebrush stands are mature with 

canopy cover over 15 percent. Some stands on the south faces of limestone ridges have been 

treated within the past 10-15 years and have a more open canopy. Silver sagebrush is a common 

component adjacent to riparian ecosystems and is sometimes a part of riparian ecosystems. 

Tall Forb communities historically occurred in the western portion of the Uinta Mountains 

(Hoyts Peak and Whitney areas), but have experienced impacts from historic livestock grazing. 

In parts of the Hoyts Peak area, this type has been converted to a tarweed-dominated type and 

has experienced significant soil loss as well. This loss of topsoil has made the natural recovery 

of these sites very difficult. 

Birchleaf mountain mahogany occurs in the vicinity of Widdop Mountain on the eastern portion 

of the forest on the North Slope. Birchleaf mountain mahogany communities are managed so 

that use of browse is at a level that not only provides for the continued maintenance of existing 

vegetation, but also provides for the continued reproduction and replacement of decadent and 

dead individuals within the stands. 

Aspen stands on the northern most fringes of the Uinta Mountains are climax in nature, not being 

replaced over time by conifers in the overstory. These typically have common juniper (a shrub 

form of juniper) in the understory. They occur on the drier fringe of the forest ecosystems. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 88 

Somewhat higher in elevation pure lodgepole pine communities occur. In many cases aspen is a 

component and a seral co-dominant. 

Lodgepole pine occurs on the lower portion of the conifer forest zone in the Uinta Mountains. 

At these lower elevations, lodgepole pine is generally not seral to spruce and fir. It may be 

associated with aspen, and where it is they often co-dominate before and after fire, but with 

continued fire suppression, these stands will eventually become dominated by lodgepole alone. 

The role of fire in the lodgepole pine, mixed conifer and aspen ecosystems has been replaced to 

some extent by timber harvest over the last 100 years. Extensive tie hacking in the late 

1800’s/early 1900’s produced uneven-age stands and affected watershed and wetland functions. 

Logs cut for railroad ties were placed in several streams on the north slope of the Uinta 

Mountains. Large dams were formed with these logs, and then blasted so the logs would flow 

northward off the forest. This practice affected the riparian areas to an extent that is still 

unknown. 

Above the band of pure aspen, lodgepole pine and aspen regenerated concurrently following fires 

with mixed regimes (some stand replacing and some ground fires). Most of the pure lodgepole 

pine type appears to have regenerated following large, stand replacing fires. Some of the 

lodgepole pine stands on drier sites appear to have experienced cycles of surface or mixed 

severity fires that allowed them to develop an uneven-aged structure. 

Douglas-fir communities are restricted to limestone outcrops at mid to upper elevations in a band 

across the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. Most of these stands are mature to old in age 

class. 

A majority of the forested stands on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains are what have been 

described as the Uinta Mountain mixed conifer communities, dominated by a mixture of 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. There is no clear succession to spruce-fir 

dominance as is evidenced by the presence of mature trees (150 years or older) of each of these 

overstory dominants. Aspen, as previously noted, occurs from the northern fringes of the 

forested portion of the Uinta Mountains. In addition, it occurs up to the spruce-fir zone but is 

primarily a major component in the lodgepole and Uinta mixed conifer zones. These forests are 

dependent on disturbance to maintain a properly functioning condition. 

At even higher elevations, spruce-fir communities occur. These differ from the mixed conifer 

communities at lower elevations in their lack of lodgepole pine. Disturbance regimes historically 

included smaller, more localized fires. Pure Engelmann spruce communities occur at the upper 

tree line and often grade into krummholz growth forms at the uppermost elevations, where it 

occurs. 

Upper elevation forested stands (both spruce-fir and Engelmann spruce) appear to have a 

relatively infrequent fire history that is probably due in part to the wetter conditions during the 

fire season. These upper elevation stands are frequently in smaller patch sizes with changes in 

species composition dependent on how large and intense the fires were and how long succession 

from seral lodgepole pine to subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce has been progressing. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 89 

Rock talus (barren) sites are an important part of the upper landscape, but tend to form the cirque 

basin walls below the alpine communities, which are the uppermost vegetation zone in the Uinta 

Mountains. These differ from those on other ecological sections of the Forest because of the 

abundance of vegetation cover, which results from more soil and relatively fewer rocky outcrop 

sites. 

Noxious Weeds 

Appendix H1 lists the Utah and Wyoming Noxious Weeds and describes in more detail the 

occurrence of these species on the forest. Dyers woad is beginning to expand into this 

management area from adjacent Utah. While it has only been noted at one location along Beaver 

Creek east of Kamas, it is on several sites south of Evanston. White top has been noted in some 

of these areas as well. Canada and musk thistle are common throughout this area, spotted 

knapweed has been found near the forest boundary south of Mountain View. 

General Effects 

The ecosystem management principle of sustainability implies our ability to define and measure 

the status of ecosystems now, as compared to their historic range of variability. The concept of 

"historic range" recognizes that ecosystems are dynamic in nature and that disturbance and 

change is a common component. Areas that are within their historic range of variability are said 

to be in "properly functioning condition" (PFC). 

Properly Functioning Conditions Assessment Summary 

An assessment of PFC of vegetation cover types in National Forests in northern Utah (Ashley, 

Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests) was completed in 1998 (USDA Forest Service 

1998). Historic reference conditions for this area, including the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

were based on fire history studies, historical records, and documentation of historic uses of these 

lands both prior to and after the establishment of the National Forest System. Consistent with 

the ecosystem management principle of humans as ecosystem components, we include Native 

American actions (such as setting fires) prior to the settlement of Europeans, in the picture of 

historic reference conditions. These ecosystems did evolve in a sustainable manner with humans 

as integral parts. Table VEG-2 shows both the desired an existing age class diversity for 

vegetation cover types on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portions of the Bonneville Basin, 

Overthrust Mountains, and Uinta Mountains Ecological Sections. 

Ecological conditions were assessed by looking at four distinct aspects or ecosystem features: 

1) Composition- the species list; 2) Structure- the layers and ages of species; 3) Patterns- the 

patchwork of species and ages across the landscape; and 4) Functions- processes and how they 

occur and interact on the land. 

The PFC Assessment completed for the northern Utah national forests (Ashley, Uinta, and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests) focused primarily on changes in patterns over the landscape 

(e.g. aspen cover types being replaced by various conifer cover types or sagebrush/grasslands 

being replaced by pinyon-juniper through the control of fires over the past 50 to 100 years) with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 90 

some focus on changes that have occurred in age class diversity (structure) and species 

composition primarily in forested ecosystems. From these changes we infer changes in the way 

these ecosystems function. 

Table VEG-2. Existing and desired age class diversity for vegetation cover types occurring in the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest portions of the Bonneville Basin (BB), Uinta Mountain (UM), and 

Overthrust Mountain (OM) Ecological Sections. 

Cover Type Desired Age Class Diversity Existing Age Class Diversity 

Limber Pine, Bristlecone Pine 

Grass/Forb, seedlings - saplings = 10 - 20%

Young, Mid Aged &Mature forests = 30 - 50% 

Old Forests = 20 - 40%

BB - Most stands are in the mature 

stages (>80 years old) with little 

young or very old stands. 

UM-Not Present 

OM - All Mature to Old 

Engelmann Spruce – 

Subalpine Fir 

Grass/Forb = 5-15% 

Seedling/Sapling = 5-15 % 

Young Forest about = 10-30% 

Mid Aged Forest about = 10-30% 

Mature Forest about = 10-30% 

Old Forest about = 10-30% 

BB - Minor component 

OM - more than 40% of the type in 

mature or old age classes 

UM - 

Grass/Forb = 0 

Seedling/Sapling = 0 

Immature = 7% 

Mature =6% 

Old = 87% 

OM - 

Grass/Forb = 0% 

Seedling/Sapling = 0% 

Immature = 1% 

Mature = 2% 

Old = 97% 

Aspen 

Grass/Forb - Seedling/Sapling = 20 - 40 % 

Immature = 20 - 40% 

Mature = 20 - 40% 

BB – 

Grass/Forb - Seedling/Sapling = <1% 

Immature = 10% 

Mature = 90% 

UM – 

Grass/Forb - Seedling/Sapling = 31% 

Immature = 2% 

Mature = 67% 

OM – 

Grass/Forb - Seedling/Sapling = <1% 

Immature = 1% 

Mature = 99%

Mixed Conifer – Lodgepole 

Pine 

Grass/Forb = 5-15% 

Seedling/Sapling = 5-15 % 

Young Forest about = 10-30% 

Mid Aged Forest about = 10-30% 

Mature Forest about = 10-30% 

Old Forest about = 10-30% 

BB – Not present 

UM – 

Grass/Forb = 1% 

Seedling/Sapling = 7% 

Immature = 10% 

Mature = 80% 

Old = 2% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 91 

Cover Type Desired Age Class Diversity Existing Age Class Diversity 

OM – 

Grass/Forb = 2% 

Seedling/Sapling = 1% 

Immature = 3% 

Mature = 94% 

Old = <1% 

Interior Douglas-fir 

Grass/Forb = 5-15% 

Seedling/Sapling = 5-15 % 

Young Forest about = 10-30% 

Mid Aged Forest about = 10-30% 

Mature Forest about = 10-30% 

Old Forest about = 10-30% 

BB – Nearly all stands are in mature 

and old age classes. 

UM – 

Grass/Forb = 0% 

Seedling/Sapling = 0% 

Immature = 11% 

Mature = 89% 

Old = <1% 

OM – 

Grass/Forb = 0% 

Seedling/Sapling = 0% 

Immature = <1% 

Mature = 99% 

Old = <1% 

Pinyon-Juniper 

Grass/Forb = 5-15% 

Seedling/Sapling = 5-15 % 

Young Forest about = 10-30% 

Mid Aged Forest about = 10-30% 

Mature Forest about = 10-30% 

Old Forest about = 10-30% 

BB - Most juniper stands are mature 

or old. 

UM - Currently more than 40% is 

mature and old (insignificant on the 

W-C portion of the Uinta Mountains) 

OM - More than 40% of the stands 

are in mature and old age classes. 

Gambel Oak 

Seedling/Sapling about 30-60% 

Immature 20-40% 

Mature 20-40% 

BB – Not present 

UM – Component confined to a small 

portion of the Western Uinta 

Mountains Management Area. 

OM – 

Seedling/Sapling = 7% 

Immature = 18% 

Mature = 75% 

Sagebrush (Big)/Grassland 

<5% crown cover = 10-30% 

5-15% crown cover = 30-50% 

>15% crown cover = 30-50% 

BB - Many stands are skewed 

toward greater crown cover closure. 

UM - Overall a balanced range of 

structural stages. 

OM - Mountain big sagebrush 

skewed toward greater crown cover 

closure. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 92 

The primary impacts to ecosystems in northern Utah National Forests that have caused 

ecosystems to no longer be within their range of historic variation are the exclusion of fire 

through suppression, historically high livestock grazing levels, and the damming and diversion of 

water. In addition, impacts to riparian ecosystems have resulted from livestock grazing as well 

as from road construction and from heavy recreation use. Fire exclusion has resulted in a 

reduction in age class diversity of most shrub- and tree-dominated cover types. Probably most 

significant is the greater than 60 percent reduction in acres of aspen communities on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Heavy livestock grazing resulted in a loss of protective ground 

cover, which had severe impacts to watershed conditions through soil erosion and impacts to the 

riparian ecosystems. In addition, livestock grazing resulted in a large change in plant 

composition allowing for the invasion of non-native species and/or an increase in less palatable 

native species. The damming and diversion of streams has had a large impact on the stream 

environment. Dams have created barriers to the movement of fish while diversions have resulted 

in the complete loss of water from some streams and abnormally high, sustained flows in others. 

A summary of the PFC assessment for the National Forest of northern Utah (Table VEG-3) 

shows some obvious areas where conditions across landscapes are no longer properly 

functioning based on current vegetation conditions. Those areas with a high deviation from 

historic range of variability are considered to be non-functioning or poorly functioning while 

those with a moderate deviation from their historic variability may still be functioning, but at 

risk. Some of the most notable communities at risk are the seral aspen (over 65 percent of the 

seral aspen communities on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have been, or are rapidly being, 

replaced by conifer tree-dominated communities), seral aspen-lodgepole, Engelmann spruce, 

interior Douglas-fir, tall forb, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems. The oakbrush communities, 

while noted as having a low to moderate deviation from historic conditions, have been protected, 

to the degree possible, from fire. Because this has resulted in a build up of fine fuels, and 

because more and more homes are being built up to the edge of the oakbrush communities 

(comprising many of the acres now referred to as Wildland Urban Interface or WUI), there is an 

ever-increasing threat to property and safety from even larger wildfires in the future. In addition, 

sagebrush communities were noted as having moderate to high variation from historic conditions 

(Table VEG-3). These are different that those identified in PFC evaluation for National Forests 

in northern Utah (USDA Forest Service 1998c). In that document evaluations did not account 

for the predominantly old age classes of spiked and mountain big sagebrush stands with typically 

dense (>15 percent) sagebrush canopies. The moderate to high ranking in the Bonneville Basin 

Section in Table VEG-3 is based primarily on juniper invasion of sagebrush communities, but 

also includes the low age-class diversity in sagebrush throughout its distribution. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 93 

Table VEG-3. Deviation (Low, Moderate, High) from Historic Range of Variation for the 

Bonneville Basin, Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains of Northern Utah and for the 

Caribou National Forest. 

Subject Area (Cover Type) Wasatch 

Mountains 

Bonneville 

Basin 

Uinta 

Mountains 

Caribou 

National 

Forest 

Alpine Low-Mod Low Low * 

Limber Pine/Bristlecone Pine Low Low * Low 

Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir

 -High Elevation Spruce

 -Spruce-Fir

 -Subalpine fir

 -Mixed Conifer

* 

Mod-High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

* 

** 

* 

* 

Low 

Low-Mod 

* 

Low-Mod 

High 

Aspen

 -Seral Aspen

 -Seral Aspen-Lodgepole

 -Climax Aspen

High 

* 

Low 

High 

** 

** 

High 

Mod-High 

Low-Mod 

High 

Lodgepole Pine Low-Mod * Low Low 

White Fir Mod-High Low ** * 

Interior Douglas-fir Mod-High Mod-High Mod-High Moderate 

Pinyon-Juniper Mod-High High Low-Mod 

(High) 

High 

Mountain Mahogany

 -Curlleaf

 -Birchleaf (Alderleaf)

Low-Mod 

Low-Mod 

Low-Mod 

Low-Mod 

Low-Mod 

Mod-High 

Moderate 

Gambel Oak Low-Mod 

(High) 

Low-Mod Low-Mod * 

Maple Low-Mod * ** High 

Mountain Brush Low Low Low Low 

Tall Forb High Mod-High Mod-High High 

Sagebrush Grasslands

 -Mountain Big Sagebrush

 -Spiked Big Sagebrush

 -Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Mod-High 

Mod-High 

* 

Mod-High 

** 

** 

Low 

** 

** 

Moderate 

Riparian

 -Stream Canyon

 -Subalpine Meadow

High High 

Low 

Mod-High 

High 

Aquatic Mod-High High Mod-High 

 * Subject Area not present in assessment area. 

** Subject Area not evaluated in this assessment due to lack of substantial distribution in the assessment area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 94 

Environmental Consequences 

Vegetation Cover Types and Properly Functioning Condition 

Forest-wide, the following vegetation cover types are considered to be the furthest away from 

properly functioning conditions (PFC): 

• Aspen (distribution and age class diversity); 

• Douglas-fir (age class diversity); 

• Oak (age class diversity); 

• Pinyon-juniper (distribution and age class diversity); 

• Sagebrush (age class diversity); 

• Tall forb (distribution and composition); and 

• Riparian (age class diversity and composition). 

Table VEG-4a compares the current structural composition to the desired composition for the 

various forest types. 

Table VEG-4a. Existing and desired conditions of various cover types by 

 Ecological Section. 

Existing Age Classes 

(Percent) 

Cover Type 

Desired Age 

Classes at PFC 

(Percent) Overthrust 

Mountains Uinta Mountains

Oak 

SS – 30-50% 

IMM – 20-40% 

MAT – 20-40% 

SS – 7% 

IMM – 18% 

MAT – 75% 

SS – 7% 

IMM – 18% 

MAT – 75% 

Aspen 

GF, SS – 20-40% 

IMM – 20-40% 

MAT – 20-40% 

GF, SS – 0% 

IMM – 1% 

MAT – 99% 

GF, SS – 7% 

IMM – 1% 

MAT – 92% 

Douglas-fir 

GF – 5-15% 

SS – 5-15% 

IMM – 10-30% 

MAT – 10-30% 

OLD – 10-30% 

GF – 0% 

SS – 0% 

IMM – 1% 

MAT – 99% 

OLD – 0% 

GF – 0% 

SS – 0% 

IMM – 11% 

MAT – 89% 

OLD – 0% 

Mixed 

Conifer 

Lodgepole 

GF – 5-15% 

SS – 5-15% 

IMM – 10-30% 

MAT – 10-30% 

OLD – 10-30% 

GF – 2% 

SS – 1% 

IMM – 3% 

MAT – 94% 

OLD – 0% 

GF – 1% 

SS – 7% 

IMM – 10% 

MAT – 80% 

OLD – 2% 

Spruce-Fir 

GF – 5-15% 

SS – 5-15% 

IMM – 10-30% 

MAT – 10-30% 

OLD – 10-30% 

GF – 0% 

SS – 0% 

IMM – 1% 

MAT – 1% 

OLD – 98% 

GF – 0% 

SS – 0% 

IMM – 7% 

MAT – 6% 

OLD – 87% 

Table VEG-4b compares the current structural composition to the desired composition for the 

sagebrush cover type Forest wide. Currently an estimated 5 percent of the sagebrush 

communities across the forest have low (<5%) crown cover, about 25 percent of the sagebrush 

communities have moderate (5-15 %) crown cover, and about 70 percent have high (>15%) 

crown cover. The desired conditions are to have about 5-15 percent of the sagebrush 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 95 

communities across the forest with low (<5 %) crown cover, about 30-50 percent of the 

sagebrush communities with moderate (5-15 %) crown cover, and about 30-50 percent have high 

(>15%) crown cover. 

Table VEG-4b. Existing and desired conditions of the sagebrush vegetation 

 cover type across the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Cover Type 

Existing Canopy 

Cover Classes 

(Percent)

Desired Age 

Classes at PFC 

(Percent) 

sagebrush 

low – 4% 

moderate – 21% 

high – 58% 

low – 5-15% 

moderate – 30-50% 

high – 30-50% 

These cover types are the primary focus of comparisons between alternatives when addressing 

PFC. Acres in existing wilderness and recommended wilderness, as well as those areas managed 

as undeveloped, affect the ways vegetation can be managed. Because mechanical treatment 

cannot be used in these areas, fire is the only tool available to modify existing condition. 

Table VEG-5 lists various activities (prescribed fire, timber harvest, fuels treatment, and road 

construction) and their acres by alternative. This table is provided to show the potential impacts 

to vegetation age-class and patterns over the forest. The focus on treatments will be primarily on 

fire condition class 3 with some treatments likely to occur in Condition Class 2 as well. 

Condition Class 3 is defined as having significantly altered disturbance regimes, while Condition 

Class 2 is defined as having clearly evident, moderate modifications to disturbance regimes. 

These conditions classes are defined in more detail in Chapter 3, Topic 10 – Fire Management. 

Table FM-3 within the Topic 10 discussion describes the Fire Regimes and Condition Classes for 

the various cover types listed in Table VEG-5. 

Evaluating the Movement Towards Properly Functioning Condition 

Conifer, Oak and Aspen Cover Types 

The Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT) was used to model plant succession for 

conifer, aspen, and oak vegetation types for each alternative, which are characterized by different 

amounts of acres treated. This was used to estimate how each alternative moved the various 

vegetation types toward PFC in a 100-year period. VDDT is described in more detail in FEIS, 

Appendix B-1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 96 

Table VEG-5 Comparison of treatments (prescribed fire, harvest, and mechanical fuels treatment) 

for each alternative over a 10-year period on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

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% 

The VDDT model projects vegetation response to disturbance, as well as succession in the 

absence of disturbance, based on probability of occurrence. The disturbances may or may not 

actually occur as modeled, so the results are chiefly useful in comparing the overall results of an 

alternative, rather than identifying specific decades in which certain activities or disturbances 

occur. Management disturbances such as harvest or prescribed fire are dependent upon funding 

levels, which are not predictable over such long time periods. Natural disturbances such as 

insects and fires are more likely under certain stand conditions than under others, and the 

probability of occurrence will increase as more area develops those favorable conditions. But 

while the probability of their occurring may increase, the decade in which they occur is not 

predictable. The results of the model are useful because they reflect vegetation responses to the 

varying management emphases between the different alternatives. However, they should not be 

considered accurate predictors of stand development at a particular moment in time. In terms of 

development of PFC, the model indicates the likelihood that a given set of management practices 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 97 

will lead toward PFC over the time period, but not that a particular vegetation type will meet 

PFC in a specific decade. 

The VDDT model indicated that spruce-fir stands could be brought into PFC within 10 decades 

in all alternatives. However, the achievement of PFC is dependent upon significant acreages of 

spruce-fir being burned with prescribed and wildland fires. In the model, when mature forests 

receive a high intensity burn, the affected acres are moved into the grass/forb stage, where they 

remain for a relatively short period of time (usually 10 years) while regeneration is established. 

At the end of the time period, the acres move along the successional pathway to the 

seedling/sapling stage. This scenario is appropriate for most of the types modeled, but not for 

spruce-fir. Spruce stands are expected to quickly regenerate after fire when the fire is low 

intensity and leaves a scattered overstory to provide a seed source and protection for seedling 

establishment. However, a large stand-replacing fire (hundreds to thousands of acres) will create 

conditions which make spruce and fir regeneration very difficult. These species tend to occur at 

high elevations, and require substantial protection for seedling survival. They will not readily 

regenerate in large openings at high elevations, conditions that are created by large fires. In this 

situation, regeneration may take up to 50 years (not 10 years as described in the model) to 

become established and move into the seedling/sapling stage. So while the model is correct in 

showing the reduction of the mature and old stages resulting from large fires it underestimates 

the length of time to regenerate and develop the seedling/sapling stages. Therefore, the actual 

time to reach PFC may be several decades longer than predicted by the model. 

The VDDT model also showed that the maximum acres of failed fire suppression per decade 

could vary significantly by alternative (Table VEG-6) based on treatments and subsequent 

successional pathways and changes in fire hazards. The amount of acres treated through timber 

harvest, mechanical oak treatment, and primarily prescribed fire including wildland fire use, 

either encourage or reduce fuel buildup and consequently change fire regimes and/or fire 

condition classes (Tables FM-1 and FM-2, Topic 10 – Fire Management). Because the values in 

Table VEG-6 were derived from a stochastic model, they can only be used to predict broad 

differences in failed fire suppression between alternatives, not actual impacts. 

Table VEG-6. Results from the VDDT Model that show maximum acres of different vegetation 

types that are likely to burn in one decade forest-wide within the next 10 decades through failed 

fire suppression (rounded to the nearest 100 acres). 

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

Aspen 5,100 3,100 4,200 4,400 4,000 4,100 4,200

All Conifer 79,000 22,500 23,400 11,600 13,600 27,000 27,000

Oak 3,300 6,000 1,900 5,600 3,500 3,000 4,100

Total 87,400 31,600 29,500 21,600 21,100 34,100 35,300

Sagebrush Cover Types 

Outside of the VDDT model, an assessment of the succession of sagebrush, forest wide, was 

conducted given the forest wide conditions and acres treated per decade by alternative over the 

next 100 years. This assessment, which is not as complex in nature as VDDT, is more fully 

described in Appendix B-1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 98 

These models included an increase in total acres of sagebrush as a result of conversion of juniper 

to sagebrush. Because of fire suppression, juniper has increased anywhere from 25 to 50 percent 

in its distribution on sites that were historically dominated by sagebrush. This sagebrush 

modeling shows that Alternatives 2 and 7 reach PFC within the 100 year modeling period. It 

would take more than 10 decades for any other alternative to achieve these conditions in the 

sagebrush communities. 

General Alternative Comparisons 

Alternative 1 has the least impact to existing successional pathways, but could vary the most 

from the historically natural successional pathways. This alternative has no timber harvest, 

prescribed fire, or mechanical treatment of vegetation. The only mechanism for plant succession 

would be failed fire suppression and continued succession along existing pathways. Because of 

historic fire suppression and subsequent fuels build-up, there will likely be new,

uncharacteristically large insect and disease outbreaks resulting in a buildup of fuels in all the 

woody communities and as a result, uncharacteristically large and/or severe fires are the most

likely to occur. As shown in Table VEG-6, Alternative 1 is likely to result in approximately 2 to 

3 times more acres burned through failed fire suppression than any of the other alternatives, 

resulting in a greater potential for uncharacteristically large and intense fires. Under this 

alternative, the Uinta Mountains mixed conifer/lodgepole pine type is the only forest type to 

approximate PFC within 10 decades. The spruce-fir type is shown to reach PFC within decades, 

but that assumes burning extensive acreages. As noted above, however, the assumptions in the 

VDDT model were not accurate and it is not likely to reach these conditions within 10 decades. 

In addition, because of existing conditions resulting from historic livestock grazing impacts and 

lack of active restoration management in this alternative, some rangelands will take longer to 

recover than they would under Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7. Like Alternatives 2 and 6, no road 

construction or reconstruction would be allowed on over 600,000 acres. Of these acres, this 

alternative has recommended the largest amount (359,686 acres) as wilderness (MPC 1.5) in 

addition to the 309,079 acres of wilderness already occurring on the Forest. This limits the 

management tool to wildland fire use in moving plant communities toward PFC. Given the 

number of variables involved, movement toward PFC in all the above-listed cover types would 

be among the least predictable of all alternatives. 

• Emphasis would be placed on allowing natural processes to move all vegetation types, 

without interference, toward PFC. 

• Fires would be allowed to burn, where possible, as long as they avoid conflicts with 

human health and safety and property damage. 

• Uinta Mountain mixed conifer/lodgepole type reaches PFC. 

Alternative 2 proposes to treat the most total acres (Table VEG-4) including sagebrush, aspen, 

conifer, conifer-aspen, and oak. It emphasizes the restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitat. It 

treats an average of 18,650 acres annually using fire, harvest, and mechanical treatments. 

Prescribed fire is used to treat approximately 88 percent of the total acres treated. As shown 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 99 

through the VDDT model, this alternative moves all vegetation types except Douglas-fir to PFC 

within the 100-year projection time frame. Douglas-fir does not reach PFC within 10 decades, 

primarily because it will take longer than 100 years for the oldest structural stage to reach the 

desired percentage. Like Alternatives 1 and 6, no road construction or reconstruction would be 

allowed on over 600,000 acres. This alternative has 145,796 acres of recommended wilderness 

(MPC 1.5) in addition to the 309,079 acres of wilderness already occurring on the Forest. 

Wilderness status limits the management tools for moving plant communities toward PFC to 

wildland fire use, and fire use is limited by the ability to manage and control natural ignition 

burns. 

• A priority for treatment in Alternative 2 would be the conversion of conifer-aspen 

communities back to aspen-dominated communities and to increase age-class diversity in 

aspen communities. 

• Emphasis would be placed on sagebrush treatment, which would be the greatest of all 

alternatives and would result in this type reaching PFC within 3 decades. 

• Fuels reduction in oak would be emphasized although Alternative 7 would treat slightly 

more acres to reduce fuels mechanically than Alternative 2. This alternative would 

emphasize mechanical treatment until fire can be safely used to not only maintain fuels 

but also increase age class diversity. 

• Harvest of conifers would be allowed, but would play an insignificant role in moving 

vegetation diversity toward PFC. 

• Removal of conifers that have invaded willow-dominated riparian areas, especially on the 

north slope (e.g. Middle Fork Beaver Creek), would be emphasized where riparian 

function has been altered by the invasion of these conifers. 

• Maintenance of the wildlife corridor connecting the northern Rocky Mountains with the 

central and ultimately the southern Rocky Mountains would be emphasized through 

selection and group selection harvest methods in spruce-fir communities to minimize 

insect and disease outbreaks. 

• Achieves PFC for all types except Douglas-fir. 

Alternative 3 has less than half the acres as Alternative 2, but like that alternative relies heavily 

on the use of prescribed fire to move vegetation toward PFC. This alternative has fewer acres in 

MPC 5.2 than does Alternative 4. The VDDT model showed this alternative moves oak, aspen 

and mixed conifer/lodgepole to PFC. All other types across the forest would take more than 10 

decades to reach PFC. No road construction or reconstruction would be allowed on over 

430,000 acres. This alternative has 51,113 acres of recommended wilderness (MPC 1.5) in 

addition to the 309,079 acres of wilderness already occurring on the Forest. As noted above, 

wilderness status limits the management tools for moving plant communities toward PFC to 

wildland fire use, and fire use is limited by the ability to manage and control natural ignition 

burns. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 100 

• Although Alternative 3 treats less than half the acres than Alternative 2, a primary effort 

would be on the conversion of conifer-aspen communities back to aspen-dominated 

communities and to increase age-class diversity in aspen communities through the use of 

fire and harvest treatments. 

• An effort would be placed on fuels reduction in oak and increasing age class diversity. 

• Maintains the wildlife corridor connecting the northern Rocky Mountains with the central 

and ultimately the southern Rocky Mountains by taking actions to minimize insect and 

disease outbreaks. 

• Moves oak, aspen and mixed conifer/lodgepole types to PFC. 

Alternative 4 is second only to Alternative 5 in the harvest of aspen and conifer, yet treats the 

least amount of acres, overall, than any other alternative. Many of the acres of MPC 3.2 in 

Alternatives 6 and 7 are MPC 5.2 in this alternative, focusing on the commercial harvest of trees 

(less than Alternative 5, but more than other alternatives) rather than the restoration of ecosystem 

functions. Timber harvest would play an insignificant role in moving vegetation diversity 

toward PFC. This alternative treats the fewest acres through prescribed fire than any other 

alternative, and does not mechanically treat oak. Like Alternative 7, this treats an average of 800 

acres of oak each year through prescribed fire. It prohibits high intensity prescribed fire in 

conifer-dominated mixed aspen stands within 5.2 and 6.2 MPCs, but does allow just over 700 

acres of conifer-aspen communities in other MPCs to be burned through prescription each year. 

Approximately 1,000 acres of sagebrush would be burned each year, half that of Alternatives 3 

and 6, one-third that of Alternative 7, and one-fourth that of Alternative 2. No vegetation cover 

types reach PFC within 10 decades. This alternative also has no acres of recommended 

wilderness and road construction or reconstruction would be allowed on about 119,000 acres, 

which would allow for the greatest access for harvest. 

• A priority in Alternative 4 would be to maximize commodity production. Timber harvest 

would be less than Alternative 5, but greater than all other alternatives. 

• Sagebrush treatment would be one forth that of Alternative 2, and would be done 

primarily to improve forage production in existing allotments. 

• Like Alternatives 3 and 6, this alternative would emphasize treatment of oak through 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to reduce fuels. 

• Does not reach PFC. 

Alternative 5 designates more of the lands on the North Slope and in the Bear River Range as 

MPC 5.2 than any other alternative, therefore focusing more on commodity production than any 

other alternative, and the least on ecosystem restoration. This alternative has over twice the 

acres of harvest of aspen and conifer than Alternatives 2 and 3, just less than twice that of 

Alternative 7, and more than three times that of Alternative 6. Insects and disease would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 101 

controlled Forest-wide to maintain growth of trees in the suitable timber base. Like Alternative 

4, this alternative prohibits high intensity prescribed fire in conifer-dominated mixed aspen 

stands within MPC 5.2 and 6.2, but does allow just over 700 acres of conifer-aspen in other 

MPCs and approximately 1,000 acres of sagebrush communities to be burned through 

prescription each year. It allows for treatment of oak communities through fire and mechanical 

methods at the same levels as Alternative 3 and 6, but half that of Alternative 2. With the 

exception of oak communities of the Overthrust Mountains Section, which reach PFC within 2 

decades according to the VDDT model, no vegetation type forest wide reaches these conditions 

within 10 decades. Like Alternative 4, this alternative has no acres of recommended wilderness 

(MPC 1.5); road construction or reconstruction would be allowed on just over 108,000 acres. 

Existing wilderness on the forest, as mentioned above, is 309,079 acres, which would allow for 

nearly as much access for timber harvest as Alternative 4. 

• A priority in Alternative 5 would be to maximize commodity production. Harvest of 

conifers would be the greatest of all alternatives, but would play an insignificant role in 

moving vegetation diversity toward PFC. 

• Sagebrush treatment would be one forth that of Alternative 2, and would be done 

primarily to improve forage production in existing allotments. 

• Like Alternatives 3 and 6, this alternative would emphasize treatment of oak through 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to reduce fuels. 

• Oak type reaches PFC.

Alternative 6, while similar to Alternative 2 in philosophy, takes a more conservative approach 

to the restoration of PFC, treating about half the acres annually as Alternative 2. It focuses on 

maintaining the north-south wildlife corridor; converting conifer-invaded aspen communities 

back to aspen, and sagebrush and oak age class diversity. This alternative uses both timber 

harvest and fire in assisting the movement toward PFC. This alternative moves oak, aspen, and 

mixed conifer/lodgepole to PFC within the 100-year period. No other types, forest wide, reach 

PFC within 10 decades. 

• A priority in Alternative 6 would be to increase age-class diversity in aspen communities 

and to move conifer-aspen communities to back to aspen-dominated communities. 

• Sagebrush treatment would be half that of Alternative 2, but would be the same as 

Alternative 3 and twice that of Alternatives 4 and 5. 

• Like Alternatives 3 and 5, this alternative would emphasize treatment of oak through 

prescribed fire to increase age class diversity. Mechanical fuels treatment would be half 

that of Alternative 2 and less than half that of Alternative 7. 

• Harvest of conifers would be allowed but, with the exception of Alternative 1, would play 

the least significant role in moving vegetation diversity toward PFC. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 102 

• Like Alternative 2, maintenance of the wildlife corridor connecting the northern Rocky 

Mountains with the central and ultimately the southern Rocky Mountains would be 

emphasized through selection and group selection harvest methods in spruce-fir 

communities to minimize insect and disease outbreaks. 

• Oak, aspen, sagebrush and mixed conifer/lodgepole types reach PFC. 

Alternative 7 uses timber harvest, mechanical treatment, and fire in assisting the movement 

toward PFC. While not moving all plant communities toward PFC forest-wide, this alternative 

focuses on restoration of the most significant landscapes for wildlife purposes. This alternative 

more than doubles the acres of oak treated mechanically to reduce fuels along the urban interface 

rather than relying on prescribed fire to move this type toward PFC. With the exception of 

Alternative 2, this alternative treats more acres of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper than any 

alternative, and the sagebrush type reaches PFC within 3 decades forest wide. Oak, aspen and 

mixed conifer/lodgepole reach PFC within the period. All other types, forest wide, do not reach 

PFC within 10 decades. 

• A priority in Alternative 7 would be to increase age-class diversity in aspen communities 

and to move conifer-aspen communities to back to aspen-dominated communities. 

• Sagebrush treatment would be less than Alternative 2, but would be greater than all other 

alternatives. 

• Alternatives 7 would emphasize the mechanical treatment of oak (greater than all other 

alternatives) to reduce fuels along the urban interface and to move this type toward PFC. 

• Harvest of conifers and aspen would be allowed and would play a minor role in moving 

vegetation diversity toward PFC. 

• Like Alternatives 2 and 6, maintenance of the wildlife corridor connecting the northern 

Rocky Mountains with the central and ultimately the southern Rocky Mountains would 

be emphasized through selection and group selection harvest methods in spruce-fir 

communities to minimize insect and disease outbreaks. 

• Oak, aspen and mixed conifer/lodgepole reach PFC. 

Summary of Alternative Comparisons 

The differences between alternatives and their probability of reaching properly functioning 

condition are shown in Table VEG-7. 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 103 

Table VEG-7 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 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Roads and Access Management 

In general, effects from travelways are direct and result in the loss of cover types and an increase in 

fragmentation of plant communities. The greatest effect is from the application or not of the new 

Roadless Rule (which is discussed in detail in Effects on Vegetation Communities from Roadless Area 

Management) and/or the road construction that will be used to treat various vegetation communities 

through timber harvest and prescribed fire. Roads provide access for vehicles that may carry noxious 

weed seeds into the forest. The greater the miles of open road, the greater the likelihood of new 

infestation areas. 

In Alternative 1 the new Roadless Rule applies so inventoried roadless areas would remain roadless and 

no new roads or motorized trails would be built under any management prescription category (MPC) 

except in Concentrated Development Areas (MPC 8). The effects of this alternative, which are increased 

age of forested communities and an increase in susceptibility to insects, disease, and failed fire 

suppression, are more related to the associated lack of vegetation treatment than the lack of road or 

motorized trail construction. Impacts from travelways, therefore, would be the least of all alternatives. 

No additional fragmentation of habitat is anticipated and new noxious weeds infestations would be 

minimized, based on fewer miles of travelways which act as conduits for the expansion of weed 

populations. Hiking trails would be allowed, as in all other alternatives. 

This alternative would have greater effects from roads than Alternative 1. Active restoration activities 

outside inventoried roadless would permit timber harvest and associated road construction and 

reconstruction of approximately 6 miles. However, harvest activities would use existing roads, limiting 

disturbance to reconstruction of existing roads. This may result in a very slight reduction in vegetated 

lands where reconstruction includes realignment or widening. Road improvements may encourage 

vehicle travel, which may in turn increase the transport of noxious weed seeds, requiring eradication 

efforts on additional acres. 

Alternative 2 adjusts generally allowed activities for management prescriptions with application 

of the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Road construction and reconstruction are not 

allowed in inventoried roadless areas nor is cutting, sale, and removal of timber except: for the 

cutting, sale or removal of generally small diameter trees which maintains or improves roadless 

characteristics and: 1) to improve habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species; or 2) to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure, such as reducing the 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. About 145,900 acres or 24% of inventoried roadless 

areas are recommended for wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 104 

The new Roadless Rule does not apply, however, Alternative 3 emphasizes reducing adverse 

impacts from roads. With limited area in MPC 5.2, the likelihood of new construction is less 

than Alternatives 4 and 5, significantly greater than Alternative 2. Road construction would 

require approximately 39 miles of new roads, with a corresponding loss of vegetation and 

increase of potential noxious weed infestations. 

In Alternative 4 the new Roadless Rule does not apply. New roads and motorized trails could be 

built everywhere but in existing wilderness, some special management area prescriptions (MPCs 

2.1, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7), and some recreation prescriptions (MPCs 4.1 and 4.2). New construction 

required to meet management direction would total an estimated 49 miles. This would increase 

the acreage dedicated to roads and the probability of noxious weed infestations. 

In Alternative 5 the new Roadless Rule does not apply. New roads and motorized trails could be 

built everywhere but in existing or proposed wilderness, some special management areas 

prescriptions (MPCs 2.1, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7), and some recreation prescriptions (MPCs 4.1 and 

4.2). The miles of road needed are the same as in Alternative 4. However, this alternative has 

the largest acreage in MPC 5.2, and would therefore have the highest probability of road 

construction with an estimated 49 miles for timber harvest and an additional 14-15 miles for oil 

and gas exploration and development. Impacts from travelways, therefore, would greater than all 

other alternatives. This alternative would have the greatest the probability of noxious weed 

infestations from the establishment of new vectors for invasions of these species. 

In Alternative 6 the new Roadless Rule does apply so no new road construction in inventoried 

roadless areas could occur. Because most of the area outside inventoried roadless is adequately 

roaded, reconstruction would be the major impact to vegetation. Approximately 6 miles of new 

timber harvest roads would be constructed and approximately 10 miles of roads would be 

constructed for oil and gas exploration and development. Potential for noxious weed infestations 

would be slightly more than Alternative 1, similar to Alternatives 2 and 7, but significantly less 

than Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. 

In Alternative 7 the Roadless Rule does not apply so no new road construction in inventoried 

roadless areas could occur. Approximately 6 miles of new timber harvest roads would be 

constructed and approximately 11.5 miles of roads would be constructed for oil and gas 

exploration and development. Potential for noxious weed infestations would be slightly more 

than Alternative 1, similar to Alternatives 2 and 6, but significantly less than Alternatives 3, 4, 

and 5. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Timber Harvest 

Forest health has been affected by a history of fire suppression on the forest as well as through 

practices such as tie hacking, clear-cutting spruce-fir, and by harvesting very small units in areas 

that historically burned in relatively large patches. And while timber harvest and fire have played 

a role in maintaining some age-class diversity and distribution (patterns) of the plant 

communities across the Forest, these have had a limited effect. Timber harvest is used in varying 

degrees in each alternative. Table VEG-4 includes the acres by alternative that would be treated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 105 

through timber harvest as well as through prescribed fire, which is discussed in detail below. 

Timber harvest does not play a significant role in moving vegetation toward PFC under any 

alternative because of forested acres in lands withdrawn from timber management as well as 

those lands within various management prescriptions that do not allow timber harvest. This tool 

can, however, play an important role in maintaining wildlife corridors, and moving smaller scale 

(watersheds and/or landscapes) toward PFC. 

Alternative 1 does not allow for timber harvest in managing forest ecosystems and does not 

allow the building of any roads. The lack of active management, coupled with a lack of 

prescribed fire would increase the likelihood of insect epidemics and disease spread. There 

would be a continued conversion of aspen- to conifer-dominated stands as well as a movement 

toward older age classes and toward uncharacteristically large fires forest-wide. 

As shown in Table VEG-4 above, Alternative 2 allows for the harvest of 6,500 acres of conifer 

and aspen-conifer communities over the 10-year planning period, or approximately 650 acres 

each year. This is more than Alternative 7 and Alternative 1, which does not allow for timber 

harvest, but somewhat less than Alternatives 3 and 6. It is nearly half those acres harvested in 

Alternative 4 and less than half of the acres harvested in Alternative 5. Timber harvest would 

contribute an important, but relatively small component of moving these forested types toward 

PFC. This Alternative relies more heavily on prescribed fire to move toward these conditions. 

Alternative 3 allows for slightly more timber harvest than Alternative 2. Approximately 750 

acres of aspen and conifer would be harvested each year. Alternative 4 focuses more on timber 

harvest with approximately 1,250 acres of aspen and conifer harvested each year. Alternative 5 

provides the greatest level of timber harvest; nearly 1,600 acres of aspen and conifer would be 

harvested each year, which is greater than all other alternatives and more than twice the acres 

harvested in Alternatives 2, 3, and 7. Alternative 6 would harvest almost 900 acres of aspen and 

conifer each year, while Alternative 7 would harvest 500 acres each year. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Fire Management 

Currently there is a relative abundance of mature and older age classes in all vegetation types. 

For example, in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portion of the Overthrust Mountains Section, 

nearly all of the Aspen, 82 percent of Bear River mixed conifer and Lodgepole, 93 percent of 

Spruce-fir, 89 percent of Douglas-fir types are in mature to old age-class categories. The pattern 

is much the same for the Uinta Mountains Section and Stansbury Mountains portion of the 

Bonneville Basin Section. These older age classes are more susceptible to beetle impacts than 

the younger age classes. Because of the lack of vegetation treatment, including the use of 

prescribed fire, there has been an increase the likelihood of insect epidemics and disease spread. 

Fire has played a role in maintaining some age-class diversity and distribution of some of the 

vegetation communities across the Forest, although fire suppression has limited this effect. The 

following map (Figure VEG-2) shows ignitions from 1961 to present that resulted in more than 

100 acres being burned. Many of these fires burned at lower elevations on the Forest. Fires of 

this size are considered to have important effects on age class diversity in a variety of vegetation 

cover types across the forest. Most of the fire occurrences on the forest during this period were 

less than 1 acre in size, often human-caused and often along travelways. Because these humancaused fires typically burn in small areas and often in areas that have recently burned, they play 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 106 

only a minor role in establishing a range of age class diversity in any vegetation cover type. In 

fact, many of these areas that burn frequently at lower elevations are currently dominated by 

non-native species such as cheatgrass and various noxious weeds. Table VEG-4 shows the acres 

of vegetation treated through prescribed fire and Table VEG-6 shows the potential for failed fire 

suppression by alternative as identified by the VDDT model. 

Figure VEG-2. Fires since 1961 that burned at least 100 acres across the WasatchCache National Forest. 

Under Alternative 1 movement toward PFC would be the least predictable of any alternative and 

would depend on the number of acres burned by the combination of failed fire suppression, and 

wildland fire use. As shown in Table VEG-4, no acres would be harvested, mechanically 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 107 

treated, or burned under prescription. Any change in vegetation structure would be the result of 

insects and disease, windthrow, and fires. Because of historic fire suppression, an unnatural 

build-up of fuels has occurred which will likely result in uncharacteristically large and severe 

fires than occurred historically. The VDDT model predicted the greatest potential for failed fire 

suppression (Table VEG-6). 

Alternative 2, as shown in Table VEG-4, treats the greatest number of acres using prescribed 

fire, more than twice the acres of Alternatives 3, 6, and 7, over four times that of Alternative 5 

and more than 6.5 times that of Alternative 4. The oak and aspen and sagebrush types reach PFC 

in two to three decades under this alternative, and a majority of the treatments (88 percent of the

acres treated) are through prescribed fire. The mixed conifer–lodgepole types would reach PFC 

within 6 decades in the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Overthrust Mountains Section and within 

10 decades in the Uinta Mountains Section. An average of 4,000 acres of oak, 4,000 acres of 

sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, 8,000 acres of aspen and aspen/conifer mix, and 400 acres of 

Douglas-fir would be burned annually. For oak, significantly less than 4,000 acres would be 

burned in the first portion of the first decade, while more would be burned as the decade 

progressed. 

Alternative 3, like Alternatives 6 and 7 as shown in Table VEG-4 above, is very active in 

managing for ecosystem diversity through the use of many available tools. An average of 2,000 

acres of oak, 2,000 acres of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, 3,200 acres of aspen/conifer mix, and 

200 acres of Douglas-fir (this is mechanical and prescribed fire) would be burned annually. Less 

than 2,000 acres of oak would be burned in the first portion of the first decade, while more would 

be burned as the decade progressed. Treatments in the Stansbury Mountains would include some 

additional acres of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper treated each year. In the Wasatch-Cache 

portion of the Overthrust Mountains Section prescribed fire plays the predominant role in oak 

and aspen vegetation communities reaching PFC within 5 decades. The VDDT model shows 

that spruce-fir reach PFC within 4 to 6 decades, but as noted above in General Alternative 

Comparisons, this assumes that large-scale fires (several hundred to several thousand acres in 

size) would allow spruce and/or fir to regenerate within 10 years, which does not happen at the 

high elevations where this type occurs. In the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Uinta Mountains 

Section the mixed conifer – lodgepole types reach PFC within 5 decades and the aspen within 9 

decades. No other vegetation types reach PFC within 10 decades. 

Alternative 4 has the least amount of fire of all alternatives. An average of 1,000 acres of 

sagebrush, 800 acres of oak, and 720 acres of aspen would be burned annually. Alternative 5 is 

similar, except it allows for an average of 2000 acres of oak to be burned annually. And, like 

Alternatives 3 and 6, less than 2,000 acres of oak would be burned in the first potion of the first 

decade and more would be burned as the decade progressed. 

Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 in its treatment through prescribed fire, but treats an 

average of 2,000 acres rather than 800 acres per year of oak. And, with the exception of the oak 

type, which reaches PFC within 2 decades, no vegetation type reaches PFC within 10 decades. 

Alternative 6, like Alternative 3, would provide for movement toward PFC by primarily relying 

on fire but also using timber harvest practices as well. And like Alternative 3, this alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 108 

would annually burn an average of 2,000 acres of oak, 2,000 acres of sagebrush and pinyonjuniper, 3,200 acres of aspen/conifer mix, and 200 acres of Douglas-fir. Less than 2,000 acres of 

oak would be burned in the first portion of the first decade, while more would be burned as the 

decade progressed. In the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Overthrust Mountains Section, oak 

would reach PFC within 2 decades, mixed conifer – lodgepole within 3 decades, and aspen and 

spruce-fir within 9 decades. In the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Uinta Mountains Section, 

aspen would reach PFC within 8 decades and mixed conifer – lodgepole within 10 decades. No 

other types would reach PFC within 10 decades. 

Approximately 72% of the total acres treated are treated through prescribed fire and wildland fire 

use to move the vegetation toward PFC. This alternative would burn an average of 800 acres of 

oak each year, 3,000 acres of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, 3,200 acres of aspen and 

aspen/conifer mix, and 200 acres of Douglas-fir. In the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Overthrust 

Mountains Section, all vegetation types reach PFC, with the exception of Douglas-fir, within 10 

decades. Oak reaches PFC here within 2 decades, mixed conifer within 3 decades, and aspen 

and spruce-fir within 9 decades. Like Alternative 6, in the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Uinta 

Mountains Section, aspen reaches PFC within 8 decades, and mixed conifer – lodgepole within 

10 decades. Forest wide, sagebrush would reach PFC within 3 decades. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Mechanical Vegetation Treatment 

Mechanical vegetation treatments would be focused primarily on the oak type along the urban 

interface of the forest where fire hazards have the greatest potential to result in property damage. 

It would occur, to some degree, elsewhere in other cover types (e.g. Douglas-fir, sagebrush, and 

mountain brush) to provide for more natural fire hazard conditions, but these would be 

determined at a project level and are not described here. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would not allow for mechanical treatment of oak communities and, 

therefore, have the least impact on hazardous fuels. Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 would have an 

intermediate effect by allowing an average of approximately 800 acres mechanically treated per 

year. Alternative 2 would allow for an average of approximately 1,600 acres per year to be 

mechanically treated, while Alternative 7 would reduce fuels hazards the most, by allowing an 

average of 2,000 acres per year to be mechanically treated. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Recreation 

Effects on vegetation may result from various forms of recreation use, but are most prominent in 

areas of high undeveloped camping, in development of new roads, trails and facilities, and 

especially from unauthorized summer OHV use. Unauthorized OHV use occurs throughout the 

forest, but is most prominent in the North Wasatch-Ogden Valley and Cache-Box Elder 

Management Areas. It also occurs in the Central Wasatch Management Area, primarily along the 

Davis County foothills. This unauthorized use occurs to a greater degree during the hunting 

season in the Western Uinta and Eastern Uinta Management Areas. The effect of these activities 

is a disturbance and loss of native perennial vegetation on uplands and riparian/wetland areas. In 

association is watershed disturbance (ground cover loss and soil compaction), spread of noxious 

weeds, and wildlife habitat disturbance. The management of these activities, outside direction in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 109 

existing district travel plans, is not addressed in this document. Commonly associated with high 

recreation use, especially along the foothills and lower elevations of the forest, are human 

ignitions of unwanted fires. Ski area expansions and allowed activities in ski areas, the 

development of new recreation trails and/or recreation facilities, could potentially have a 

localized impact through type conversion and associated alteration of vegetation composition 

and structure, and associated wildlife habitat functions. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 would have no impacts to vegetation from ski area development 

outside currently permitted boundaries because they do not allow expansion of resort boundaries; 

Alternative 5 would have the greatest impact because it allows for new ski areas as well as ski 

area expansions. 

Alternative 1 maintains the greatest number of acres of non-motorized lands (Table 2-4) and 

roadless area values (Table 2-6). Only 3 miles of new roads are projected to be constructed for 

oil and gas development (Table 2-2), which if managed as open, could allow for greater 

recreation access. No new trails would be developed. Existing trails and roads could only be 

relocated to repair environmental concerns. Unlike all other alternatives, no additional 

developed recreation sites would be allowed. In addition, like all alternatives except Alternative 

5, no expansion of ski area boundaries is allowed. Approximately 2 miles of existing roads and 

76 miles of trails would be closed to motorized access as a result of wilderness 

recommendations. This reduced access and lack of development is likely to minimize 

unauthorized OHV use on the Forest, which would result in the least potential for disturbance 

and loss of native perennial vegetation from these activities. The lower potential for 

unauthorized OHV use and the limited development of new facilities, including trails would 

likely result in the fewest acres disturbed. In addition, the focus on repairing environmental 

concerns could enhance the existing conditions. Because no new roads would be established in 

roadless areas, no trails would be constructed, and no recreation sites would be developed, this 

alternative would have the least potential impacts on vegetation communities from recreation 

management. 

Alternative 2, like Alternatives 6 and 7, maintain approximately 60 percent of the Forest as nonmotorized (Table 2-4) and maintain nearly as many acres for roadless area values as Alternative 

1 (Table 2-6). This Alternative would close about 7 miles of trails to motorized access as a result 

of wilderness recommendations. And like Alternative 1, this alternative would likely maintain 

lower access for unauthorized OHV use. A total of approximately 9 miles of roads would be 

built for timber harvest and oil and gas exploration, which if managed as open, could allow for 

increased recreation access. Some new trails could be developed and existing trails and roads 

could be relocated to repair environmental concerns. Some additional recreation facilities would 

be allowed consistent with prescription. Like all alternatives except Alternative 5, no expansion 

of ski area boundaries is allowed. This alternative would have greater impacts on vegetation 

communities from recreation management (new developed recreation sites) than Alternative 1, 

but less than all other alternatives because of the greater potential for unauthorized OHV access 

as well as the direct effects of a loss of vegetation to road and trail development. Like 

Alternative 1, however, this alternative would have one of the lowest potentials for disturbance 

and loss of native perennial vegetation from recreation management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 110 

Alternative 3 maintains nearly as many acres of non-motorized use as Alternatives 2, 6, and 7 

and maintains or mostly maintains twice as many acres for roadless values as Alternatives 6 and 

7, but less than Alternatives 1 and 2. Like Alternatives 4, 5, 6 and 7, no miles of existing trails 

would be closed to motorized use from wilderness recommendations. Approximately 39 miles of 

roads could be constructed for timber harvest and 10 miles for oil and gas exploration and 

development (Table 2-2), which if managed as open, could increase the potential for recreation 

access. Unauthorized OHV use would likely be greater than in Alternative 1 and about the same 

as Alternatives 2, 6, and 7 because of the amount of non-motorized acres. This alternative would

have a moderate potential for disturbance and loss of native vegetation from this use. New trail 

development could be allowed and existing trails and roads would be relocated to repair 

environmental concerns. Some additional recreation facilities would be allowed consistent with 

MPCs. Like all alternatives except Alternative 5, no expansion of ski area boundaries is allowed. 

Overall, this alternative would have greater potential impacts on vegetation communities from 

recreation management than Alternatives 1 and 2, but less than Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and 7. 

Alternative 4 maintains the least amount of non-motorized areas, and allows approximately 49 

miles of new road construction for timber harvest (Table 2-2), which could increase the potential 

for recreation access. Unauthorized OHV use would likely be the same as Alternative 3, less 

than Alternative 5, and greater than Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7. This alternative would have the 

same potential for disturbance and loss of native vegetation from this use as Alternative 3, less 

than Alternative 5, and more than all other alternatives. Like Alternatives 3, 5, 6, and 7, no miles 

of existing trails would be closed to motorized use from wilderness recommendations. New trail 

construction would be allowed to meet demand and would be restricted primarily by budgets. 

Additional recreation facilities would be allowed consistent with MPCs, but like all alternatives 

except Alternative 5, no expansion of ski area boundaries is allowed. This alternative would 

have similar impacts on vegetation communities from recreation management as Alternative 5, 

and more than all other alternatives. 

Alternative 5, maintains more non-motorized acres than Alternative 4, but allows the greatest 

amount of new road construction (49 miles for timber harvest and 14-15 miles for oil and gas 

exploration and development – Table 2-2). Because of this, unauthorized OHV use would likely 

continue, and the potential impacts to existing native plant communities would be the greatest of 

all alternatives. New trail construction would be allowed consistent with MPCs. Additional 

recreation facilities would be allowed to expand and accommodate demand for multiple-use. 

Roads would be reconstructed and new roads developed for resource development could be left 

open. This alternative would also allow for ski area expansion, which would not occur under any 

other alternative. This alternative would have less impacts in the form of disturbance and loss of 

native vegetation from recreation management than Alternative 4, but greater than all other 

alternatives. 

Alternative 6 would maintain about the same amount of non-motorized acres as Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 7, less than Alternatives 1 and 2, and more than Alternatives 4 and 5. Because of this there 

would be a relatively low potential for additional access by unauthorized OHV use and resulting 

disturbance and loss of native vegetation. New trail construction would be allowed consistent 

with watershed, MPCs, and biodiversity goals. More emphasis would be on realignment of 

existing trails causing watershed and other undesirable impacts. Additional recreation facilities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 111 

would be allowed consistent with ROS, but like all alternatives except Alternative 5, no 

expansion of ski area boundaries is allowed. This alternative would have fewer impacts in the 

form of disturbance and loss of native vegetation from recreation management than alternatives 

3, 4, and 5, but more than alternatives 1 and 2. 

Alternative 7 would maintain or mostly maintain about the same amount of non-motorized acres 

as Alternatives 2, 3, and 6, less than Alternatives 1 and 2, and more than Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Approximately 7 miles of new roads could be constructed for timber harvest and about 11.5 

miles for oil and gas exploration and development (Table 2-2). Like Alternative 6, there would 

be a relatively low potential for additional access by unauthorized OHV use and resulting 

disturbance and loss of native vegetation. New trail construction would be allowed consistent 

with watershed and biodiversity goals. More emphasis would be on realignment of existing 

trails causing watershed and other undesirable impacts. Unauthorized OHV use and the resulting 

potential loss and disturbance to native vegetation would likely be about the same as Alternative 

3, more than Alternatives 1, 2 and 6, and less than Alternatives 4 and 5. This unauthorized use 

would result in the loss of and disturbance to native vegetation. Additional recreation facilities 

would be allowed consistent with ROS, but like all alternatives except Alternative 5, no 

expansion of ski area boundaries is allowed. Overall, this alternative would have fewer impacts 

on vegetation communities from recreation management than Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, but would 

be slightly more than alternatives 1, 2 and 6. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Livestock Grazing 

The standards and guidelines in the Rangeland Health Amendment to the Wasatch-Cache Land 

and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1996) are applied to all alternatives. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 subtract acres of capable rangeland in unsatisfactory condition from 

suitable acres. This, along with vegetation treatments (primarily prescribed fire in aspen and 

sagebrush or mountain brush) could result in a range of improvements of vegetation conditions 

depending on factors discussed below. Alternative 7 applies a lower forage utilization guideline 

to rangelands in unsatisfactory condition, which could result in a more consistent improvement 

of vegetation conditions in riparian areas as well as uplands. The primary difference between 

alternatives for effects on vegetation communities other than this is the status of vacant 

allotments (vacant allotments closed or vacant allotments left open for potential use), which are 

also discussed below. 

Effects on vegetation communities from removal of areas in unsatisfactory condition from 

suitable acres would vary across the forest 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 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 in ground cover and/or species composition. 

Given that acres for this analysis were extrapolated forest-wide from areas with monitoring, the 

relative proportions of the above conditions are unknown. There would likely be a range of 

improvement probability that can only be predicted with site-specific assessment. Alternatives 1, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 112 

2, and 6 would result in this range of improvement on a total of 18,300 upland and riparian acres 

and Alternative 3 would result in 2,100 acres with a range of improvement on riparian acres. 

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. 

In Alternative 1 all vacant allotments are closed and removed from allotment status. The effects 

on vegetation communities would be continuation of ungrazed conditions, which generally 

depend on the degree of recovery from any historic grazing impacts and the role fire has played 

in a given area. Species composition and ground cover within these ungrazed areas would 

continue to be affected by wildlife use, recreation and wildfire. 

As in Alternative 1, all vacant allotments are removed from allotment status in Alternative 2 with 

similar effects except that Alternative 2 includes use of prescribed fire to reduce brush canopy 

cover and increase ground cover so vegetation conditions would remain ungrazed. Since the 

specific locations of future prescribed fire projects are unknown, the degree to which prescribed 

fire would be used within these closed vacant allotments is unknown. 

In Alternative 3 vacant allotments remain vacant or could be used, primarily as grazing areas 

where existing allotments, or portions of allotments, need rest as a part of management activities 

(e.g. prescribed fire, wildland fire use, etc.). However, given available resources to conduct 

necessary analyses prior to reintroducing grazing to these areas, it is unlikely that these vacant 

allotments would be stocked during the planning period. Short term, the effects on vegetation 

communities would be that they would remain in an ungrazed condition and might be improved 

through prescribed fire. 

In Alternative 4 vacant allotments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Some could be 

reopened while others might be used where existing allotments, or portions of allotments, need 

rest as a part of management activities. However, given available resources to conduct necessary 

analyses prior to reintroducing grazing to these areas, it is unlikely that these vacant allotments 

would be stocked during the planning period. Short term, the effects on vegetation communities 

would be that they would remain in an ungrazed condition. 

In Alternative 5 vacant allotments could be stocked. However, given available resources to 

conduct necessary analyses prior to reintroducing grazing to these areas, it is unlikely that these 

vacant allotments would be stocked during the planning period. Short term, the effects on 

vegetation communities would be that they would remain in an ungrazed condition. 

Alternative 6 closes only the three vacant allotments in the Eastern Uinta Mountains 

Management Area for bighorn sheep habitat. All other vacant allotments would be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis and would either be removed from allotment status or would be used where 

there is an opportunity to improve conditions on other allotments by spreading out use. 

However, given available resources to conduct necessary analyses prior to reintroducing grazing 

to these areas, it is unlikely that these vacant allotments would be stocked during the planning 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 113 

period. Short term, the effects on vegetation communities would be that they would remain in an 

ungrazed condition. 

Alternative 7 closes three vacant allotments in the Eastern Uinta Mountains Management Area 

for bighorn sheep habitat and five vacant allotments in the Salt Lake County and Davis County 

watersheds to protect watershed values. The effects on vegetation communities would be 

continuation of ungrazed conditions, which generally depend on the degree of recovery from any 

historic grazing impacts and the role fire has played in a given area. Species composition and 

ground cover within these ungrazed areas would continue to be affected by wildlife use, 

recreation and wildfire. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Insects, Disease, and Noxious Weeds 

A majority of forested stands are currently susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks because of 

the predominance of mature and older age-classes forest-wide as described in affected 

environment above. Each alternative described below takes a different approach to management 

of age-class diversity, which can ultimately affect future outbreaks. 

Alternative 1 would have the greatest effects from insects and disease and subsequent failed fire 

suppression forest-wide because no management activities would be allowed that might curb 

their spread (Table VEG-6). Primary causal agents are the mountain pine beetle (lodgepole pine) 

and the spruce and Douglas-fir bark beetles. All of these insects are host-specific; that is, they 

only attack a particular species or group of species of tree. Insect epidemics occur under 

conditions of large contiguous acreages of large, old trees, a condition which is common on the 

forest. Without a change in stand structure, the likelihood of epidemic impacts from these 

beetles will continue to increase. Engelmann spruce stands and mixed conifer/lodgepole pine 

stands in the Bear River Range would tend to convert to subalpine fir stands as a result of spruce 

beetle and mountain pine beetle mortality that would remove or reduce the percentage of the host 

species, while not affecting the associated subalpine fir trees. Lodgepole pine stands in the Uinta 

Mountains tend to be primarily composed of pine, without the associated fir component. These 

stands would continue to experience mortality from mountain pine beetles, leading to increased 

fuels, and a subsequent increased likelihood of stand replacement fires, rather than converting to 

fir. Salvage of insect killed trees would not be permitted with this alternative, thereby preventing 

the removal of insect “pockets”. Removal of these infestation areas is a primary tool in 

preventing epidemic outbreaks. This alternative would rely on successful wildland fire use to 

improve age class diversity and to reduce susceptibility to insect and disease damage. It is 

expected, however, that insect epidemic probability would be higher in this alternative. 

Similarly, no salvage of dead trees would be permitted which would in turn increase fuel 

loadings and the probability of stand replacement fires. 

Because roads act as conduits for the translocation of noxious weeds, this alternative would 

likely see fewer new populations. However, because only biological control methods would be 

used there would probably be a lower control of existing populations of noxious weeds. 

Alternative 2 will protect more than twice the acres from insect and disease and subsequent 

failed fire suppression than Alternative 1. It would be similar to Alternatives 3, 6, and 7, but 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 114 

provide less protection than Alternatives 4 or 5. Insects and disease would affect vegetation in 

the same manner as in Alternative 1; however, the effects would be reduced due to active 

management to restore ecosystems. A variety of treatments would be possible, including timber 

harvest, although harvest is limited to roaded areas. Within inventoried roadless, the primary 

tool to modify stand structure and associated insect susceptibility is the use of prescribed fire. 

Use of fire to modify stand structure will be limited by budget and other considerations such as 

its affect on recreation values. Therefore, use of prescribed fire may reduce susceptibility to a 

certain extent, but the majority of the inventoried roadless area would increase in insect 

susceptibility over time. Insect activity may increase within and adjacent to prescribed burning 

areas due to fire related stress on the surviving trees. Outside of inventoried roadless, harvest 

activity can be used to modify stand structure and thereby reduce the probability of insect 

epidemics. Emphasis would be placed on controlling insects and disease primarily in areas 

where older forested ecosystems are important as wildlife habitat and travel corridors. 

Like Alternatives 1, 6 and 7, this alternative would have a low potential of creating new vectors 

for noxious weed invasions. Alternative 2 also takes a very active role (perhaps the highest) in 

the biological and chemical treatment of noxious weeds. Noxious weed control would be 

focused on preventing new weed invasions in order to maintain natural functions. Because 

roadless values will be maintained on most roadless area, this alternative would have a low 

potential for noxious weed spread along roads.

Insect and disease effects for Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 2 because more acres 

are in MPCs that permit active management to modify stand structure and the roadless rule does 

not preclude entering inventoried roadless areas. This alternative would be intermediate to 

Alternatives 4 and 5 and Alternative 2 in effects from insects and disease. Conversion of spruce 

and mixed conifer stands would continue on MPC 3.2. The emphasis is management of wildlife 

and recreation and less on commodity outcomes. The miles of new roads allowed in this 

alternative, like Alternative 4, would have nearly the greatest potential of creating new vectors 

for noxious weed invasions (less than Alternative 5, but more than Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7. 

Like Alternative 2, noxious weed control would focus on preventing new weed invasions in 

order to maintain natural functions. 

Alternative 4 takes high action against the spread of insects and disease (less than Alternative 5, 

but more than other alternatives). Conversion of spruce to subalpine fir would continue in the 

Bear River Range, but to a lesser extent than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 due to the increase of 

acreage in the 5.1 and 5.2 MPCs. This alternative does not take a vigorous approach to the 

control of noxious weeds, however, and the continued advancement of weed populations is 

expected. The miles of new roads allowed in this alternative, like Alternative 3, would have 

nearly the greatest potential of creating new vectors for noxious weed invasions (less than 

Alternative 5, but more than Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7). 

Alternative 5 would take the greatest action against the spread of insects, disease, and noxious 

weeds forest-wide using both biological and chemical agents. A greater focus would be placed 

on tentatively suited timber stands and those adjacent that might facilitate the spread of insects 

and disease. The roadless rule does not apply to this alternative, and treatments could be applied 

to all areas except high value recreation and wilderness areas. Treatments would concentrate on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 115 

spruce-fir stands in the Bear River Range and lodgepole pine stands in the Uinta Mountains, 

which are the highest risk types in their respective ranges. The miles of new roads allowed in 

this alternative would have the greatest potential of creating new vectors for noxious weed 

invasions than all other alternatives. 

Alternatives 6 and 7 would take a moderate degree of action against the spread of insects, 

disease, and noxious weeds forest-wide using mechanical treatments (primarily to treat insects 

and disease) as well as biological and chemical agents (primarily to treat noxious weeds). 

Emphasis would be placed on controlling insects and disease primarily on MPC 5.2 lands and in 

other management prescription categories where older forested ecosystems are important as 

wildlife habitat and travel corridors. Effects on inventoried roadless areas would be the same as 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Noxious weed control would be focused on preventing new weed 

invasions in order to maintain natural functions. The miles of new roads allowed in these 

alternatives would have a relatively low potential of creating new vectors for noxious weed 

invasions (less than Alternatives 3, 4 and 5). 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Wildlife Management 

Wildlife Management to improve habitat will have an overall positive effect on vegetation 

communities. Management of wildlife habitat focuses on improving age-class diversity and 

corresponding structural diversity. Habitat management generally uses fire management and 

timber harvest tools, which are described in those sections in detail. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species 

Management 

The effects on vegetation from aquatic and semi-aquatic resources is primarily associated with 

livestock management in and around riparian and wetland communities. Alternatives 4 and 5 do 

not focus on aquatic and semi-aquatic species management, while Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 

do so by removing riparian acres not meeting forest plan objectives from the suitable rangelands. 

In addition, Alternative 2 also removes over 26,000 acres of uplands in portions of 6th order 

watersheds that have known populations of Colorado River or Bonneville cutthroat trout within 

allotments and that have at least 20 acres of these riparian areas that are not meeting forest plan 

objectives. As a result, Alternative 2 would improve these watershed and riparian conditions the 

most rapidly. Alternatives 1, 3, 6, and 7 only remove those riparian areas not meeting forest 

plant objectives from the suitable range, which would result in a very minor effect (0.1 percent 

reduction of total capable rangelands resulting 0.1 percent in livestock numbers). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 116 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Oil and Gas Activities 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal Settlement 

Zone” as described in Topic 9. It is estimated to be about 68,300 acres. 

Vegetation productivity could be lost as a result of from oil and gas exploration and development 

from well pad placement, road construction and ancillary facilities. Effects to riparian areas are 

discussed in Topic 1 – Soil and Water Resources. For a successful well, a site of about 40% of 

the original drill site would remain disturbed for the life of the well (USDA Forest Service, 

1997b). However unsuccessful drill sites can be reclaimed. Reclamation generally includes 

spreading topsoil and reseeding with native species. If disturbed sites are prepared and seeded 

with native species properly, reclamation would further reduce impacts. 

Surface disturbance associated with leasing, such as drilling and road construction can cause 

weeds to spread. As discussed earlier, roads can serve as conduits for the transport of certain 

weed species. Seeds clinging to drilling equipment and vehicles used in infested areas could be 

carried to previously uninfested areas during construction activities. Standards and guidelines 

should minimize these types of impacts. Any operation would be responsible for implementing a 

plan to control and eradicate noxious weeds to reduce the risks of surface disturbance. 

Oil and gas activities also have the potential to disturb habitat of threatened, endangered and 

sensitive plant species. There are no known occurrences of plant species classified as threatened 

or endangered in this area of the Forest. There is one sensitive plant species, Uinta Greenthread, 

known to occur outside the Appeal Settlement Zone on the Mountain View Ranger District. 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases not existing ones. In all 

alternatives (except Alt 4) the Table Top Unit, an area of existing leases, could be explored and 

result in effects to wildlife habitat. The degree to which exploration is predicted within the Table 

Top Unit is affected by whether or not new leases could be issued and under what stipulations. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development of 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit could remove vegetation on an estimated 20 acres 

because of oil and gas exploration activities. In areas outside of the Table Top Unit that are not 

currently leased there would be no effects to vegetation. 

Alternative 2 is very similar. Again, development of existing leases within the Table Top Unit 

could remove vegetation on about 20 acres. Once existing leases expire, leasing availability in 

areas recommended for wilderness is precluded. On remaining available acres, new leases could 

be issued but surface occupancy would not be allowed. 

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 

(Prescription 2.6) and backcountry recreation (Prescription 4.1 and 4.2) values and terrestrial 

habitat (Prescription 3.2). Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed above 

with stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,500 acres are available 

under Standard Lease Terms. Oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 75 acres. 

Some of this development is predicted on existing leases within the Table Top Unit. The degree 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 117 

of effects depends on the leasing terms applied. Vegetation productivity could be affected for 20-

30 years because of field development. Some of this development is predicted within the Table 

Top Unit. A Controlled Surface Use Stipulation would be attached to all leases requiring surveys 

to determine the possible presence of any sensitive plant species. Operations would be designed 

or located so as to not adversely affect the viability of populations. Lease Notices would be 

attached where threatened or endangered plant species are potentially located. This would 

ensure the protection of these species through the Endangered Species Act. 

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 to vegetation are 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 affect 

vegetation productivity on about 105 acres. Some of the effects could last 20-30 years because 

of field development. Other mitigation measures that could be required as conditions of approval 

could include moving the site up to 200 meters (656 feet) if the site could be better located. 

In Alternative 6, leasing availability is precluded in areas recommended for wilderness in the 

future and 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 

renewed in areas managed for motorized recreation values and terrestrial habitat. Oil and gas 

activities are estimated to disturb about 75 acres. Some of this development is predicted on 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit. Vegetation productivity could be affected for 20-30 

years should a field be discovered. In the remainder of the area the effects to vegetation would be 

minimal because of no surface occupancy. 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for wilderness. On the 

remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 27,000 

acres. Of this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 85 acres. Vegetation 

would be removed for road construction and well pads. Vegetation productivity could be affected 

20-30 years should a field be discovered. Some development (included in the 85 acre estimate) is 

predicted within the Table Top Unit because of existing leases and new leases being offered. 

The likelihood of encountering a plant species at risk through oil and gas activities is increased 

because there are more acres available for surface occupancy in Alternative 7. Because a 

Controlled Surface Use Stipulation would require surveys to determine the possible presence of 

any sensitive plant species, operations would be designed or located so as to not adversely affect 

the viability of the populations. Lease Notices would be attached where threatened or endangered 

plant species are potentially located. This would ensure the protection of these species through 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Further impacts to the vegetation could occur as a result of the development of private minerals. 

Oil and gas activities on lands with private minerals are not required to meet Forest Plan 

standards. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 118 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Roadless Area Management 

Roadless area management would have varying degrees of both positive and negative effects. 

Roadless areas, by definition, are not necessarily non-motorize. Motorized trails are allowed 

within roadless area and it is the management of areas as non-motorized that reduces the 

potential for negative effects from recreation activities (especially unauthorized OHV use), 

noxious weed spread, and from unwanted human-caused fire ignitions, which typically occur 

along roadways. It is the lack of roads, however, that reduces the ability to manage these 

landscapes for Properly Functioning Conditions using mechanical and timber harvest tools, and 

may reduce the ability to manage prescribed fire depending on the need to access the areas to be 

burned. 

Alternative 1 manages over 550,000 acres as non-motorized, which is more than any other 

alternative. This alternative maintains roadless area values on all the roadless acres (over 

600,000 acres). Alternative 1 prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in 

any roadless area. Without additional roads, access for management would be the most limited 

of the alternatives. Wildland fire use and failed fires suppression would be greatest under this 

alternative because of the increased age of existing vegetation, and subsequent increase in fuels 

because of no prescribed fires or other mechanical vegetation treatments including timber harvest 

would be allowed. It would have the lowest potential for unauthorized OHV use, spread of 

noxious weeds, and unwanted human-caused fires. 

Alternative 2 is second only to Alternative one, in the acres managed as non-motorized (436,000 

acres). This alternative maintains or mostly maintains roadless area values on approximately 97 

percent (over 585,000 acres) of the existing roadless areas. This alternative does not allow road 

construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas but does allow some vegetation to 

be managed to improve habitat for rare species, or to maintain or restore ecosystem composition 

and structure, such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. It would be similar to 

Alternative 1 in its low potential for unauthorized OHV use, spread of noxious weeds, and 

unwanted human-caused fires. 

Alternative 3 manages over 390,000 acres as non-motorized and maintains or mostly maintains 

roadless area values on approximately 70 percent of the existing roadless areas (425,000 acres). 

In this alternative, roadless area management would have a moderately high effect on vegetation 

communities because nearly 40 miles of new road would be constructed to manage vegetation 

through timber harvest. Most roadless areas in this alternative would generally only be 

developed where it would be necessary for achieving habitat improvement or restoration. 

Because of road construction, however, this alternative would have a high potential for negative 

effects from recreation activities in existing roadless areas, including unauthorized OHV use. It 

would have an intermediate potential for unauthorized OHV use, spread of noxious weeds, and 

unwanted human-caused fires. 

Alternative 4 manages nearly 242,000 acres as non-motorized and mostly maintains roadless 

area values on approximately 22 percent (132,000 acres) of existing roadless areas. Inventoried 

roadless areas in this alternative generally allow development for commodity outputs and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 119 

recreation access. This alternative has the greatest ability to manage vegetation for PFC, but also 

has a very high potential for negative effects on vegetation from recreation activities, including 

unauthorized OHV use. It would have the highest potential for unauthorized OHV use, spread of 

noxious weeds, and unwanted human-caused fires. 

Alternative 5 manages approximately 308,000 acres as non-motorized and maintains or mostly 

maintains roadless area values on approximately 19 percent (117,000 acres) of the existing 

roadless areas. In Alternative 5, most inventoried roadless areas are managed to provide access 

for timber and grazing management, oil and gas exploration and development, and recreation 

with project-by-project attention to critical habitats for wildlife, fish, and plant population 

viability. This alternative produces the greatest amount of commercial timber harvest (12,400 

acres), which would require the greatest about of road construction in existing roadless areas. 

Like Alternative 4, this alternative has a great ability to manage vegetation for PFC but as noted 

in Effects on Vegetation Communities from Recreation Management, has the highest 

potential for negative effects on vegetation from recreation activities in existing roadless areas, 

including unauthorized OHV use. It would be similar to Alternative 4 in its high potential for 

unauthorized OHV use, spread of noxious weeds, and unwanted human-caused fires. 

Alternative 6 manages about 412,000 acres as non-motorized and maintains or mostly maintains 

roadless area values on about 96 percent (over 580,000 acres) of the existing roadless areas. 

Like Alternative 1, Alternative 6 adjusts allowed activities to be consistent with the National 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Only 6 miles of new road are allowed for timber harvest, 

which focuses on cutting and removal of generally small diameter trees to maintain or improve 

roadless characteristics or habitat for rare species, or to maintain or restore ecosystem 

composition and structure, and/or reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. It would 

be similar to Alternative 2 in its low potential for unauthorized OHV use, spread of noxious 

weeds, and unwanted human-caused fires. 

Alternative 7 manages nearly 416,000 acres as non-motorized and maintains or mostly maintains 

roadless area values on approximately 75 percent (456,000 acres) of the existing roadless areas. 

This alternative identifies individual roadless area values and resource capabilities and 

conditions. Road construction and reconstruction are not allowed in some areas, nor is cutting, 

sale, and removal of timber. Timber harvest and road construction (approximately 7 miles) are 

allowed in portions of some roadless areas for purposes of improving habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive species, or to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and 

structure, such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. Like Alternative 6, it 

would be similar to Alternative 2 in its low potential for unauthorized OHV use, spread of 

noxious weeds, and unwanted human-caused fires.

Effects from non-motorized ROS are also discussed in more detail in Effects on Vegetation 

Communities from Recreation Management. 

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Special Designation 

Special designations, research natural areas (RNA), special interest areas (SIA), and special areas 

(SA) would be beneficial to vegetation communities because they would minimize the likelihood 

for undesirable impacts from management or recreational activities. RNA status would be the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 120 

most restrictive on allowed activities and would focus on maintaining reference conditions for 

various cover types on the Forest. SIA and SA status would manage for the vegetation values, 

but would allow more management activities consistent with the purposes for which these areas 

are established. 

Alternative 2 provides the most protection by designating approximately 6,900 acres of RNAs 

and about 32,500 acres of SIAs and SAs (this is the only alternative that establishes a TriCanyons Special Area in the Cottonwood Canyons area). The SIAs and SAs in this alternative 

are, for the most part, directed at maintaining values of rare communities (such as Tall Forb 

Communities), reference vegetation communities (e.g. Douglas-fir/Ninebark habitat type), and 

rare plant species. Alternative 7 provides nearly as much protection as Alternative 2. This 

alternative, while omitting the Tri-Canyons Special Area, increases the Logan Canyon SIA by 

adding approximately 8,800 acres in the lower portion of the canyon to include the south-facing 

slopes with several Species At Risk and bigtooth maple and juniper communities. Alternatives 1 

and 6 are intermediate in the protection they provide, primarily because they do not include TriCanyons Special Area. They also focus on maintaining many of the values identified in 

Alternative 2. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 each provide approximately 6,900 acres of protection 

through RNA and/or SIA designation.

Effects on Vegetation Communities from Heritage Resource Management 

Heritage Resource Management will have little effect on vegetation communities, except to 

avoid impacts where these resources occur in areas of potential vegetation management. The 

greatest potential for effects through avoidance would be in Alternative 2 where over 186,000 

acres are treated, primarily through prescribed fire. The lowest potential for effects would be in 

Alternative 1 where no acres are treated. 

Cumulative Effects 

Vegetation communities on nearby or intermingled private lands have been experiencing 

changes in recent years through land development that will likely continue in the future. Some 

intermingled private lands in the Uinta Mountains have been harvested to a greater degree than 

adjacent National Forest lands. Approximately 8 Sections (over 5,000 acres) have been, or will 

be harvested on the North Slope, and on an additional 5 sections (over 3,000 acres) were 

harvested in the past with some clean-up harvesting (removal of the remaining merchantable 

timber) being done. Some harvest may occur within approximately 5,000 acres of private land 

just north of the Forest boundary and west of the Bear River to reduce fire hazard near homes 

and to produce some wood fiber. Because of the scenic values managed for on these lands, 

however, large-scale harvests are not expected. Nearly all of the lands adjacent to the Wasatch 

Mountains (Bear River and Wasatch Ranges) are developed. This has resulted in the loss of 

many thousands of acres of the sagebrush and other rangeland types in these lower elevation 

areas. In addition, some private ranch lands at lower elevations adjacent to the Forest have been 

converted from rangelands and pasturelands to rural home sites. 

There has been an increase in noxious weeds on private lands contributing to increased 

infestation on the Forest and a continuing increased threat in the future. This has occurred 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 121 

especially in the Wasatch Mountains, but is also occurring in the Uinta Mountains and the 

Stansbury Mountains as well. 

It is the combination of all vegetation treatments (harvest, fire, and mechanical treatment), access 

(roads and roadless area management), livestock grazing, and recreation impacts that ultimately 

result in the rate at which the alternatives move the vegetation composition, structure (age 

classes and patterns) and functions toward PFC. Because Alternative 2 provides the most active 

management and Alternative 1 the least, all others are compared to those two. Figure VEG-3 

illustrates how long it takes, with harvest and prescribed fire under Alternative 2, for the Aspen 

vegetation type to reach PFC on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest portion of the Overthrust 

Mountains ecological section. Figure VEG-4 shows that PFC will not be reached in the Conifer 

vegetation types within the next 100 years in the Uinta Mountains ecological section, even 

through the most active management. It will likely involve unplanned ignitions (fires) in order 

for PFC to be reached. Figure VEG-5 shows that the Oak Cover Type will reach PFC within the

second decade (20 years) in the Overthrust Mountains ecological section. Figure VEG-6 shows 

that the Sagebrush Cover Type approaches PFC in decade 4 and will reach PFC by decade 7 (70 

years) across the Forest, then maintains PFC for the next 3 decades. Unlike the outcome for 

sagebrush in Figure VEG-6, the outcomes for aspen, conifer, and oak shown in Figures VEG-3, 

VEG-4 and VEG-5 illustrate that with continued treatments as originally proposed (e.g. 3,200 

acres per year for aspen and aspen-conifer), the vegetation types may reach PFC within the first 

few decades, but they go away from PFC within a decade or two after those conditions are 

reached. Under any alternative, management (number of acres treated) would be adjusted to 

maintain PFC once it is reached. 

Cumulatively, Alternative 1 would have the least predictable effect on returning vegetation cover 

types to PFC because no acres would be treated mechanically or through harvest or prescribed 

fire, relying on wildland fire to bring ecosystems back to PFC. Alternative 1 would have the least 

impacts from development. No roads would be constructed or reconstructed and no new 

recreation facilities would be allowed. As a result, this alternative would likely have the least 

negative effect on vegetation communities from recreation and unauthorized uses, because no 

new roads would be constructed. In addition, 2 miles of roads and 76 miles of motorized trails 

would be closed in recommended wilderness. Alternative 1 would have the lowest potential for 

noxious weed expansion because roads are one of the greatest vectors for their spread. This 

alternative would likely have the greatest effects from insects and disease in forest-dominated 

vegetation communities, which could result in the greatest amount of acres burned through failed 

fire suppression in the next 100 years. These fires would likely be more severe in nature than 

any other alternative as well as being uncharacteristically large, which could threaten adjacent 

private lands. No vegetation cover types are predicted to reach PFC forest wide in the next 100 

years. 

Cumulatively, Alternative 2 would have the greatest effect on returning vegetation cover types to 

PFC. This alternative returns all cover types to PFC, except Douglas-fir communities in the 

Overthrust Mountains and Uinta Mountains Ecological Sections to PFC in 10 decades or less (2-

3 decades for sagebrush, oak, and aspen communities). About 19,000 acres would be treated 

annually primarily through prescribed burning, but also through mechanical treatment of nontimber vegetation and through timber harvest of forested communities. Approximately 6 miles of 

new roads would be constructed for timber harvest and 3 miles of roads for oil and gas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 122 

exploration. About 7 miles of trails would be closed to motorized use in recommended 

wilderness areas. Some new recreation facilities would be allowed. Alternative 2 would have a 

low effect from insects and disease especially in forest-dominated vegetation communities where 

wildlife habitat/corridors are critical. Insect and fire effects on adjacent private lands would be 

less than Alternative 1. 

Figure VEG-3. Age class diversity of the Aspen and Aspen/Conifer vegetation cover types

under Alternative 2 (most active management alternative) on the Overthrust Mountains 

Ecological Section of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest over the next 10 decades. 

Decade 1 is the current conditions. 

Age Class Diversity by Decade in Alternative 2, Treating (Burning & 

Harvesting) Approximately 3,500 Acres/Year of the Aspen Cover Type 

Desirable Age Class Diversity is 

20-40% Seedling/Sapling, Immature, and Mature Age Classes

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Decade

Percent

SS

IMM

MAT

 -

Cumulatively, Alternative 3 would have an intermediate effect on returning vegetation cover 

types to PFC. About 9,000 acres would be treated annually through prescribed burning, 

mechanical treatment of non-timber vegetation and through prescribed burning and timber 

harvest of forested communities. In the Overthrust Mountains Ecological Section, oak and aspen 

cover types reach PFC within 5 decades and in the Uinta Mountains Ecological Section mixed 

conifer reaches PFC within 5 decades and aspen within 9 decades. Alternative 3 would have an 

intermediate effect in vegetation communities from various forms of development. This 

alternative would allow approximately 10 miles of roads constructed for oil and gas development 

or exploration. Approximately 39 miles of new timber harvest roads would be constructed and 

some new recreation facilities would be allowed. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would 

have a low effect from insects and disease especially in forest-dominated vegetation 

communities where wildlife habitat/corridors are critical. Insect and fire effects on adjacent 

private lands would be greater than Alternative 2, but less than Alternative 1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 123 

Figure VEG-4. Age class diversity of all Conifer vegetation cover types under Alternative 2 (most 

active management alternative) on the Uinta Mountains Ecological Section of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest over the next 10 decades. Decade 1 is the current conditions. 

Age Class Diversity by Decade for All Conifer Cover Types 

by Treating (Harvesting and Burning) nearly 3,300 

Desirable Age Class Diversity is 10-20% Grass/Forb, 10-20% 

Seedling/Sapling,

30-40% Immature, 30-40% mature, and 10-20% Old Growth

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11

Decade

Percent

GF

SS

IMM

MAT

OLD

Figure VEG-5. Age class diversity of the Oak vegetation cover type under Alternative 2 (most active 

management alternative) on the Overthrust Mountains Ecological Section of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest over the next 10 decades. Decade 1 is the current conditions 

Age Class Diversity in Alternative 2 by Decade, Treating Approximately 6,000 

Acres/Year of the Oak Vegetation Type

Desirable Age Class Diversity is

30-60% Seedling/Sapling, 20-40% Immature, and 20-40% Mature

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Decade

Percent

SS

IMM

MAT
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 124 

Figure VEG-6. Age class diversity of the Sagebrush vegetation cover types under Alternative 2 

(most active management alternative) over the entire Wasatch-Cache National Forest over the 

next 10 decades. Decade 1 is the current conditions. 

Sagebrush Cover Class Diversity in Alternative 2 by Decade, Treating 

Approximately 3,600 acres/year Sagebrush 

and Converting 400 acres/year Juniper to Sagebrush

Desirable Cover-Class Diversity is 

5-15% Low, 30-50% Moderate, 30-50% High

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Decade

Percent

Low

Moderate

High

Cumulatively, Alternative 4 would the lowest effect, when compared to all alternatives, on 

returning vegetation cover types to PFC. With the exception of Alternative 1, Alternative 4 treats 

the fewest acres (nearly 3,800) annually through prescribed burning and timber harvest. No 

mechanical treatment of the oak vegetation type would occur. This alternative would allow the 

construction of 49 miles of new timber harvest roads, which could result in increased recreation 

access as well as additional miles that could serve as a conduit for noxious weeds introductions. 

Alternative 4 would have an intermediate effect on vegetation communities from various forms 

of development. This alternative would continue the suspension of oil and gas leasing/ 

development. New recreation facilities would be allowed. This alternative would continue to 

have a moderate effect from insects and disease because less is being done to manage and 

maintain these effects. 

Cumulatively, Alternative 5 would have a low effect on returning vegetation cover types to PFC. 

Nearly 6,100 acres would be treated annually, through prescribed burning, mechanical treatment 

of non-timber vegetation and through prescribed burning and timber harvest of forested 

communities. Alternative 5 would have the greatest effect in vegetation communities from 

various forms of development. This alternative would allow 70 acres of disturbance for oil and 

gas leasing/development. Approximately 49 miles of new timber harvest roads would be 

constructed and new recreation facilities would be allowed. Similar to Alternative 2, this 

alternative would have the lowest effect from insects and disease in forest-dominated vegetation 

communities, because management emphasis on commercial timber harvest would permit 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 125 

prevention and suppression treatments, and would tend to minimize the effects of insects and fire 

on adjacent private lands.

Alternative 6, Like Alternative 3, would cumulatively have an intermediate effect on returning 

vegetation cover types to PFC. Approximately 9,100 acres would be treated annually, through 

prescribed burning, mechanical treatment of non-timber vegetation and through prescribed 

burning and timber harvest of forested communities. Alternative 6 would also have an 

intermediate effect (lower than Alternative 3) on vegetation communities from various forms of 

development. This alternative would also allow 50 acres of disturbance for oil and gas 

leasing/development. Slightly more than 6 miles of new timber harvest roads would be 

constructed. Some new recreation facilities would be allowed. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, 

this alternative would have a relatively low effect from insects and disease especially in forestdominated vegetation communities where wildlife habitat/corridors are critical, and affects on 

adjacent private lands. 

Alternative 7, like Alternatives 3 and 6, would cumulatively have an intermediate effect on 

returning vegetation cover types to PFC. Approximately 8,700 acres would be treated annually, 

through prescribed burning, mechanical treatment of non-timber vegetation and through 

prescribed burning and timber harvest of forested communities. Alternative 7 would also have 

an intermediate effect (lower than Alternative 3) on vegetation communities from various forms 

of development. This alternative would also allow 50 acres of disturbance for oil and gas 

leasing/development. Like Alternative 6, slightly more than 6 miles of new timber harvest roads 

would be constructed. Some new recreation facilities would be allowed. Similar to Alternatives 

2, 3, and 6 this alternative would have a relatively low effect from insects and disease especially 

in forest-dominated vegetation communities where wildlife habitat/corridors are critical, and 

affects on adjacent private lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 126 

Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability

Botanical Resources

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive Plant Species and 

Plant Species at Risk 

Introduction 

Botanical resources include the abundance and distribution of different vascular and nonvascular native plant species. This section presents a more detailed analysis of the most rare 

elements of the flora—Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) plant species. 

Additionally, we include some discussion of watch list species, species at risk, rare and unique 

communities, and plant species of cultural and social importance. 

The state of Utah has a remarkable diversity of native flora and is known for its large number of 

endemic and rare plant species. Indeed, only four other states (California, Florida, Texas, and 

Oregon) equal or exceed Utah in the total numbers of rare plant species (Shultz 1993; UDWR 

1998a). The flora diversity of Utah is comprised of 2602 species and 393 infraspecific taxa 

(subspecies or varieties) (Welsh et al. 1993) of vascular plant species that are considered to be 

native. Many of these rare species, 247 taxa (157 species and 90 infraspecific taxa), are narrow 

endemics with their entire global distribution within the state of Utah (UDWR 1998b). Several of 

these species have their entire global distribution within the boundaries of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest (Cronquist et al. 1972; UDWR 1998b). 

The richness of native plant species and unique flora of Utah and the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest can best be explained by the wide diversity of habitats and wide range of geomorphology 

(UDWR 1998b). Habitats within the state of Utah and within the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest range from semi-arid shrublands, to high mountain ranges that support coniferous forests, 

subalpine forests and grasslands, and true alpine communities (Cronquist et al. 1972). Many rare 

and endemic species are tied to unique soil types. The geomorphology of Middle Rocky 

Mountain Province and much of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is comprised of the very 

dissimilar Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Range and the Bear River Range. The Uinta Range 

trends east-west and is practically devoid of igneous rock while the Wasatch Range trends northsouth and is comprised of unusual assembly of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock 

(Stokes 1988). The Bear River Range of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest contains habitat for 

six rare endemic plant species, including one Threatened species. Some of these species are 

endemic to Logan Canyon and its tributaries while others are limited in distribution to portions 

of the range in northern Utah and southeastern Idaho (Glisson 1995a). These species are all 

closely associated with the dolomite and limestone geologic formations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 127 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

Plant species that are federally listed as Threatened or Endangered, or that are proposed for 

listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 1973) and Forest Service 

regulations (FSH 2609.25 and FSM 2670), as are candidate species and species of concern (those 

species with sufficient biological information and existing threats to warrant listing by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service). The National Forest Management Act (1976) and USDA Forest Service 

Policy require that Forest Service Lands be managed to maintain viable populations of all native 

plant and animal species. A viable population is defined as a population that has a large enough 

distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species 

throughout its existing range. 

Sensitive species are similarly protected under the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

Program. For sensitive species, management efforts to maintain their population viability and 

preservation are already in place. The Forest Service management policy (FSH 2609.25, 1.25, 

1988 and FSM 2670) ensures that for all TEPS plant species, the following measures will be 

taken: (1) biological evaluations will be written for all activities that may impact sensitive 

species and their habitat, (2) “effects” of activities will be determined as similar to those for 

threatened, endangered, or proposed species, and (3) sensitive species must receive special 

management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that 

would result in the need for federal listing. This Forest Service management policy will be 

employed at a species level in all alternatives to ensure its mandates are achieved and that 

sensitive species are conserved 

Additionally, special management direction can be designed and implemented for Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate species (TEPS) to ensure their protection and recovery 

under all Forest Service management activities. Conservation Assessments, Strategies, and 

Agreements, and Recovery plans outline the current status of such species and detail 

management needs to promote conservation and recovery of all TES plants and plant species at 

risk. Many species currently found on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have signed 

Conservation Strategies/Agreements and Recovery Plans (Threatened species) in place. All 

existing strategies and plans along with future plans for these plant species will be met and 

upheld to provide for viability, conservation, and recovery of these species. 

Affected Environment 

The affected areas for direct and indirect effects on TES plants and plant species at risk are the 

lands administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Management Areas will be 

highlighted in discussions, due to the significance of their contributions to Forest-wide 

populations. Several species have their entire distribution within the Wasatch-Cache Forest 

Boundaries and other plants are at the fringe of their natural range. The affected areas for 

cumulative effects on TEPS plants include national forest and other ownership lands within the 

Wasatch, Uinta, Bear River, and Stansbury Mountains and also consider the natural ranges of 

distribution for individual plant species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 128 

Plant Types Within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Vascular Plants 

Vascular plants comprise the largest and most dominant organisms within each major vegetation 

type. Included in this group are seed-bearing plants such as angiosperms (flowering plants) and 

gymnosperms (conifers), and spore-bearing plants such as ferns and fern allies. Vascular plants 

are primary producers, which utilize photosynthesis to generate carbohydrates. Animals and 

fungi in turn consume these carbohydrates. Additionally, vascular plants form the forest 

structure that provides substrate and habitat for other organisms, influence microclimates, and 

produce litter and decomposing wood, which contributes to organic matter and soil development. 

Many vascular plants exist in symbiotic relationships with fungi and other plants, thus enabling 

some species to be non-photosynthetic and providing the capability to fix nitrogen. In addition 

to their role in ecosystem functions, vascular plants provide many commercially important 

resources that include timber, paper, rope, medicines, foods, and ornamentals. 

Non-vascular Plants 

Bryophytes - Bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hornworts) are small, green non-vascular 

plants that reproduce by means of spores instead of seeds. Although small, they play an 

important role in water and nutrient cycles, and provide seed beds for many plants (Steele and 

Geier-Hayes 1995). Many play crucial roles in the hydrology of meadows and riparian areas. 

Bryophytes can be found in all types of environments with the exception of salt water. 

Throughout the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, bryophytes can be found on rock outcrops, in 

hanging gardens, and in wet meadows, bogs, and fens. 

The worldwide bryoflora is comprised of approximately 15,000 to 18,000 (Merrill 1995) species 

of bryophytes. In North America, 1,320 species of moss (Anderson et al. 1990), and 525 species 

of liverworts and hornworts (Stotler and Crandall-Stotler 1977) have been documented. 

Currently, no comprehensive moss flora exists for Utah. In a recent study of bryophytes in the 

Columbia River Basin south of the Canadian border, Christy and Harpel (1997) noted 50 taxa 

endemic to western North America. Their study found that about half the total bryoflora had 

fewer than five known populations. This lack of distribution knowledge hindered the 

development of rarity rankings and pointed to the need for systematic collecting and taxonomic 

studies in the Western United States. 

Bryophyte species usually are more widely distributed than vascular plant species. However, 

within a broad overall range, they may occur in very localized patterns in ecologically specific 

habitats. Several species of mosses including Polytrichum juniperinum, Bryum spp. Grimmia 

spp. and Drepanocladus aduncus are found widespread throughout the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest (Kelly 2000). Other species have very limited distribution on the WCNF (i.e. Grimmia 

alpicola var. latifolia - found only on submerged granitic rock in Bells Canyon, Metaneckera 

menziesii - only known in City Creek Canyon on shaded limestone cliffs, and Scouleria aquatica 

- only known above Brighton). The distribution of liverworts throughout the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest is less known because little floristic work for such species has been completed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 129 

within this geographic area. It is known however, that one liverwort species, Ricciocarpus 

natans, is common in Logan Canyon but infrequent elsewhere in the western US (Flowers 1945). 

Lichens - Lichens are a unique combination of two different types of organisms, fungus and 

alga, growing together in a symbiotic relationship. Lichens are often sensitive indicators of air 

pollution. They play important roles in the cycling of water and nutrients and in relationships 

with many other plants and animals. Lichens also play an important role in soil formation due to 

their ability to fix nitrogen by changing atmospheric nitrogen into a chemical form that plants 

can use. A total of 18,000 to 20,000 lichen species have been documented worldwide with 

about 3,330 species documented for the United States and Canada. Lichens grow on rock, soil, 

trees, fallen logs and other surfaces. 

A list of Lichens of Utah (Newberry 1991a) and Lichens of the High Uinta Wilderness 

(Newberry 1994) provide detailed information of species and distribution of lichens within these 

wide-ranging areas. Several species were reported for the first time in Utah including 

Ascarospora nitida, Lecanora bicincta, and Solorina bispora. All of these were identified for 

the first time from collections made on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Despite these 

floristic studies, a lack of baseline inventories documenting comprehensive lichen species 

presence, abundance, and geographic distributions point to the need for additional studies. 

Management of both lichens and bryophytes would benefit from further ecological studies and 

distribution data. Limited information currently on rare lichens and their distributions prevent 

the development of species-specific management. As such, these species were not analyzed in 

the effects analysis for the Wasatch-Cache Forest plan revision. 

Fungi/Cryptogamic Crusts 

Fungi - Fungi are members of the plant kingdom that contain no chlorophyll and rely on organic 

material for nutrition and play an important role in decomposition and nutrient exchange. Some 

fungal species, such as the truffles, boletuses, chanterelles, and morels are important for 

recreational and commercial gatherers. Many fungi form symbiotic relationships, called 

mycorrhizal associations, with vascular plant roots underground, thus improving the ability of 

these vascular plants to exploit soil reserves for moisture and nutrients. Lack of knowledge on 

the role of fungal species in the ecosystem and difficulty of identification prevents the 

development of species-specific management. As such, these species were not analyzed in the 

effects analysis for the flora of Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Cryptogamic Crusts – Cryptogamic crusts (also described as microbiotic, cryptobiotic, and 

microphytic crusts) are another very important ecosystem component. This biological soil crust 

is an association of algae, mosses, lichens, liverworts, cyanobacteria, and fungi. Cryptogamic 

crusts play a vital role in soil stabilization, nutrient cycling, soil moisture, and vascular plant 

interactions (St. Clair et al 1984; Eldridge 1993; Ladyman and Muldavin, 1996). They also play 

an important role in discouraging the dominance of annual weed growth (Belnap et al. 2001). 

These crusts are generally believed to protect the soil against erosion, and affect infiltration in 

semiarid and arid ecosystems (Eldridge 1993; Ladyman and Muldavin 1996). Crusts are integral 

components of rangeland systems, and their presence is often indicative of the condition and 

trend of these systems (Belnap 1992). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 130 

Cryptogamic crusts are often associated with potential vegetation types that include low 

sagebrush (includes mesic, mesic with juniper, and xeric), salt desert shrub, big sagebrush-warm 

and cool, and juniper (St. Clair et al 1984; USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1997). More than 20 percent of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is comprised 

of these vegetation types. Anderson et al. (1982a) described the soil conditions one would 

expect these cryptogamic crusts to occur. The authors found that the amount of silt is positively 

correlated with these crusts, while surface rock and sand are higher on areas with less-developed 

crust. Kaltenecker and Wicklow-Howard (1994) found a negative relationship between 

cryptogamic crusts and herbaceous undergrowth in sagebrush communities. They found that 

cryptogamic crusts were less abundant in sagebrush communities that had high herbaceous 

cover. 

In the Stansbury Mountains, sagebrush and juniper (some pinyon-juniper) communities that have 

invaded the sagebrush, have the greatest potential for abundant cryptogamic soil crusts because 

of their soils and herbaceous vegetation cover. Elsewhere on the forest, soils are either coarse or, 

where soils have a greater amount of fine soil materials, typically have a high amount of 

herbaceous undergrowth. We estimate that the Stansbury Mountains have approximately 33,000 

acres of sagebrush and juniper communities. While some of these communities occur on sites 

that are either too coarse or have too great vegetation cover to support cryptogamic crusts, there 

are a large amount of acres that have the potential to support well-developed crusts. 

Sagebrush communities occur in nearly all elevation zones throughout the forest and juniper 

communities, while most expansive on the Stansbury Mountains, occur throughout the 

Overthrust Mountains Ecological Section as well. Belnap (2002) stated that, while these crusts 

may be more abundant on the Stansbury Mountains, occur throughout the Forest. She noted that 

some form of crust cover would occur wherever light can reach the soil surface. Therefore, 

absolute cover of biological soil crusts is lower where vegetation cover is higher, but they remain 

an important component for soils in plant interspaces, even when those interspaces are small. 

Belnap went on to note that lichen and moss cover (two common components of biological soil 

crusts) will be higher on silty soils, but sandy soils have higher cover of cyanobacteria. She 

commented that cryptogamic crusts likely play a more important ecological role in the portion of 

the Stansbury Mountains where vascular plant cover is lower (pinyon-juniper, juniper, and 

sagebrush communities), but are also an important component throughout the forests, both from 

a soil protection/soil chemistry perspective and from a biodiversity viewpoint as well. 

Kaltenecker and Wicklow-Howard (1994) noted that use by domestic livestock and off road 

vehicles (ORVs) result in the disturbance and compaction of surface soils and have a negative 

effect on these crusts. In addition to their greater potential for eriosion, these crusts, which play 

an important role in contributing nitrogen to arid and semi-arid ecosystems. These authors also 

noted that fire could destroy cryptogamic crusts. The recovery rate from any of these 

disturbances was dependent on the severity of disturbance. Johansen and others (1984), as 

referenced in Kaltenecker and Wicklow-Howard (1994) noted that these crusts could recover 

fully within five years of fire if no other disturbances occurred. Anderson and others (1982b) 

described a rapid recovery rate in 14 – 18 years following protection from grazing. During the 

next 20 years, the rate of recovery showed only slight increases in cryptogamic and algal cover. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 131 

The rate of recovery following ORV use was not described by any of these authors, but would 

likely be at least as slow as that described for livestock impacts. 

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant Species 

Federal land-managing agencies are responsible for implementing the ESA within their 

authorities. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, efforts to promote the 

conservation and recovery of listed species and provisions to conserve the ecosystems upon 

which listed species depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) monitors and 

prescribes management for federally listed threatened and endangered plant species. The 

National Forest Management Act (1976) and Forest Service policy (FSH 2609.25 and FSM 2670 

and FSM 2609) require that Forest Service land be managed to maintain populations of all 

existing native animal and plant species at or above minimum viable populations levels. A 

viable population is the maintenance of enough individuals throughout their range to perpetuate 

the existence of the species in natural, self-sustaining populations. 

The USDA Forest Service, in implementing the ESA, must ensure efforts to promote the 

conservation and recovery of listed species and provisions to conserve the ecosystems upon 

which listed species depend. Table B-1 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. 

Table B-1 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 Sensitive1 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 

The Utah Native Plant Society and Utah Conservation Data Center identified three Intermountain 

Region Sensitive species, Viola frank-smithii, Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense, and Draba 

maguirei var. burkei, (Utah Rare Plant Meeting Results 2000) that have sufficient threats and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 132 

conservation needs to be proposed as Threatened species. These species have not been formally 

petitioned or listed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. However, these species could be 

listed in the foreseeable future and within the 10-year planning period. As listed species, special 

management efforts and conservation measures would be required under the ESA. Due to their 

current conservation needs and threats, these species will be examined separately from the other 

Intermountian Region Sensitive species. For each, we have provided detailed information 

regarding status, habitat information, threats, current condition, and management efforts. Threats 

are defined as those activities, Forest Service or otherwise, or natural conditions that currently or 

potentially have negative effects on the viability of the TES plants and plant species at risk or 

their habitat. Threats listed are not all-inclusive, but focus on those that have the most potential 

to adversely affect plant and habitat recovery, and the persistence of known populations.

Primula maguirei (Maguire’s Primrose) 

Maguire’ Primrose was first collected in Logan Canyon, Utah in 1911 and was formally 

described as a new species in 1936 (Williams 1936). The US Fish and Wildlife Service 

officially listed Primula maguirei as Threatened in August 1985 (US Fish and Wildlife Service 

1985). Currently, a total of 14 element occurrences of P. maguirei have been identified within a 

corridor of Logan Canyon approximately 19 km long and less than 1 km wide. The total global 

population of P. maguirei is estimated at 3000 individuals (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). 

Reproduction is thought to be strictly sexual, and P. maguirei is likely an obligate outbreeding 

species based upon the heterostylous floral structure (Richards 1993). Bees and flies have been 

observed visiting P. maguirei flowers, but specific pollinators have not been determined (Padgett 

1986). Successful conservation of this species will require protecting occupied habitat and 

pollinator requirements in and around populations. 

The narrow distribution and small population size of P. maguirei is likely best explained by its 

unique habitat requirements and need for calcareous substrates. There is no evidence to suggest 

that the range of P. maguirei is any more restricted at present than as indicated by historical 

botanical records (USDI USFWS 1990; Glisson 1995a; Wolf and Sinclair 1997). It is more 

likely a relict species that formerly had wider ranges when climatic conditions in North America 

were wetter and cooler. Current research and phylogenetic analyses of Primula spp. add support 

to this hypothesis (Richards 1993; Wolf and Sinclair 1997). The role of human intervention in 

the restricted range of this species is unknown. Potential and actual habitat within the canyon 

and along the canyon floor may have been significantly impacted by human activity due to 

development (USDI USFWS 1990). 

Habitat – Primula maguirei is categorized as a mesophytic calciphile and is restricted to cool, 

moss-covered shallow soils on dolomite cliffs and boulders of the Laketown and Fish Haven 

Dolomite formations (USDI USFWS 1990, Glisson 1995a). Populations of P. maguirei are 

restricted to an elevational range of 1400 to 1800 meters (4,600 to 5,900 feet) along the lower 

canyon walls of Logan Canyon (Padgett 1986). Plants are often found in cracks or crevices or 

amidst well-developed mats of moss and is most often found in areas of cool, moist 

microclimates. Apparent differences in the moisture regimes of up canyon and down canyon 

populations have been documented (Padgett 1990). Extensive surveys of potentially suitable 

habitat (additional outcrops of Fish Haven and Laketown Dolomites) have been conducted in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 133 

adjacent drainages and in other portions of the Bear River Range of northern Utah and southern 

Idaho. No additional populations of P. maguirei have been located (Franklin, 1990). 

Threats – The most significant threats facing Primula maguirei and its habitat are recreational 

rock climbing activities, the proposed realignment and expansion of U.S. Highway 89 in Logan 

Canyon, and horticultural collection (USDI USFWS 1990; Glisson 1995a; UDWR 1998a). 

Climbing activity in Logan Canyon has increased dramatically in recent years. The climbing 

community has participated in conservation efforts with the USDA Forest Service to identify 

potential conflict areas and to educate climbers about the presence of this species. With the 

understanding of the local climbing community, 21 climbs have been formally closed to ensure 

protection of this species (Glisson 1995a). A local climbing guide discusses the presence of P. 

maguirei and urges the cooperation of climbers to further protect this species and its habitat 

(Monsell 1998). The Record of Decision for the expansion of US Highway 89 identifies 

preventative measures that will be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the P. maguirei 

populations, which include limited vegetation removal, dust-suppression, and construction 

timing to prevent impacts during flowering (Glisson 1995a). The USDA Forest Service is 

responsible for ensuring that preventative measures are employed and that population viability is 

maintained. 

Current Management – The US Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Recovery Plan for 

Primula maguirei (1986) that has been in effect since 1990. The general provisions of the 

Recovery Plan include inventorying suitable habitat, conducting minimum viable population 

studies, managing activities that could affect populations or habitats, and developing techniques 

for artificially propagating plants for possible population expansion or establishment. 

Additionally, a Conservation Strategy for the Bear River Range Endemics, which includes P. 

maguirei, was prepared and signed in 1995 (Glisson 1995a). The general provisions of this 

conservation strategy include implementation of population biology monitoring studies to assess 

stability, trends, impacts from climbing and grazing activities, and autecology of all endemics. 

Direct provisions for P. maguirei include the development and implementation of specific 

research aimed at determing habitat dynamics, germination requirements, and phylogenetic 

relationships within and between populations. A progress report and amendment to the 

Conservation Strategy and Action Plan is currently in draft form. This amendment will provide 

new information and proposed changes to the existing strategy and will enhance conservation 

and recovery efforts for P. maguirei and the other Bear River Range Endemics. Additional 

efforts would include: finalizing a formal policy to address rock climbing; increasing genetic, 

germination and pollination research; and completing Conservation Agreements in consultation 

with US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid) 

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid was named in 1984 and federally listed as threatened on January 17, 

1992 under the Endangered Species Act as amended. Spiranthes diluvialis populations are found 

in relatively low-elevation riparian, spring, and lakeside wetland meadows in these general areas 

of the interior western United States: Populations have been found near the base of the eastern 

slope of the Rocky Mountains in SE Wyoming and north-central and central Colorado; in the 

upper Colorado River Basin; along the Wasatch Front and westward in the eastern Great Basin, 

in north-central and eastern Utah and extreme eastern Nevada. In 1994, the range was expanded 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 134 

north by discoveries in central Wyoming and western Montana and in 1996, S. diluvialis was 

discovered in southeast Idaho, along the Snake River. The largest known population is found to 

the just south of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Diamond Fork Canyon on the Uinta 

National Forest. Reproduction is strictly sexual, with ground- and log-nesting bumblebees as the 

primary pollinators (Sipes and Tepedino 1995, Pierson and Tepedino 2000). Successful 

conservation of this orchid will require protecting suitable habitat and pollinator habitat in and 

around orchid populations. 

Habitat - Spiranthes diluvialis is endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows near springs, 

lakes, and perennial streams. The elevation range of known habitat in Utah 4,900 to 7,000 feet, 

but has been found as low as 1500 feet in surrounding states. Most of the occurrences are along 

riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist-to-wet meadows along perennial streams and 

rivers, although some localities are near freshwater lakes or springs. S. diluvialis appears to be 

well adapted to disturbances caused by water movement through flood plains over time. 

Populations are often found on point bars and other recently created riparian habitat. This orchid 

species appears to require permanent sub-irrigation, with the water table holding steady 

throughout the growing season and into late summer and early autumn. S. diluvialis occurs 

primarily in areas where the vegetation is relatively open. 

Potential habitat for Spiranthes diluvialis can be found throughout the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, but occupied habitat has not yet been discovered. Extensive surveys for S. diluvialis were 

completed on the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests in 1992 (Stone 1993). Field 

surveys were focused on perennial streams draining out through the Wasatch Mountains, usually 

at elevations below 6,500 feet. No significant botanical finds were made for S. diluvialis on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest in this fairly comprehensive survey. Subsequent surveys each 

year following this study to present have also resulted in no significant botanical finds of this 

Threatened species (Padgett 2000b). 

Factors in the life history and demography of this species often make it difficult to locate. 

Populations appear to fluctuate dramatically from year to year, making it difficult to assess 

population status and distribution. The genus Spiranthes also undergoes a dormant period that 

may last 7-10 years, apparently with no evidence of above ground structures. Currently, the 

factors involved in dormancy and the triggering mechanisms required are unknown. In order to 

locate this species, potential habitat must be surveyed every year before ground-disturbing 

activities take place. 

Threats – S. diluvialis is found infrequently and in scattered locations. Threats include livestock 

grazing, trampling due to hiking and undeveloped recreation, exotic weed invasion, alterations of 

the hydrologic regime due to controlled flooding, dewatering of streams, loss of pollinators, and 

development (Stone 1994, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Because it prefers open, early 

seral riparian areas, its management may be in direct conflict with rare fish habitat management 

that emphasizes undisturbed climax conditions. 

Current Management - The US Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a Draft Recovery Plan 

(US Fish and Wildlife Service 1995) and developed actions designed to restore populations and 

remove threats. The general provisions of the Recovery Plan include: obtaining information on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 135 

life history, demographics, habitat requirements, and watershed process; managing watersheds to 

perpetuate or enhance viable populations; and protecting and managing populations in wet 

meadow, seep and spring habitats. 

The following is from Federal Register (1992): 

Except for two small populations in wetlands near Utah Lake, all known historic 

populations of this species (S. diluvialis) along the Wasatch Front in the populated 

north-central area of Utah are presumed extinct, as are all other known historic 

populations in the eastern Great Basin and two of the four known populations in 

Colorado. It is believed that alteration of riparian habitat caused the extinction of 

these populations. With the exception of the two Utah Lake populations, recent 

attempts to locate the Wasatch Front and eastern Great Basin populations were 

unsuccessful (Coyner 1989,1990). 

While the potential for additional impacts to this species are limited, Wasatch-Cache personnel 

will continue to survey potential habitat before ground-disturbing activities take place. 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense (Utah Shooting Star, Wasatch Shooting Star) 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense is a Salt Lake County, Utah endemic. It was described as a 

new taxon in 1994 (Holmgren) and is apparently restricted to Big Cottonwood Canyon in the 

central Wasatch Range. Little work to determine life-history characteristics, demography, or 

pollination requirements for this taxon has been completed (Padgett 2000b). 

Habitat – Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense is endemic to shady, moist cracks and crevices 

of rock outcrops, often in the spray of waterfalls (Holmgren 1994). The elevation range of 

known habitat is 2000 to 2900 m (6,400 to 9,500 feet). Four known populations have been 

identified in Big Cottonwood Canyon within an area of approximately 3 miles square (Welsh et 

al. 1993). Many surrounding seeps have been surveyed for the presence of D. dentatum var. 

utahense, though no new populations have been located. All of the surrounding seeps that were 

examined were higher in elevation and were above shading trees (Stevens and Padgett 1999). 

Threats – Recreational impacts pose the greatest threat to D. dentatum var. utahense

populations. All known locations are found along trails or in the vicinity of high recreational use 

areas. Hikers, picnickers, and climbers frequent the areas in which these populations currently 

exist. Soil instability along some trailside populations is so great that even minimal use and light 

walking along the trail causes the uprooting of plants (UDWR 1998a). Based upon the high use 

of the area, and the extreme impacts from picnic area use, hiking, and climbing this species is 

thought to be critically imperiled sufficient to warrant proposed listing as Threatened under the 

ESA (Utah Rare Plant Meeting Results 2000). 

Current Management - Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense is currently be considered for 

addition to the Region 4 Sensitive Species list for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and is on 

the Utah Natural Heritage Program Tracking list (UDWR 1998a). It currently has no designation 

or proposed legal protection with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Currently, no preventative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 136 

measures (i.e. fences, barriers) have been taken to exclude picnickers, hikers, or climbers from 

the fragile populations (Padgett 2000b). 

Viola frank-smithii (Frank Smith’s Violet) 

Frank Smith’s Violet was first discovered in May 1989 by botanist Frank Smith and was 

formally described as a new species in 1992 by Holmgren (1992). Viola frank-smithii is known 

to occur only in the lower to middle portion of Logan Canyon and several of its main side 

canyons in the Bear River Range of northern Utah (Glisson 1995a). There are currently 11 

known element occurrences that comprise a total global population of approximately 10,000 

individuals (Stone 1994). Little is known about the life-history characteristics of V. franksmithii, although it is thought to be a short-lived, sexually reproducing perennial species. 

Pollinators are likely required for seed set (Glisson 1995a). 

Habitat - Viola frank-smithii is one of the few rock-dwelling violets known in North America 

(Holmgren 1992). It is endemic to cliffs and near-vertical outcrops of carbonate rock, 

specifically Limestone and Fish Haven and Laketown Dolomites. The elevation range of known 

habitat is 1646 to 2073 m (5,400 to 6,800 feet) with most populations occurring on cool, 

northerly exposures that are shaded for the majority of the day (Stone 1994). Surrounding 

vegetation, including Douglas fir and maples also provide additional shading for the microsites 

in which V. frank-smithii is found. Rock outcrops and aspects other than steep, north-facing 

slopes appear to be too warm and dry to support populations of V. frank-smithii. Viola franksmithii is found in distinct microhabitats similar to that of Primula maguirei and these species 

are often found in close proximity (UDWR 1998a). 

Threats – Not unlike Primula maguirei, the most significant threats to Viola frank-smithii and 

its habitat are recreational rock climbing activities, the proposed realignment and/or expansion of 

U.S. Highway 89, and horticultural collection (Welsh et al. 1993, Glisson 1995a, UDWR 1998b). 

As previously stated climbing activity in Logan Canyon has increased dramatically in recent 

years and has resulted in the removal of plants in areas where P. maguirei and V. frank-smithii 

are found. Efforts by the USDA Forest Service and the local climbing community have focused 

on education and the conservation of these species (Monsell 1998). As with P. maguirei, the 

Record of Decision for the Expansion of US Highway 89 identifies preventative measures that 

will be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the V. frank-smithii populations, which 

include limited vegetation removal, dust-suppression, and construction timing to prevent impacts 

during flowering (Glisson 1995a). The USDA Forest Service is responsible for ensuring that 

preventative measures for V. frank-smithii are employed at the same level of care as defined for 

P. maguirei and that population viability is maintained. 

Current Management – A Conservation Strategy for the Bear River Range Endemics, which 

includes Viola frank-smithii was prepared and signed in 1995 (Glisson 1995a). This 

conservation strategy includes provisions that would promote implementation of population 

biology monitoring studies to assess stability, trends, impacts from climbing and grazing 

activities, and autecology of all endemics. Additionally, this strategy provides direct provisions 

for V. frank-smithii, which include the development and implementation of specific research 

aimed at determining habitat dynamics, germination requirements, and pollination, seed set, and 

dispersal requirements. A progress report and amendment to the Conservation Strategy and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 137 

Action Plan is currently in draft Form. This amendment will provide new information and 

proposed changes to the existing strategy. Completing Conservation Agreements in consultation 

with US Fish and Wildlife Service and establishing an interagency Technical Team to oversee 

implementation of the Conservation Strategy and Action Plan will further enhance conservation 

and recovery efforts for all the Bear River Range Endemics. 

Draba maguirei var. burkei (Burke’s Draba) 

Maguires draba was described for the Bear River Range and the northern Wasatch Mountains of 

Northern Utah. It was further divided into two varieties (Draba maguirei var. maguirei and 

Draba maguirei var. burkei). Subsequent taxonomic and phylogenetic research has shown that 

variety burkei is a distinct species (Windam and Beilstein 1998) and will be elevated to the 

species level. Efforts to publish Burke’s draba as a new species are currently being made 

(Padgett 2000b). A total of 13 populations are known, ranging from the Wellsville Mountains, 

Strawberry Peak, and James Peak (Padgett 2000b). Burke’s draba appears to require a crosspollination to set seed, though a pollen vector has not been determined for this taxon (Windham 

and Beilstein 1998). 

Habitat – Burke’s draba populations occur on ledges and in crevices of exposed carbonate and 

quartzite outcrops and on the adjacent rock loam soils in Douglas fir and mixed conifer 

communities. The elevation range for this taxon is 1650 to 2975 m (5,400 to 9,765 feet). Lower 

elevation populations appear to be confined to steep slopes with shady north and easterly aspects 

while higher elevation populations appear to occur on all aspects. Plants appear to prefer open 

filtered light in protected microhabitats and in association with semi-barren herbaceous plant 

communities (USDA USDI 2002). 

Threats – The Snowbasin population, the largest known population of Burke’s draba, has had 

the greatest impacts and threats to population viability. Many plants have been removed from 

near Mt. Allen in order to build a ski run for 2002 Olympics men’s downhill event. 

Additionally, a large number of plants in this population were destroyed as a result of rock 

overburden being placed over a large portion of the population during a road construction project 

for the City of Ogden’s communication site (Padgett 2000b). The other known potential threats 

to Burkes draba are from recreational activities and from mountain goats recently transplanted 

near Willard Peak. Recreational impacts include hiking, trail use, and rock scrambling. Impacts 

from the mountain goats include trampling and other physical damage. Plants appear to be too 

diminutive to be eaten (Padgett 1998). 

Current Management – Draba maguirei var. burkei is currently a Sensitive species on the 

Region 4 Sensitive Species list for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and is on the Utah Natural 

Heritage Program Tracking list (UDWR 1998a). It currently has no designation or proposed 

legal protection with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Due to the existing threats to this taxon 

and its conservation needs, it was suggested by the Utah Native Plant Society (2000) that D. 

maguirei var. burkei’s status be elevated to Threatened with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Forest Service ecologist, biologists, and managers are currently preparing a Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy for Draba maguirei var. burkei (USDA USDI 2002). This 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy outlines management objectives that upon 

implementation will maintain the viability of populations, provide research opportunities to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 138 

determine life history, demography, ecology, and factors contributing to rarity, and establish 

monitoring protocols for Burke’s draba.

Botrychium lineare (Slender Moonwort)

The Federal Register (USDI ISFWS 2002a) describes Botrychium lineare (Slender Moonwort) in 

the following manner: 

Botrychium lineare is a small perennial fern that is currently known from a total of nine 

populations in Colorado, Oregon, Montana, and Washington. In addition to these 

currently known populations, historic populations were previously known from Idaho 

(Boundary County), Montana (Lake County), California (Fresno County), Colorado 

(Boulder County), and Canada (Quebec and New Brunswick). However, they have not 

been seen for at least 20 years and may be extirpated (Wagner and Wagner 1994). Since 

the 12-month petition finding was published we received some additional information 

regarding the status and distribution of B. lineare. Two new population sites of B. lineare

were tentatively identified in 2001, one site each in Idaho and Nevada, with an additional 

historic site discovered from a herbarium specimen collected in Utah in 1905. 

The Utah herbarium specimen was collected at Silver Lake in Big Cottonwood Canyon in 1901 

at approximately 2650 m (8,700 feet) elevation. Attempts to relocate this population on the 

meadows surrounding Silver Lake in both 2001 and 2002 were unsuccessful. But because of its 

diminutive size and its ability to remain below ground during periods of low precipitation (Farrar 

2002), it is possible for this plant to still exist on this site. Because of possible impacts to 

potential habitat, surveys were also conducted on private lands around Lake Solitude in 2002. 

No plants were found. 

Habitat 

Describing the habitat requirements for this species is difficult because of its current and 

historically disjunct distribution. It occurs at sea level in Quebec to nearly 3,000 meters (9,840 

ft) Colorado. Botrychium lineare may be a habitat generalist and is often found along disturbed 

roadsides. Farrar (2002) stated that it commonly occurs where a combination of sedges, grasses, 

and small forbs such as wild strawberry, common cinquefoil, and aster grow in combination. It 

may also be that this species is more common than currently known because it is difficult to 

observe in the wild for reasons noted above. 

Threats 

Threats identified in the Federal Register (USDI USFWS 2002) include road maintenance, 

herbicide spraying, recreation, timber harvest, trampling, and development. It was also noted that 

livestock or wildlife grazing might affect Botrychium lineare, but that these effects are currently 

unknown. None of these threats occur at the historic collection site at Silver Lake. Livestock 

grazing has not occurred on this species’ historical range for over a century. The construction of 

a raised boardwalk in the mid 1990’s to protect the fragile wetland habitats from trampling 

(recreation use), has also eliminated threats from road maintenance, and development. No 

herbicides are currently used in vicinity of Silver Lake. Timber harvest occurred in the early 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 139 

1900’s to support mining activities in the area, but now is restricted to maintenance of ski runs at 

both Brighton and Solitude Ski Area adjacent to Silver Lake. Farrar (2002) noted that 

Botrychium lineare has been found on constructed ski slopes elsewhere so this treatment may 

have a positive effect on this species. 

Current Management 

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 and the overall immediacy of these threats is non-imminent” (USDI USFWS 2002). 

They assigned this species a listing priority number of 11 and any additional information they 

receive on the distribution, threats, and conservation actions associated with Botrychium will 

influence their determination on whether listing under the Endangered Species Act is still 

warranted. 

Selection of Species for Analysis 

Forest Service ecologist and botanists compiled existing information of rare or potentially rare 

plant species from the Intermountain Region Sensitive Species List, and lists maintained by the 

Utah Native Plant Society and Utah Conservation Data Center (UCDC). Information on the 

biology, demography, current threats, and distribution of these plant species was obtained from 

current scientific literature, technical reports, monitoring and inventory reports, professional 

expertise, and the UCDC. 

All plant species with global (G) ranking of G1-G3 or Utah state ranking of S1-S2 (Utah Rare 

Plant Meeting Results 2000) known to occur on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest were 

examined for analysis. Global and State rankings are based on a system developed by The 

Nature Conservancy and used by the Natural Heritage and Conservation Data Center network. 

These rankings serve as a reflection of the overall status of a species throughout its global and 

State range. The global system is a one-through-five ranking system, ranging from species 

considered globally rare (G1-G3) to those rare in Utah (G4-G5).

• A G1 ranking refers to those species that are critically imperiled globally because of 

extreme intrinsic rarity or because of some factor of its biology making it vulnerable to 

extinction and typically have fewer than 5 viable occurrences (Utah Plant Report, 2000). 

• G2 species are defined as those that are imperiled globally because of rarity or because 

other factors may increase its vulnerability to extinction throughout its range (6 to 20 

element occurrences). 

• G3 are those species that are vulnerable, either due to rarity or vulnerability of other 

factors (21 to 100 element occurrences). 

• G4-G5 species are apparently secure (usually more than 100 element occurrences) but 

typically have cause for long-term viability concern. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 140 

All G1-G3 species were included for evaluation in the effects analysis, unless documentation 

was provided that any given species did not require sensitive status (e.g., new population data or 

increased occurrence data provided after the original G-rank assignment). The state of Utah, 

through the UCDC and the Utah Native Plant Society, also assigns state rankings. Like the 

global ranking system, the state system is a five-level ranking system, ranging from species 

considered extremely rare in the State. A species that is rare in one state, however, may range 

from being rare to common globally. The definitions for the state rankings correspond to the 

global and state rankings. All species ranked S1-S2 were included in the evaluation for effects 

analysis. 

The preliminary list of rare species to be evaluated included many species. From this list, it was 

determined which species should be included in the effects analysis, which additional species of 

concern should be added, and which of those species should be removed because they were 

considered secure enough to drop from a list of “watch” plants. The resulting rare plant list 

(Appendix F, Tables F-1 and F-2) comprises the best available information on rare plant species 

either known to occur on the Wasatch-Cache or, on adjacent lands and have potential habitat on 

the Forest. Those species that have known special management needs to maintain their longterm viability are of primary concern. Species needing special protection on public lands include 

those: 1) designated as Endangered or Threatened under the ESA (or proposed as Threatened or 

Endangered), 2) proposed or candidate species under consideration for designation under ESA, 

and 3) on the Intermountain Region’s Regional Forester Service Sensitive Species List, both 

current and proposed (see Table F-1). 

Additional consideration has been given to “watch list” plants regarding their management. Utah 

Natural Heritage Program defines watch list plant species as those that are regionally endemic 

but without range wide viability concern. Some watch list plants do not meet all criteria for 

being designated as sensitive species, but may need to be tracked because of their local rarity of 

because sufficient population viability concerns exist. Other may meet the criteria for being 

classified as Forest Service Sensitive, but because of the lack of current threats warrant a lower 

level of concern. Watch list plant species are not evaluated for effects in the plan revision 

process. 

Sensitive Species and Species at Risk 

Plant species are designated "Sensitive" by the Regional Forester because their populations or 

habitats are trending downward, or because little information is available on their population or 

habitat trends. A six-step process is now used to determine whether a plant is designated as 

sensitive (USDA Forest Service 1999f). The primary purpose of the Sensitive Species Program 

is to maintain viability and to conserve or restore habitat conditions for designated species, in 

order to prevent them from becoming federally listed. 

The initial Intermountain Region Sensitive Plant Species List was published in 1988-1989, and 

later updated in 1995. New information about sensitive plant habitats, occurrence, successional 

relationships, potential threats, and disturbance response has become available in the last 10 

years. Another revision of the Sensitive Species List is expected in mid-2001. The list is likely 

to expand the number of plant species that potentially occupy habitat on the Wasatch-Cache 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 141 

National Forest. The number of endemics included in this list is also expected to increase. 

Endemic plants are defined as those that are restricted to a specific locality or region. Regional 

Endemics are defined as species with a distribution is contained between 100 and 10,000 square 

miles, while local endemics have a distribution that is less than 100 square miles. 

The Wasatch-Cache currently has 14 plant species that are designated as Sensitive on the Region 

4 Sensitive Species List. An additional 14 species are recommended Sensitive to be added to the 

updated Region 4 Sensitive list. In addition to the current or proposed sensitive species an 

additional 17 plant species at risk or watch list species have been identified as occurring on, or 

having potential habitat within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These 48 species represent 

the set of species at risk for the effects analysis presented here. Table B-2 summarizes the 

endemism of these species. The life form and taxonomic groupings of these species (along with 

the six TEP species) are summarized in Table B-3. Appendix F, Table F-1 provides a complete 

list of these species, their global and state status, endemism, and global and geographic unit 

distribution. Appendix F, Table F-2 provides information on habit, life form, habitat group, and 

plant status (US Forest Status and recommended status by UCDC). 

Table B-2. Endemism and Distribution of Threatened and Sensitive (current and proposed) 

Plant Species 

Endemism and Distribution Number of 

Species 

 Endemic to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (all populations on FS lands) 6 

 Endemic to the state of Utah 17 

 Endemic to the Central Wasatch Mountains 10 

 Endemic caliciphiles in the Bear River Range 7 

 Endemic to seasonally to permanently moist wet areas in Utah 6 

 Endemic to Salt Lake County, Utah 1 

 Endemic to the Wasatch Mountain Range 3 

 Paleoendemics – relict species 2 

 Sparsely distributed (found throughout several states but in isolated populations) 6 

 Regional Endemics (distribution is contained between 100 and 10,000 square miles) 14 

 Local Endemics (distribution is less than 100 square miles) 18 

Table B-3. Life-form and Taxonomic Groupings of Threatened, Proposed and Sensitive (current 

and proposed) Plant species 

Life-form and Taxonomic Grouping Number of Species 

 Vascular Plants 48 

 Ferns and Fern Allies 1 

 Perennial Herbs 42 

 Annual and Biennial Herbs 3 

 Shrubs 1 

 Trees 1 

 Non-vascular Plants 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 142 

Environmental Consequences 

Resource Protection Measures 

Laws, Regulations, and Policies - Threatened, Endangered, proposed, or candidate species have 

special management requirements for all Forest Service management activities. Conservation 

Assessments, Strategies, and Agreements, along with Recovery plans (described above), 

currently established for the these plant species within the Wasatch- Cache will be met and 

upheld to ensure the viability and conservation of these species. 

Sensitive species will be managed to ensure their population viability and preservation. The 

Forest Service management policy (FSH 2609.25 and FSM 2670) ensures that for all TEPS plant 

species, the following measures will be taken: (1) biological evaluations will be written for all 

activities that may impact sensitive species and their habitat, (2) “effects” of activities will be 

determined as similar to those for threatened, endangered, or proposed species, and (3) sensitive 

species must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude 

trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for federal listing. This Forest Service 

management policy will be employed at a species level in all alternatives to ensure its mandates 

are achieved and that sensitive species are conserved. 

Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Direction and Implementation – There are inherent risks and 

uncertainty in attempting to determine the overall effects of management activities on TES plant 

species and rare plant communities at a Forest Plan level. Many of the species analyzed in the 

effects analysis presented here may be beneficially or detrimentally affected by the activities 

emphasized by each Management Prescription Category (MPC) for each alternative. Rare 

communities, not unlike rare species, may also increase or decrease in abundance or quality 

based upon activities associated with alternative emphasis or prescription categories. To provide 

for viability and conservation of all plant species and communities, mitigation measures would 

be implemented at the appropriate scale for all alternatives. These measures include specific 

standards and guidelines that are to be used in analysis, implementation, and monitoring at both 

the forest wide and site-specific project level. Additionally, these measures strive to maintain or 

restore the distribution of native plant communities and special habitat features within the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Detailed goals, standards, guidelines, and management area direction for botanical resources that 

focus on maintaining population viability, ecological processes, and native plant communities 

are included in the proposed forest plan. 

General Effects 

The current threats known for TES plants and species at risk were identified previously in this 

section. These threats are assessed below for their direct and indirect effects to plant populations 

and habitats. Impacts were grouped into six management actions that have the most potential to 

affect plants: 1) recreational activities, 2) mechanical activities, 3) livestock grazing activities, 4) 

Ski areas and associated activities, 5) fire (fire use and wildland fire), and 6) non-native species 

invasion. The intensity and spatial extent of the management actions would vary by alternative; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 143 

however, the general impacts to plants associated with each of the management actions are 

described below. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Roads and Access Management 

Roads increase access to and fragment habitat and provide an avenue for weed invasion. They 

are often placed on ridge tops, in riparian areas, or through scree slopes, which are important 

habitats for a large number of species on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Reconstruction 

and maintenance of existing roads can directly or indirectly affect plant populations by 

introducing competitive weeds and altering availability of light, nutrients, and moisture. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Timber Harvest 

Mechanical activities include vegetation management treatments, whether for restoration or to 

meet growth and yield objectives. Activities such as timber harvest can have impacts to plants 

and plant habitat through canopy removal, soil disturbance and erosion, and stream 

sedimentation. In addition, mechanical activities for vegetation treatment may require road 

building (see above). Sudden changes in seral stage, or an abundance of early seral stages, also 

reduce the available habitats for those plants that require mid to late seral stages. However, those 

species that prefer openings, early-seral stages, or some ground disturbance, could benefit from 

moderate levels of mechanical activities. Changing patch dynamics across the landscape could 

also have effects to TES plant species. 

Forest-dependent species, such as brownie lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) and 

Maguire’s draba (Draba maguirei var. maguirei), which typically occur in the understory of 

conifer forests, occur outside potential timber harvest areas regardless of Alternative. Other 

species such as Maguire’s primrose (Primula maguirei), Frank Smith violet (Viola franksmithii), and Cronquist daisy (Erigeron cronquistii) are typically associated with shaded rocky 

habitats beneath a conifer understory. Where these species occur, again is outside potential 

timber harvest areas regardless of Alternative. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Vegetation/Fuels Treatment 

Mechanical activities include vegetation management treatments, whether for restoration or to 

meet growth and yield objectives. Activities that mechanically remove fuels and/or canopy 

cover can alter the microhabitat of various rare plant species. As noted with timber harvest 

above, sudden changes in seral stage, or an abundance of early seral stages, also reduce the 

available habitats for those plants that require mid to late seral stages. However, those species 

that prefer openings, early-seral stages, or some ground disturbance, could benefit from moderate 

levels of mechanical activities. 

None of the alternatives proposes any vegetation treatments in rare plant habitat, unless it would 

maintain or improve conditions required by these species. Mechanical treatments of oak are the 

greatest in Alternative 7 and are proposed primarily along the urban interface (20,000 acres). 

The greatest potential for impacts to rare plants would be through access with mechanical 

equipment across habitat, because none of our plant species at risk are likely to occur in these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 144 

dense oak stands. Some fuels treatments could occur in the Douglas-fir stands that provide cover 

for species such as Maguire’s draba. Any treatment would remove fuels and avoid impacts to 

these rare species. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Recreation 

Recreational activities on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest pose many of the major threats 

faced by TES plants and plant species at risk. The most important direct impact related to 

recreation is trampling, both by hikers and ORV use (Liddle 1975, 1991). These types of 

activities particularly threaten many TES plants and plant species at risk. Unauthorized ORV 

use has resulted in a significant impact to Draba maguirei var. burkei in the Willard Peak area. 

Road building and the development of campgrounds and other facilities used by recreationists 

also contribute to plant impacts, as these developments make more areas accessible and 

concentrate use. Undeveloped camping and recreation have similar impacts, which are more 

difficult to monitor. Parking areas, particularly undesignated areas, pose similar impacts to 

plants. The long-term impact of bisecting the population to functions such as reproduction and 

dispersal are still unknown. Other recreational impacts include ORV use, which can also disturb 

soil, affecting both habitat and potential habitat. Roads and trails for recreational use can 

contribute to the spread of noxious weeds, and increase the accessibility of areas to native 

ungulates and livestock, which can increase the impacts of trampling, herbivory, and 

congregation. Rock climbing in some portions of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest has 

threatened the viability of those species that occur on those habitats and these are most common 

in the Cache-Box Elder and the Central Wasatch Management Areas. The practice of clearing 

crevices in the rock of vegetation to improve climbing conditions may result in the direct loss of 

some of our most rare species on the Forest. 

Cryptogamic soil crusts can be affected by unauthorized ORV use. The greatest potential for this 

is in areas where these crusts are most likely to occur, the Stansbury Mountains. No alternatives 

propose additional road building in this area because no timber harvest or oil and gas exploration 

occur here. On the other hand, no roads or trails are recommended for closure for wilderness 

recommendations under any alternative in this area either. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is home to some of the largest ski areas in the state of Utah. 

Snowbird, Solitude, Snowbasin, Brighton, and Alta are all within the forest boundary. Several 

species are directly impacted by the activities associated with ski areas including Ivesia 

utahensis, Draba maguirei var. burkei, and Jamesia americana var. macrocalyx. Threats from 

ski areas include direct trampling, mechanical construction, increased roads and facility 

development, increased summer recreation, and habitat fragmentation. Additionally, impacts 

from snowmaking and avalanche control could directly and indirectly effect populations of TES 

plants and plant species at risk. The production of snow requires a large support of electrical 

lines, waterlines, compressor and pump buildings, and other support structures, which could 

directly impact TES plants and plant species at risk and their habitats. Additional impacts to rare 

plant species could result from increased snow due to packing and grooming and avalanche 

control and could result in extended time needed for snow melt in the spring. Those species in 

the forested habitat and rock outcrop habitat groups could be impacted by expansion efforts of 

existing ski areas as well. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 145 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Livestock Grazing 

Most of the rare plant species that occur on the Forest do not occur in habitat or portions of the 

forest that are currently grazed by domestic livestock. Various direct and indirect impacts, 

however, are associated with livestock grazing. Direct impacts include livestock trampling, 

herbivory, congregation and associated soil disturbances. Indirect impacts are more varied and 

can include the increased potential for the spread of noxious weeds and associated herbicide 

spraying, the introduction of exotic species, and changes in species composition and density of 

grasslands, shrublands, and woodland environments. These changes often affect the habitat 

available for TES plants and plant species at risk. Livestock often utilize and congregate in 

riparian areas and meadows, which can also alter species composition and change the habitat 

available to TES plants and plant species at risk. Additionally, changes in vegetation and bank 

stability can affect hydrological cycles, further stressing plants that depend on stable 

hydrological conditions. At the same time, plants in the Intermountain West have evolved with 

herbivory by insects, rodents, and wildlife species, thus some plants may benefit from grazing at 

appropriate intensity levels. 

Cryptogamic soil crusts, where they are most likely to occur (Stansbury Mountains), have likely 

been and continue to be impacted by livestock grazing except outside of existing livestock 

allotments. One of the vacant allotments in that area is proposed for closure under Alternative 1. 

This allotment has approximately 6,200 acres of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation cover 

types. These types have the greatest potential for cryptogamic soil crust habitat, which is about 9 

percent of the lands managed by the Forest Service in the Stansbury Mountains. Alternative 1 

would therefore have the greatest potential to protect these habitats in the future. Because this 

allotment has been vacant for several years, however, and because there is a very low potential to 

restock this allotment given the cost of doing so, all alternatives will have a similar impact to 

cryptogamic soil crusts over the short term of this planning period. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Non-native plant invasion and Noxious

Weeds 

Noxious weeds directly affect plants and plant populations through competitive displacement. 

Indirect impacts include herbicide spraying and mechanical ground disturbance to control 

noxious weeds once they gain a foothold. Competition from invasive non-native species and 

noxious weeds can result in the loss of habitat, loss of pollinators, and decreased TES plants and 

plant species at risk viability. Roads, trails, livestock, and canopy reduction can provide ideal 

pathways for the introduction of exotic and non-native species. Indirectly, herbicide spraying 

can destroy populations of native pollinators by contaminating nesting materials and pollen 

resources (Pierson and Tepedino 2000), further decreasing the viability and reproductive success 

of TES plants and plant species at risk. Some species of non-native plants will alter hydrological 

regimes, changing and reducing the habitat available to TES plants. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Wildlife Management 

Wildlife management generally does not have an effect on botanical resources. The greatest 

potential for impacts is from transplanted mountain goats that occupy habitat for several plant 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 146 

species at risk. No alternative alters the potential for transplantation of Mountain goats and, 

therefore, effects are the same under each alternative. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Oil and Gas Activities 

Oil and gas activity, while having the potential to impact plant species at risk, occurs in a portion 

of the forest with few rare plant species. Uinta greenthread (Thelesperma pubescens) is the 

closest species to the oil and gas exploration area, but is protected in each alternative from 

potential impacts. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Fire Management 

Fire can be used as a tool to accomplish management goals and objectives as well as pose major 

threats through uncharacteristic wildfires. Mechanical preparation of fuels may be needed before 

fire use. As the potential for spring burning increases to meet fire use goals, the potential 

impacts to many plants increases. Most plants are not adapted to fire at this time of year. Spring 

burning interferes with flowering, fruiting, and other physiological impacts, and could affect life 

history patterns with pollinators. However, these risks need to be weighed against the risks of 

uncharacteristic wildfire and long-term habitat loss of plant species. Fire use to restore the 

historic fire regime could benefit these open-gap forested species in the long term. Wildfires can 

pose risks to some of the TES plants, particularly when the fires are uncharacteristic. In general, 

most plant species would benefit by the restoration of more historical fire regimes. There are 

also direct and indirect impacts to plants associated with wildfire suppression activities, such as 

road building and other mechanical activities, salvage logging, reforestation following fire, and 

the increased potential for the spread of noxious weeds. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Roadless Area Management 

Roadless area management, especially when it has a non-motorized ROS, would be beneficial to 

rare plant species because the likelihood for impacts from management activities or recreational 

activities would be minimal. Alternative 1 manages nearly all roadless areas (over 605,000 

acres) as non-motorized and Alternative 2 manages just over 540,000 acres as non-motorized. 

These alternatives would have the least effect on botanical resources. Alternative 6 manages 

nearly 300,000 acres as non-motorized, Alternative 7 manages almost 275,000 acres and 

Alternative 3 manages more than 230,000 acres as non-motorized. Alternative 4 manages more 

than 130,000 acres as non-motorized, while Alternative 5 manages less than 170,000 acres of the 

roadless areas as non-motorized. 

Effects on Botanical Resources from Special Designation 

Special designations, either research natural area (RNA) or special interest area (SIA) would be 

beneficial to rare plant species because the likelihood for impacts from management activities or 

recreational activities would be minimal. RNA status would be the most restrictive, while SIA 

status would manage for the botanical values for which they are established. Alternative 2 

provides the most protection by designating over 5,500 acres of RNAs and nearly 32,500 acres 

of SIAs. The SIAs in this alternative were, for the most part, directed at maintaining botanical 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 147 

values of both rare plant species and rare communities, such as Tall Forb communities. 

Alternatives 1, 6, and 7 are similar to one another in the protection they provide, but this is 

between 14,000 and 16,000 fewer acres. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 each provide approximately 

6,200 acres of protection through RNA and/or SIA designation.

Evaluation of Risk and Uncertainty 

There are limitations in determining the impacts of the complex set of proposed actions under 

each alternative for the current sensitive, recommended sensitive, and watch list species 

(Threatened and suggested Proposed were analyzed separately) when assessing effects for the 

entire Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Causes of rarity can vary greatly for individual species. 

Species may be intrinsically rare or rare as a result of anthropogenic interference (Kruckeberg 

and Rabinowitz 1985). Other plant species may be rare due to their population ecology, 

evolutionary history, or basic reproductive biology. Historical or current anthropogenic 

activities may also contribute to the current distribution of these rare species. It is assumed in 

this analysis that certain management actions may promote or detract the potential long-term 

viability of TEPS plant species, or may increase or decrease the availability or quality of habitats 

that support these TEPS plant species. 

Degree of Active Management by MPC 

The potential impacts of each management prescription category (MPC) were ranked as low, 

moderate, or high based on the definitions and objectives for each prescription category (see 

Appendix D-1). The potential impacts to the TES plants and plant species at risk were ranked 

for the five management actions (fire, livestock grazing activities, recreational activities, 

mechanical activities, noxious weed invasion, ski areas) that have the most potential impacts to 

plants. These rankings are displayed in Table B-16. 

Limitations of Using Habitat Groups 

The habitat group methodology employed in this effects analysis may overlook key features of 

plant habitat and ecology. Ecological interrelationships such as pollinators and their viability 

requirements, or mycorrhizal associations, are often important features that are necessary for the 

continued survival and viability of TES plant species and plant species at risk. Such factors may 

not be accounted for by using broad habitat categories to classify TEPS plant species. In natural 

ecological systems, the factors that contribute to the physiognomy and distribution of species 

often occur as a continuum, not as discrete categories named habitat groups. Soil moisture, soil 

type, microsite moisture conditions, canopy closure, temperature, and light conditions often 

occur along a gradient. Individuals or populations of TES plant species occur along this gradient 

in a wide range of conditions. The use of habitat groupings is an attempt to begin capturing this 

variation of ranges and to bring like species together. The scale we are using to bring together 

these associations cannot possibly capture all of the environmental characteristics and intrinsic 

features necessary for the successful establishment and continued viability of TES plant species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 148 

Table B-4. Rating of Potential Impacts on TES Species and Habitats by MPC 

MPC Fire Use Grazing Recreation Mechanical Noxious 

Weeds 

Ski Areas 

1.1 Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Low None Moderate None 

1.2 Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Low None Moderate None 

1.3 Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

None Moderate None 

1.4 Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

None Moderate None 

1.5 Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to none Moderate None 

2.4 Low to 

moderate 

None Low to 

moderate 

Low to none Low to 

moderate 

None 

2.5 None to low Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

2.6 Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low Low to 

moderate 

None 

2.7 Low to 

moderate 

Low to none Low Low to none Low to 

moderate 

None 

3.1 Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low Low to none Moderate None 

3.2 Moderate Low to 

moderate 

Low Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

4.1 Moderate to 

High 

Moderate Low Low to none Low to none None 

4.2 Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to none Low to 

moderate 

None 

4.3 Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

Low to none 

4.4 Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

Low to none 

4.5 Low None Moderate to 

very high 

Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

5.1 Moderate Low to 

moderate 

Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate None 

51/6.1 Moderate Low to 

moderate 

Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

5.2 Low Low to 

moderate 

Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

5.2/6.2 Low Moderate to 

high 

Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

6.1 Moderate Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

6.2 Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate Moderate to 

high 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

8.0 Low to 

moderate 

Moderate Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

None 

8.1 Low to 

moderate 

Moderate Low to 

moderate 

Low to 

moderate 

Moderate to 

high 

None 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 149 

Limitations of Extrapolating Effects Analysis for TEPS Species to the Wasatch-Cache 

Flora 

The habitat group concept is based upon the habitat requirements of the current or proposed 

sensitive species and plant species at risk identified within the Wasatch-Cache. The habitat 

distribution of these rare plant species is not representative of the entire flora of north-central 

Utah, and should not be treated as such. Many of the plant species at risk have rather unique 

habitat requirements, such as edaphic characteristics, microsite limitations, or ecological 

associations. Many species may be intrinsically rare, newly evolved, or may be relicts. An 

additional limitation of this analysis is based upon the limited spatial data for potential habitat of 

TEPS plant species. Only those species with known element occurrences (UDWR UDNR 2002) 

within the Wasatch-Cache were included in the analysis. Spatial data of potential habitat for 

most TES species is not currently available. An analysis of the entire Wasatch-Cache flora has 

not been designed or attempted at this time. 

Assumptions of Implementation of Standards, Guidelines, and Forest Service Directives 

The viability of the plant species at risk and their respective habitats will be promoted with 

implementation of standards and guidelines, inventory and monitoring, and adherence to Forest 

Service directives for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive plant species. Consistent 

implementation of standards and guidelines and adherence to Forest Service Management Policy 

across the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for all alternatives is mandatory for TES plant species 

conservation. 

Measures and Factors to Assess Effects 

Measures Used to Evaluate Effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Current and potential threats to each individual threatened, endangered, or proposed (including 

candidate species) species were determined from current scientific literature and professional 

botanical knowledge and expertise (summarized in Appendix F Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5; and 

above, under Current Conditions). Using GIS technology, a map with an overlay of MPCs and 

the most current distribution information for element occurrences of TEP plant species (UDWR 

UDNR 2002) was created for each alternative. The ratings of potential impacts (Table B-16) for 

TEP species and habitats by MPC were then used to determine the overall effects of the MPCs 

for each individual Threatened or proposed species by alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects by Species 

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Primula maguirei (Maguire’s Primrose) 

The threats for potential impacts due to recreation and associated activities are moderate to high 

under all alternatives. However, alternative 5 may pose the highest risk to the populations and 

potential habitat for Primula maguirei. In this alternative, a high proportion of the habitat area 

and populations are assigned to MPC 2.5, followed by MPC 5.1. The impacts from recreation in 

MPC 5.1 are moderate to high as are the risks of invasion from noxious weeds. Recreational 

climbing and its impacts have been identified, currently, as posing the highest threats to this 

threatened species (see above and Appendix F). Alternative 4 poses the second greatest risk to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 150 

the populations of P. maguirei due to the high proportion of populations assigned to MPC 2.5. 

Additionally, several populations occur in MPC 6.2, which pose moderate to high risks from 

noxious weed invasion, and fire. These populations, while occurring in grazing allotments, do 

not receive grazing pressures because of the severe cliff habitat of this threatened species. Many 

of the threats from mechanical activities and fire are minimized to due the extreme nature of the 

habitat. In many populations, the existing overstory of Douglas-fir provides for microhabitat 

necessary to maintain this species. Thus, fire could negatively impact these populations. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 pose similar and intermediate impacts to the P. maguirei, with 

recreational activities posing the greatest risk to population viability. 

Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid) 

While Potential habitat occurs for Spiranthes diluvialis within the boundary of the WasatchCache National Forest recent surveys have not found this species. Historic occurrences of this 

species were off the Forest. The potential for moderate levels of impact to potential habitat for 

this threatened species are common to all alternatives. However, S. diluvialis populations occur 

in riparian habitats and fall into RCAs. Within these RCAs, the management emphasis for any 

proposed action is to either maintain current conditions or to achieve desired conditions. 

Therefore, only those actions that would benefit riparian resources over the long term are 

permitted and impacts may be minimized. 

Viola frank-smithii (Frank Smith Violet)

Like Primula maguirei, the threats for potential impacts due to recreation and associated 

activities are moderate to high under all alternatives. However, alternative 5 may pose the 

highest risk to the populations and potential habitat for Viola frank-smithii. In this alternative, a 

high proportion of the habitat area and populations are assigned to MPC 5.1, followed by 2.5. 

Because of the proximity to Logan Canyon and the habitat on which this species occurs, the 

impacts from recreation, primarily climbing, in MPC 5.1 are moderate to high. Recreational 

climbing and its impacts have been identified, currently, as posing the highest threats to this 

threatened species (see above and Appendix F). Alternative 4 poses the second greatest risk to 

the populations of V. frank-smithii due to the high proportion of populations assigned to MPC 

2.5. Additionally, several populations occur in MPC 6.2, which pose moderate to high risks 

from noxious weed invasion, and fire. These populations, while occurring in a grazing 

allotment, do not receive grazing pressures because of the severe cliff habitat of this threatened 

species. Many of the threats from mechanical activities and fire are minimized due to the 

extreme nature of the habitat. In many populations, the existing overstory of Douglas-fir 

provides for microhabitat necessary to maintain this species. Thus, fire could negatively impact 

these populations. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 pose similar and intermediate impacts to the D. 

frank-smithii, with recreational activities posing the greatest risk to population viability. 

Draba maguirei var. burkei (Burke’s Draba) 

Under all alternatives, the risks from recreation and associated activities are moderate to high. 

Alternative 5 may pose the highest risks to the populations and habitats of Draba maguirei var.

burkei due to impacts from recreation and noxious weeds. Many of the populations are located 

along trails and may be impacted by increased use. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 may pose the 

least impacts to D. maguirei var. burkei because of the large proportion of populations assigned 

to MPCs 1.1, 2.7, and 3.1. Alternative 4 may pose intermediate impacts to these populations due 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 151 

increased demands for recreation. In all alternatives, the largest population occurs in MPC 4.5, 

which has already experienced loss of plants due to development. 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense (Utah Shooting Star, Wasatch Shooting Star) 

All alternatives would have moderate to high threats from recreation. In addition, there may be 

some moderate threats from weed invasion. Recreation impacts have already been documented 

as the primary threat to this species. 

Botrychium lineare (Slender Moonwort)

As previously noted, the threats to the historic habitat on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for 

this species have been minimized. Livestock grazing has not occurred at Silver Lake in the past 

several decades. Cattle were grazed around Silver Lake when the original Brighton Hotel was 

constructed in 1841 and expanded in 1898 (Murphy 1996). The collection of this species that is 

in the Garrett Herbarium was collected in 1905, about the time when this resort was likely to be 

very active. It is possible that the amount of use in the area, both by livestock and by people, 

negatively effected the population. Up until the early 1990’s there were abundant user created 

trails in the meadows around Silver Lake and vehicle tracks were evident in the area. The 

construction of a raised boardwalk in the mid 1990’s to protect the fragile wetland habitats from 

uncontrolled trampling also eliminated threats from road maintenance and development. Timber 

harvest occurred in the early 1900’s to support mining activities in the area, but now is restricted 

to maintenance of ski runs at both Brighton and Solitude Ski Area adjacent to Silver Lake. 

Cumulative Effects 

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Cumulative effects are defined as those impacts on the environment that result from the 

incremental effects of an action when it is added to past, present, and foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of the parties, government agencies or otherwise, responsible. The alternatives of the 

forest plan provide land and resource management direction for those lands within WasatchCache National Forest that are administered by the Forest Service. Forest Service botanists and 

ecologist will continue to coordinate with American Indian tribes, other federal agencies, state 

and local agencies, university researchers, ICDC, and other resource advisory councils to further 

minimize or avoid adverse cumulative effects for all TES species, rare and unique communities, 

and potential habitat. 

Primula maguirei (Maguire’s Primrose) 

Currently, a total of 14 element occurrences of P. maguirei have been identified within a corridor 

of Logan Canyon approximately 19 km long and less than 1 km wide. The total global 

population of P. maguirei is estimated at 3000 individuals (USDI USFWS 1990). The narrow 

distribution and small population size of P. maguirei is likely best explained by its unique habitat 

requirements and need for calcareous substrates. It is more likely a relict species that formerly 

had wider ranges when climatic conditions in North America were wetter and cooler. Potential 

and actual habitat within the canyon and along the canyon floor may have been significantly 

impacted by human activity because of development (USDI USFWS 1990). Populations of P. 

maguirei are restricted to an elevational range of 1400 to 1800 meters (4,600 to 5,900 feet) along 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 152 

the lower canyon walls of Logan Canyon (Padgett 1986) and plants are often found in cracks or 

crevices or amidst well-developed mats of moss and is most often found in areas of cool, moist 

microclimates. Extensive surveys of potentially suitable habitat (additional outcrops of Fish 

Haven and Laketown Dolomites) have been conducted in adjacent drainages and in other 

portions of the Bear River Range of northern Utah and southern Idaho. No additional 

populations of P. maguirei have been located (Franklin 1990c). 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Recovery Plan for Primula maguirei (USDI 

USFWS 1986) that has been in effect since 1990. Additionally, a Conservation Strategy for the 

Bear River Range Endemics, which includes P. maguirei, was prepared and signed in 1995 

(Glisson 1995a). A progress report and amendment to the Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan is currently in draft Form. This amendment will provide new information and proposed 

changes to the existing strategy and will enhance conservation and recovery efforts for P. 

maguirei and the other Bear River Range Endemics. 

Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid) - Spiranthes diluvialis populations are 

randomly interspersed throughout relatively low-elevation riparian, vernally wet, and lakeside 

wetlands throughout the interior western United States. Known populations have been located on 

a variety of land ownerships including, Forest Service lands, BLM lands, and private ownership. 

Despite extensive surveys, no populations of this species have been discovered on the WasatchCache National Forest. Spiranthes diluvialis prefers open, early seral riparian areas for 

establishment, thus restoration efforts for aquatic resources may be in direct conflict with 

management efforts for this threatened plant species. Additionally, activities that potential 

contribute to the cumulative effects for this threatened species include mining, timber harvest, 

livestock grazing, flood events, prescribed natural fire, reservoir level and river flow 

management, and road construction activities. 

The USFWS has prepared a Draft Recovery Plan (USDI USFWS 1995a), which outlines the 

management actions and directives needed to restore populations and reduce current threats. The 

draft recovery plan outlines guidelines, objectives, and management directives. The intent of the 

draft and final recovery plan will be met and upheld for all Forest Service actions under all 

alternatives to ensure the continued viability of existing populations and to maintain potential 

habitat conditions. Efforts to streamline recovery actions with aquatic TEPS species conservation 

will be made to prevent conflicts in management activities and to most effectively preserve 

viability of all resources. 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense (Utah Shooting Star, Wasatch Shooting Star) 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense is endemic to shady, moist cracks and crevices of rock 

outcrops, often in the spray of waterfalls (Holmgren 1994) and ranges in elevation from 2000 to 

2900 m (6,400 to 9,500 feet). Four known populations have been identified in Big Cottonwood 

Canyon within an area of approximately 3 miles square (Welsh et al. 1993). Many surrounding 

seeps have been surveyed for the presence of D. dentatum var. utahense, though no new 

populations have been located. 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense is currently be considered for addition to the Region 4 

Sensitive Species list for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and is on the Utah Natural Heritage 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 153 

Program Tracking list (UDWR 1998a). It currently has no designation or proposed legal 

protection with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Currently, no preventative measures (i.e. 

fences, barriers) have been taken to exclude picnickers, hikers, or climbers from the fragile 

populations (Padgett 2000b). Future efforts to minimize long-term threats to the population 

viability will include measures to fence area to prevent further losses and interpretative measures 

to educate the public about the rarity of this species. 

Viola frank-smithii (Frank Smith Violet)

Viola frank-smithii is one of the few rock-dwelling violets known in North America (Holmgren 

1992). Endemic to cliffs and near-vertical outcrops of carbonate rock, this species is found in 

elevation from 1646 to 2073 m (5,400 to 6,800 feet) with most populations occurring on cool, 

northerly exposures that are shaded for the majority of the day (Stone 1994). Viola frank-smithii 

is found in distinct microhabitats similar to that of Primula maguirei and these species are often 

found in close proximity (UDWR 1998b). 

Conservation Strategy for the Bear River Range Endemics, which includes Viola frank-smithii 

was prepared and signed in 1995 (Glisson 1995a). Direct provisions for V. frank-smithii include 

the development and implementation of specific research aimed at determining habitat dynamics, 

germination requirements, and microhabitat characteristics. The completion of Conservation 

Agreements with US Fish and Wildlife Service and establishment of an interagency Technical 

Team to oversee implementation of the Conservation Strategy and Action Plan will further 

enhance recovery efforts for all the Bear River Range Endemics. 

Draba maguirei var. burkei (Burke’s Draba) 

Recent research has shown that variety burkei is a distinct species (Windam and Beilstein 1998) 

and will be elevated to the species level. A total of 13 populations are known, ranging from the 

Wellsville Mountains, Strawberry Peak, and James Peak. Burke’s draba populations occur on 

ledges and in crevices of exposed carbonate and quartzite outcrops and on the adjacent rock loam 

soils in Douglas fir and mixed conifer communities. The elevation range for this taxon is 1650 

to 2975 m (5,400 to 9,765 feet). 

Draba maguirei var. burkei is currently a Sensitive species on the Region 4 Sensitive Species list 

for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and is on the Utah Natural Heritage Program Tracking 

list (UDWR 1998a). It currently has no designation or proposed legal protection with the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Due to the existing threats to this taxon and its conservation needs, it 

was suggested by the Utah Native Plant Society (2000) that the status of D. maguirei var. burkei 

be elevated to Threatened with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Forest Service ecologist, 

biologists, and managers are currently preparing a Conservation Assessment and Strategy for 

Draba maguirei var. burkei. Once completed, this Conservation Assessment and Strategy will 

provide management objectives that upon implementation will maintain the viability of 

populations, provide research opportunities to determine life history, demography, ecology, and 

factors contributing to rarity, and establish monitoring protocols for Burke’s draba. 

Botrychium lineare (Slender Moonwort) 

Recent surveys and data review show that this species is possibly more widespread than 

previously known. It is currently known from a total of nine populations in Colorado, Oregon, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 154 

Montana, and Washington and, in addition, there are four historic population sites in California, 

Colorado, Idaho, and Montana and two in Canada. (USDI USFWS 2002a). It is believed that 

these historic populations may be extirpated. Cumulatively some of the recognized threats 

include road maintenance, herbicide spraying, recreation, timber harvest, trampling and grazing 

by wildlife and livestock, exotic species, and development. And because of its distribution and 

possible cumulative effects, it was noted in the Federal Register that: 

Because we concluded that the overall magnitude of threats to B. lineare throughout 

its range is moderate and the overall immediacy of these threats is nonimminent, we 

assigned this species a listing priority number of 11. Although we are not proposing a 

listing priority change or removal of candidate status at this time, any new 

information we receive on the distribution and threat/conservation actions of B. 

lineare may have a bearing on whether listing under the Endangered Species Act is 

still warranted. 

Species at Risk 

The current or proposed sensitive plants species inhabit a diverse array of habitat and vary in 

their distribution across the landscape. These species are faced with a variable range of threats 

and differ in the degree to which Forest Service management and other management may affect 

their status. The amount of current scientific information and distribution data available also 

varies greatly among species, thus often limiting the assessment of the cumulative effects of all 

management activities and environmental consequences on the long-term viability of such 

species. 

Distribution on the Landscape 

A large majority of the TES plant species or plant species at risk is locally or regionally endemic 

to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and surrounding areas (Appendix F, Table F-1). Thus, the 

Wasatch-Cache is primarily responsible for a large majority of the populations of these species. 

Indeed, several species are found only the Wasatch-Cache National Forest lands (Appendix F, 

Table F-1). Management activities including livestock grazing, fire use, mechanical treatments 

such as timber harvest and road construction, recreation and noxious weed invasion may pose 

potential impacts to these species. The Forest Service endemic and local endemic species 

(Appendix F, Table F-1) have been identified for each specific Geographic Unit to further ensure 

that manage project level management and planning incorporate and protect these narrowly 

distributed species. 

Trends 

All TEPS species and their habitats could be potentially impacted, positively or negatively, by 

the activities of management agencies, private landowners, state agencies, and human impacts. 

However, several species may be more susceptible to these potential impacts (fire, grazing, 

recreation, mechanical treatments, noxious weed invasion, ski area activities) given their current 

population trend. For many of the sensitive species or species at risk, little to no current 

information is known concerning biology, threats, or population trends, thus making the 

estimation of cumulative effects difficult. Many are thought to have a declining population 

trends within the extent of their distribution. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 155 

These species would be at greater risk of loss or habitat destruction from the impacts of all 

management and human activities than those with stable or increasing trends. Efforts to increase 

information concerning trends, biology, and viability, and to preserve existing populations will 

be made for all TEPS species and plant species at risk. 

Mitigation 

Management efforts are already in place in an attempt to offset the cumulative effects that may 

occur under management activities. The National Forest Service (FSM 2670 and FSH 2609.25) 

Management Policy ensures that for all TEPS plant species, declining or otherwise, the following 

measures will be taken: (1) biological evaluations will be written for all activities that may 

impact sensitive species and their habitat, (2) “effects” of activities will be determined as similar 

to those for threatened, endangered or proposed species, and (3) sensitive species must receive 

special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward 

endangerment that would result in the need for federal listing. This National Forest Service 

Management Policy will be employed at a species level in all alternatives to ensure its mandates 

are achieved and that sensitive species are conserved. Additionally, guidelines for proactive 

management include preparation of Conservation Agreements and Strategies to maintain or 

restore habitats of sensitive species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 156 

Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability 

Wildlife 

Introduction 

The terrestrial wildlife resources in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are as diverse as 

the plant communities, geologic features, and elevations in which they exist. Wildlife is 

dependent on all other resources that comprise and influence a species habitat. This is a 

complex resource since a land management activity may benefit some species or their 

habitat while harming other species. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

There are many laws that pertain to and regulate wildlife management within the 

National Forests. A full review of these laws can be found in, “The Principal Laws 

Relating to Forest Service Activities” (USDA Forest Service, 1993). Just a few of the 

important ones include: 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, (16 U.S.C. 703-712) controls the taking, 

killing, possessing, transportation, and importation of migratory birds. 

Executive Order 13186, January 10, 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds. 

Knutson-Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930, (16 U.S.C. 576, 576a-576b) authorizes the use 

of funds collected from timber sales through this act to be used for, “protecting and 

improving the future productivity of the renewable resources of the forest land on such 

sale area, including sale area improvement operation, maintenance and construction, 

restoration and wildlife habitat management.” 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of June 8, 1940, (16 U.S.C. 688-668-d) provides 

protection to bald and golden eagles. 

Sikes Act of September 16, 1960, (16 U.S.C. 670a) provides for carrying out wildlife and 

fish conservation programs on Federal lands including authority for cooperative StateFederal plans and authority to enter into agreements with States to collect fees to fund the 

programs identified in those plans. 

Endangered Species Act of December 28, 1973, (87 Stat. 884 as amended; 16 U.S.C 

1531, 1532, 1533, 1536, 1540) declares that “...all Federal departments and agencies 

shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their 

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” 

Wildlife policy and direction are outlined throughout Forest Service Manual 2600. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 157 

Affected Environment 

General Overview 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has about 300 vertebrate species of wildlife 

including approximately 30 fish, 6 amphibians, 18 reptiles, 74 mammals, and 190 birds 

(Appendix E). These species are spread across the forest using streams, lakes, ponds, 

barrens, and the diverse vegetative communities with their various age classes in 

elevations ranging from approximately 5,000 feet above sea level along portions of the 

Wasatch Front to 13,442 feet above sea level at Gilbert Peak in the Uinta Mountains. 

Some species are only on the Forest seasonally. Grizzly bear and wolves have been 

extirpated from the state. Other species such as the lynx and wolverine may occur at 

unknown levels. In recent times, non-native species such as the red fox and European 

starling have been added. 

Past resource use and the exclusion of fire for almost 100 years has caused changes in 

some wildlife habitats. These changes have benefited some species and been detrimental 

to others. As discussed in the vegetation section of this document, defining and 

measuring the status of ecosystems now, as compared to their historic range of 

variability, is the foundation for sustainability of ecosystems. Areas that are within their 

historic range of variability are said to be in "properly functioning condition" (PFC). The 

vegetation features assessed to make this determination are: 1) Composition- the species 

list; 2) Structure- the layers and ages of species; 3) Patterns- the patchwork of species and 

ages across the landscape; and 4) Functions- processes and how they occur and interact 

on the land. These features are very much related to the quality and quantity of wildlife 

habitats. 

With 300 plus species on the Forest it is impossible to track them all so certain groups are 

carried forward through planning documents. Big game is carried forward due to the 

great interest of the public both for hunting and wildlife viewing. Landbirds are of 

interest not only for wildlife viewing but also because of the international interest in 

conservation and the protection afforded them through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

Executive order 13186. Endangered and threatened species are considered because of the 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Species-at-risk, species for which viability 

may be a concern, are discussed in detail in Appendix B2 and summarized in this chapter. 

These species are used to help insure continued viability and diversity of species as 

required in NFMA and 36 CFR 219.19 and 219.26. Management indicator species are 

required under 36 CFR 219.19. With these species groups it is felt that the Forest can 

account for the diversity and viability of all species that may be present on the Forest. 

Big Game Populations 

Changes in big game species composition have occurred in recent decades. Mule deer

have declined from higher population levels in the 1960’s. On the 8 hunting units that 

contain National Forest System lands administered by the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, deer numbers are currently at or below herd objectives set by the Utah Division of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 158 

Wildlife Resources (UDWR, 2002). Elk have been aggressively managed by the UDWR 

in recent decades through transplants and population numbers are increasing on most of 

the 8 hunting units. Elk are at or above herd objectives on these units (UDWR, 2002). 

Moose have become well established through immigration into the state and through 

transplants. In some areas numbers are at such levels they have been used as transplant 

stock to other areas within and outside the state. These areas include the Ogden Valley 

where land ownership is shared by private, state, and the Forest Service, and some 

drainages on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

were reintroduced to the Hole in the Rock area of the Uinta Mountains in 1989. With 

corresponding reintroductions to the east on the Ashley National Forest, the herd now 

supports a very limited hunt of 1-2 permits a year. The herd is well below the numbers 

that habitat is capable of supporting and many areas with suitable habitat remain 

unoccupied. Mountain goats were introduced to the Wasatch Front (Salt Lake County 

and Utah County on the Uinta NF) in the 1960’s, Bald Mountain on the Kamas Ranger 

District in the 1980’s, and Willard Peak on the Ogden District in the 1990’s. 

Population objectives, harvest levels, and species management are established in herd 

unit management plans for all of the above big game species by the UDWR. For deer 

and elk these objectives are: 

DEER 

This information on Deer herd objectives and postseason surveys in Tables WL-1 and 

WL2 is from the “2002 Utah Big Game Proclamation, Bucks, Bulls and Once-in-aLifetime” pages 60-61. 

Table WL-1. Herd Objectives 

Unit Name/ 

Number 

Plan 

Objective

Estimated 

Winter 

Population 01/02

Bucks/ 

100 Does 

Postseason

% Bucks 

>3 points 

Postseason 

2 - Cache 25,000 18,400 15 30 

3 - Ogden 12,000 9,400 15 30 

4 - Morgan, S. Rich 12,500 10,100 20 30 

5 - East Canyon 8,500 8,600 15 30 

6 - Chalk Creek 11,500 11,800 15 30 

7 - Kamas 9,000 6,800 15 30 

8 - North Slope 5,300 4,500 15 30 

17 - Wasatch Mts. 40,800 32,200 15 30 

18 – Oquirrh Stansbury 10,600 10,800 15 30 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 159 

Table WL-2. Postseason Surveys 

 Bucks/100 Does Bucks Greater Than 3 Point 

Unit Name/ 

Number 

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01

2 – Cache 12 11 11 16 39 50 38 32 

3 – Ogden 7 12 11 19 47 44 27 39 

4 – Morgan, S. Rich 10 44 24 31 26 40 56 52 

5 – East Canyon 18 14 14 18 50 40 56 38 

6 – Chalk Creek 12 22 22 25 40 53 53 51 

7 – Kamas 7 12 13 21 40 43 42 48 

8 – North Slope 9 19 14 18 29 54 46 36 

17 – Wasatch Mts. 10 16 13 19 32 37 37 40 

18 – Oquirrh Stansbury 15 9 11 17 25 25 25 29 

Elk 

Table WL-3. Elk herd objectives are from Elk Herd Management Plans prepared by the 

UDWR. April 1998. 

Herd # and Name Target Herd Size

Winter 

Estimated 

Population

Winter 

2000-01 

Post Season 

Bull to Cow

Ratio 

Post Season 

Bulls 2 1⁄2 Years

Or Older 

2. Cache 2,300 2,100 8:100 50% 

3. Ogden 1,200 700 8:100 50% 

4. Morgan-South Rich 3,500 3,500 40:100 50% 

5. East Canyon 

 Davis/S.L. County 

 Morgan/Summit 

 County 

250 

200 

6003 8:100 50% 

6. Chalk Creek 1,900 2,400 8:100 50% 

7. Kamas 650 650 8:100 50% 

8. North Slope 

 Summit/West 

 Daggett 

 Three Corners 

1,600 

500 

1,2603 8:100 50% 

17. Wasatch Mts. 5,050 

2001

5,0103

 8:100 50% 

18. Oquirrh Stansbury 800 

2502

6803

 30:100 66% 

1 Wasatch-Cache NF portion (Salt Lake County) 

2 Stansbury portion is new and not yet hunted. 250 is a target population for the Stansbury portion 

approved the the Wildlife Board July 9, 1997. 

3 Total Unit. Breakdown by County or sub-unit not available. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 160 

Table WL-4. Approximate Acreage of Deer and Elk Herd Units On the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Acreages come from deer and elk herd management plans that are dated 

April 1998. 

Unit # and Name Area on 

Forest 

Summer 

Range 

% of Total 

Summer 

Range 

Area on 

Forest 

Winter Range 

% of Total 

Winter 

Range 

DEER 

2. Cache 228,454 52% 52,258 18%

3. Ogden 44,991 19% 20,007 13%

4. Morgan-S. Rich 37,070 10% 3,251 2%

5. East Canyon 42,642 22% 21,842 13%

6. Chalk Creek 34,439 11% 91 0%

7. Kamas 126,402 60% 6,508 28%

8. North Slope 1 484,155 85% 84,015 44%

17. Wasatch Mts 2 638,060 59% 126,091 21%

18. Oquirrh Stansbury 54,664 27% 13,650 6%

ELK 

2. Cache 232,746 54% 97,108 28%

3. Ogden 17,554 13% 18,923 11%

4. Morgan-S. Rich 20,993 6% 16,295 6%

5. East Canyon 5,646 24% 11,545 34%

6. Chalk Creek 34,439 12% 91 0.5%

7. Kamas 126,402 66% 9,964 41%

8. North Slope 456,996 86% 93,008 49%

17. Wasatch Mts 2, 3 485,340 63% 222,861 27%

18.Oquirrh Stansbury 4 

1 This unit shows 366 acres (9%) in yearlong range. 

2 This Unit contains National Forest System lands administered by the Wasatch-Cache, Uinta, and 

Ashley National Forests. Acreages are not broken out by individual Forest. 

3 Unit Management Plan also lists 2,356 acres (22%) as Yearlong Range on National Forest 

System lands. As in ** above, this is not broken out by National Forest. 

4

Since the Stansbury portion of the unit is new the Unit Management Plan does not yet break out 

seasonal ranges for the National Forest Portion of the unit. 

Big Game Winter Range 

Potential forage competition may occur among many species on winter ranges. These are 

comprised primarily of mountain brush community types including species such as 

Gambel oak, sagebrush, serviceberry, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush. Most critical 

winter range occurs outside the Forest, though the reduction in availability due to 

development has placed a higher value on the limited national forest winter range. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 161 

Winter range has been impacted through urban expansion along the Wasatch front. This 

has involved a loss of habitat through development, and a reduction in the quality of 

habitat through the introduction of non-native grasses, forbs, and noxious weeds. In 

addition, fire cycles for these areas have been altered due to the larger composition of 

annual species that readily burn, and the high number of human caused ignitions. The 

proximity of winter range to urban populations and domestic livestock also poses a 

potential disease transmission risk, and animal harassment from people is of concern. 

 

Winter range on the North Slope is mostly north of the forest boundary. The challenges 

of urban interface are not present, but conflicts with private ranchlands and competition 

with domestic livestock for spring forage are a problem in some areas. Summer range 

conditions are not the limiting factor for big game populations. 

There are 152 winter range trend study sites monitored by the UDWR with Forest Service 

assistance. Of these 69 are on or near National Forest System lands. General conditions 

of each of the sites and their relative value are difficult to summarize, however each site 

is described through general trends in soil, browse, herbaceous understory, and browse 

utilization. Sites on or near the Forest were evaluated last in 1998 (UDWR, 1998c). 

Landbirds 

Significant concern for bird species’ status was emphasized in the Executive Order of 

January 10, 2001, which provides direction for more consideration through the NEPA 

process in forest and project planning. It found migratory birds to be of great ecological 

and economical value to this country and other countries (Clinton, 2001). 

In order to monitor migratory and resident birds, the Forest Service initiated monitoring 

in 1996 by establishing transects across the forest that correspond to national protocol. 

Baseline data for each transect is being gathered as budgets and personnel levels allow. 

Monitoring of birds is more beneficial for regional scale information, but can be 

applicable to detecting some local trends (Canterbury et al. 2000). Each transect is two 

miles in length, and consists of 10 point counts along the route. Vegetation is inventoried 

at each point, and transects occur throughout all vegetation community types. Surveys 

are repeated every five years. 

In addition to the migratory birds transects, there are six Breeding Bird Survey routes that 

occur on or adjacent to the forest that are monitored annually through the national 

protocol administered by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) to help indicate trends for 

these species. USGS specifies in their data base that variances derived from individual 

transects may be invalid so the Forest has used data on a statewide basis to track the 

status of migratory birds that were used as management indicator species in the 1994 

plan. 

HawkWatch International has survey sites for migrating raptors on the north end of the 

Wellsville Range, on the forest, and in the Goshute range just into Nevada. These 

monitoring sites provide information on range-wide trends for raptors. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 162 

Project specific surveys for species at risk also provide distribution information on other 

species. 

Forest Service transects have not been in place long enough to determine trends. At this 

time, it is assumed that the trends would follow national trends that show some increases 

and some decreases in individual species. Raptor work by HawkWatch International, 

which dates back to 1977, indicates the same (Vekasy, 2001). Peregrine falcons have 

increased, while goshawks appear to be stable over time but decreasing since 1996. 

Upland game such as ruffed grouse and blue grouse may have increased, while sage 

grouse and sharp-tailed grouse have decreased from historic levels. Introductions of 

turkey have taken place in the past several years with great success and there are turkeys 

in several areas of the Forest. 

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species 

The Utah Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS 2002b) puts out a list 

twice of, “Federally Listed and Proposed (P) Endangered (E), Threatened (T) and 

Candidate (C) Species and Habitat In Utah By County.” The following terrestrial species 

are listed in their document dated August 2002 as occurring or having habitat in counties 

containing portions of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. There have been no changes 

in this list since January. 

 Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T 

 Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C 

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus PT 

 Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T 

 Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E 

 Ogden Rocky Mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica wasatensis C 

 Fat-whorled pondsnail Stagnicola bonnevillensis C 

The following is a summary of the species status. A more detailed evaluation is included 

in the Biological Assessment provided to the FWS. 

Bald eagle. Where the bald eagle is mainly a winter visitant to Utah it does nest in Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties at lower elevations in the wetlands around the Great Salt Lake. 

It is occasionally seen on Forest but its main foraging and roost areas are at the lower 

elevations where there is abundant prey. There is one large roost area in a secluded area 

of Box Elder County. 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo. The cuckoo is a low elevation riparian shrub inhabitant. 

Historically it has been observed close to the Forest along the Wasatch Front and in 

Cache Valley. The UDWR Natural Heritage Program indicates that the species is an 

historical breeder in the state. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 163 

Mountain plover. This plover is a short grass prairie species. It is listed in Duchesne 

County in Utah and would occur at low elevations off the Forest. It is also listed in 

Wyoming in Uinta County. There is some habitat for the species close to or on lower 

elevations of the Forest. 

Canada lynx. Historically lynx have been found in Utah in very low numbers. Between 

1916 and 1991 there are 27 referenced occurrences with 10 being verified (Ruggiero 

et.al. 2000). Most are from the Uinta Mountains with others scattered in other locations 

including Summit (2 specimens) and Cache (one specimen) Counties. There have been 

no verified records since 1991. 

The Canada lynx was proposed for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act on July 8, 1998 (Federal Register Volume 63, No. 130). The final rule 

listing the contiguous Untied States District Population Segment (DPS) was published on 

March 24, 2000 (Federal Register Volume 65, No. 58). In the final rule it was concluded 

that the threat to the lynx was the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 

specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx in forest plans and BLM land 

use plans. It stated that this lack of guidance could allow or direct actions that 

cumulatively adversely affect the lynx. 

The listing included the historic range of the lynx, which includes Utah, and the review 

by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed 11 counties in Utah as being included 

in the listing where suitable habitat existed. Counties where National Forest System 

lands occur that are administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest include: Cache, 

Rich, Summit, Morgan, Weber, Duchesne, and Salt Lake. During the summer of 2000 

the three National Forests in northern Utah conducted a review of all ongoing projects on 

the forest to fulfill consultation requirements with the FWS. In a letter dated August 15, 

2000 the FWS concurred with the Wasatch-Cache determination that activities on the 

Forest would have no affect or may affect but would not likely adversely affect the lynx. 

The concurrence was based on the evaluation that determined the projects complied with 

the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (First Edition was pre 

August 2000, Second Edition, August 2000 – Ruediger,2000). 

In addition to the listing, consultation on ongoing projects, and the publishing of the 

LCAS, the Forest Service entered into the “Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement” (CA) 

with the FWS on March 1, 2000. The purpose of the agreement was to promote the 

conservation of the Canada lynx and its habitat on federal lands managed by the 

signatories. In accordance with the CA the Wasatch-Cache will manage lynx and lynx 

habitat consistent with the LCAS and lynx Science Report. Some standards and 

guidelines from the LCAS will be adopted as itemized standards and guidelines for this 

Forest Plan. Other LCAS standards and guidelines will not necessarily be itemized in the 

plan because they will be covered by other management and planning direction or will be 

evaluated at the project level in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

However, the Plan conclusively adopts the entire CA and LCAS wherever applicable to 

Forest planning processes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 164 

During this same period the three forests also mapped lynx habitat with maps showing 

habitat, and non- habitat. With these maps lynx analysis units (LAUs) were identified by 

biologists from the three forests, FWS, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR). 

The second edition of the LCAS was published in August 2000 (Ruediger et.al. 2000). In 

it, the habitat definition was refined and using this information the three forests in 

northern Utah refined their definition that now includes primary, secondary, and nonhabitat. A new map was printed using this definition in August 2002. Meetings were 

again held between the forests, FWS, UDWR, and BLM to review and refine the LAUs. 

In a letter from the FWS dated November 6, 2002 they concurred with the proposal to 

eliminate LAUs in the Bear River Range on the Wasatch-Cache and reclassify the area as 

linkage habitat. The only core habitat in Utah is in the Uinta Mountains. 

As directed in the LCAS, the three forests in Utah have conducted hair snare survey 

transects in an effort to determine if lynx are present in the State. There were two 

transects on the Uinta Mountains (one on the Ashley, one on the Wasatch-Cache), one on 

the Uinta National Forest, and one in the Bear River Range on the Wasatch-Cache. 

There was also one on the Manti-LaSal National Forest in an area where there was a 

historic taking of the lynx. These transects followed a national protocol. They were run 

for three years (1999, 2000,2001) and all samples were analyzed at the same lab. In the 

three year period no lynx were detected. Brigham Young University is also running 

transects in the Uinta Mountains in conjunction with a forest carnivore study they doing. 

Their third year will be in 2002. The fact that no lynx have been detected does not mean 

they are not present but the probability is very low. 

Black-footed ferret. The ferret is closely connected to prairie dog towns. Any prairie 

dogs on the Forest would be at the lowest elevations right along the Forest boundary in 

Summit and Rich Counties. The FWS lists these counties as historical range. Since the 

UDWR and FWS reintroduced the species to the Uintah Basin they have classed it as S1. 

Before the reintroduction it was classified as historical. 

Ogden Rocky Mountain Snail. One population of this species is known from the mouth 

of Ogden Canyon. Collections in areas of other subspecies have been collected along 

with this one and DNA testing is being conducted to see how different the subspecies are. 

The area where this species is located on Forest is an area of very limited activity. Local 

staff are aware of the species and efforts are being made to prevent impacts. 

Fat-whorled pondsnail. This pondsnail is a low elevation species toward the west desert 

in Box Elder County. The abrupt rise of the Wasatch Range in Box Elder and Weber 

Counties make it very unlikely that the species exist on Forest. It occupies small springfed, well-vegetated, ponds, although the presence of this species in Lake Bonneville 

deposits suggests that it previously lived in a large lake. Shells are widespread in the 

Bonneville Basin, however live specimens have only been found near Corinne in Box 

Elder County. This is well off the forest and the nearest habitat for this species on forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 165 

would be in Cache County, which is outside the range of the species. This species will 

not be addressed further in this document (UDWR 1998a). 

Sensitive species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a significant current or predicted 

downward trend in numbers or density, or a significant current or predicted downward 

trend in habitat capability that would reduce the species’ existing distribution. On the 

Wasatch-Cache the Regional Forester has designated the following terrestrial species as 

sensitive: 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum 

 Townsend’s big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii

 Wolverine Gulo gulo

 Boreal owl Aegolius funereus 

 Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus

 Great gray owl Strix nevulosa

 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles 

 Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

 Northern three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactytus

 Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Tympauchus phasianellus columbianus

 Spotted frog Rana luteiventris 

The following is a summary of the status of these species on the Forest. More detail is 

contained the Biological Evaluation written for this plan. 

Spotted bat. Historically the spotted bat has not been documented on the WasatchCache National Forest. In northern Utah the only historical record found by the Utah 

Natural Heritage Program is a female collected off of a school in Salt Lake City in 1934. 

Its normal habitat is arid country relegating it mostly to lower elevations on the Forest. 

Townsend’s big-eared bat. This bat is known from seven locations on the Logan, 

Ogden, and Salt Lake Ranger Districts. It is associated with caves and mines that it uses 

for nursery colonies and hibernacula. 

Wolverine. Historically the wolverine was found throughout the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. There has not been a confirmed sighting for at least ten years. In the 

early 1990s one was reported on the Logan Ranger District. Cameras placed over bait 

were unsuccessful in documenting presence. Wolverine prefer mature and old growth 

forest but do forage in meadows and talus slopes. 

Boreal owl. Utah is the southern edge of the boreal owls range. The species occurs in 

very small numbers. It has been found in 2-3 locations on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 166 

Flammulated owl. Flammulated owls are more common in the state then boreal owls but 

they are still rare. They have not been documented on the Uinta Mountains but have in 

several locations on the Bear River and Wasatch Ranges. 

Great gray owl. The great gray owl is considered a winter vagrant in Utah with one 

observation recorded by the Utah Natural Heritage Program on the Uinta National Forest. 

Goshawk. In 1991, the goshawk was designated as a sensitive species in the 

Intermountain Region of the Forest Service. As a result of this designation, special 

management is emphasized to ensure the goshawks viability (FSM 2670). In March of 

1997 the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources classified the goshawk as a state sensitive 

species. The purpose of this designation was to identify species in the State that are most 

vulnerable to population declines or habitat loss and to stimulate management actions for 

the conservation of this species. 

To address the issue of declining goshawk habitat in Utah, a technical team was 

assembled. They developed seven questions and attempted to answer them in, “The 

Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Recommendations” (Graham et.al. 

1999). The seven questions and a summary of the findings follow, as quoted from the 

repot: 

1. Is there adequate nesting habitat available? 

Presently there appears to be adequate nesting habitat in the State and on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest to maintain a breeding population of goshawk. 

2. Is there adequate foraging habitat available? 

Based on habitat features important to selected prey used by goshawks, it appears 

that foraging habitat is presently available throughout the State and on the 

Wasatch-Cache. 

3. Are northern goshawks able to move freely between habitat patches? 

Goshawks appear to be able to move freely among habitat patches throughout 

Utah and the Forest (it is noted that satellite tracked birds captured on the 

Wasatch-Cache have wintered south of Delta, Utah and along the Utah/Arizona 

border). 

4. Is the population viable at the State level?

This assessment could not answer the question of population viability directly 

because there are inadequate demographic data available. Most of the currently 

forested lands were rated as medium or high value for both nesting and foraging 

habitat. Where surveys have been conducted, goshawks are present and nesting 

successfully. Furthermore, all available habitat patches are connected, and no 

known population is isolated. In general, existing habitat appears to be capable of 

supporting a viable population of goshawks at the State and Forest spatial scales. 

5. Where is the high value habitat? 

High value habitat is distributed throughout the State, with 60% controlled by the 

USDA Forest Service. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 167 

6. How are current management policies affecting goshawks? 

Current management policies are affecting northern goshawks in a variety of 

ways. On National Forest Service administered lands in Utah, 20% of the high 

value habitat is being managed with a timber emphasis, 35% with mixed uses, and 

27% with a range emphasis. Each of these management categories allows for 

activities that either can degrade or improve goshawk habitat. The information in 

this assessment does not reveal any substantial deficiencies in habitat quality in 

any management category. 

7. What are the important habitat trends and their implications for goshawks? 

The most obvious trend in Utah forests and woodlands is the lack of early and 

mid-seral species in all of the potential vegetation types. If forest management 

stresses properly functioning condition, importance of large trees, maintaining 

native processes, using adaptive management, and recognizing the role of fires, 

the habitat outlook could be favorable for the goshawk and its prey. This is true 

on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest also. 

Urbanization and more intensive uses of the forest by humans could degrade 

goshawk habitat, especially on private lands. Private lands in Utah will continue 

to be developed, making the lands administered by Federal entities increasingly 

important for goshawks. This trend could also affect the connectivity of the 

habitat across the State.

The situation on the goshawk on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest fits the discussion 

above. They are found on all Districts on the Forest. 

To formalize the recommendations made in the above assessment the six National Forests 

in Utah amended all Forest Plans in March 2000. The amendment was to cover the 

period from March 2000 until individual forests revised their forest plans over the next 

several years. 

Peregrine falcon. Peregrine falcons are tied to high cliffs or buildings for nesting in 

areas where there are abundant avian species for prey. Historically for the WasatchCache this was along the Wasatch Front. The best habitats on National Forest System 

lands are located in Salt Lake, Box Elder, and portions of Weber Counties. There are 

known nesting pairs in Box Elder County. 

Northern three-toed woodpecker. This species is found in conifer and aspen vegetation 

types throughout the Wasatch-Cache and Utah. It may presently be at some of its highest 

population levels on the Forest with the amounts of mature and old growth forests exist. 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The range of the sharp-tailed in Utah is in Box Elder, 

Weber, and Cache Counties. It is a sagebrush/grassland species that would be found at 

the lower elevations of the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 168 

Spotted frog. The spotted frog is covered under the Aquatic Section of this document. 

A forest plan is a programmatic document that sets the framework for future work on the 

Forest. With the outputs identified in the plan viability and persistence, over time, of the 

terrestrial TES species the Forest is responsible for protecting, will not be compromised. 

As individual site-specific projects are proposed in the future a biological 

assessment/evaluation will be written to determine the effects of that project. 

Species-At-Risk (SAR) 

Species-at-risk are defined as, “Federally listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and 

proposed species and other species for which loss of viability, including reduction in 

distribution or abundance, is a concern within the plan area. Other species-at-risk may 

include sensitive species and state listed species. A species-at-risk also may be selected 

as a focal species.”

For the Wasatch-Cache Plan revision, the term “species-at-risk” includes: 

-Fish and Wildlife Service endangered, threatened, candidate, proposed species. 

-Regional Forester designated sensitive species. 

Also considered for inclusion as species-at-risk were species identified by: 

-The Nature Conservancy as G1, G2, and G3. 

-State Natural Heritage programs as S1, and S2 

-Partners in Flight species of concern. 

-The Forest that do not appear on any other lists. 

The SAR list is dynamic and species will be added as deemed necessary or removed as 

recovery occurs or new information indicates they are not at risk. 

By the above definition the Forest has identified 33 terrestrial vertebrate species as SAR. 

This includes 3 reptiles, 21 birds, and 9 mammals. By the above definition 4 of these 

species are Federally listed, candidate or proposed, 8 are Forest Service sensitive, 17 are 

listed as S –1 or 2 by the state, and 4 are concerns of Partners in Flight. These species are 

discussed in detail in Appendix B-2. 

These 33 species were then divided into fine and coarse filter categories. Fine filter 

species are those for which conservation strategies or recovery plans are available with 

specific guidelines or recommendations are listed. Coarse filter species were grouped by 

the vegetation type they use. Management direction centers on the management of the 

vegetation type in a properly functioning condition within the historic range of variation. 

Mollusks 

There are a number of mollusks on the Forest as evidence by historic records. In recent 

years the Forest has started to do some additional surveying for these species. Some of 

these mollusks are dry land species while other are aquatic or semi-aquatic in nature. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 169 

We will continue to collect additional information on these species and provide habitat 

and species protection as risks and threats are identified. Insufficient information is 

available to analyze the effects of implementing the Forest Plan on these species. 

Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator Communities 

Management indicators (Table WL-5) are used to assess the effects of a management 

activity on wildlife. The general guidance and criteria for selecting management MIS are 

contained in 36CFR219.19(a) and in the Forest Service Manual 2621.1. The following 

criteria were used in selecting management indicator species (MIS): 

 

1. MIS must have a strong (but not exclusive) affinity for the habitat type. 

2. The habitat type is key habitat in the life cycle of the MIS 

3. The MIS is sensitive to change. 

4. The MIS is relatively easy to monitor, i.e., high visibility and in adequate 

numbers. 

5. The MIS is somewhat representative of all species that use the habitat type. 

6. The MIS is, for the most part, a year round resident on the forest. 

The 1985 Forest Plan includes two categories in the MIS discussion. These are 

Ecological Indicators that are intended to show the effects of management on the 

ecosystem, and High Interest Species that identify species of economic importance (such 

as big game) and species of concern (such as Federally listed species, Forest Service 

sensitive species and other species at risk). The 1985 Plan includes 14 Ecological 

Indicators to monitor 13 vegetation types, rivers and lakes. There are eight High Interest 

Species, including 3 big game animals, 2 fish species, and 3 species of concern. 

Table WL-5. Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator Communities 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR ASSOCIATED VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY 

Goshawk 

 Accipiter gentilis 

Aspen, Conifer, Mixed Conifer 

Snowshoe Hare 

 Lepus americanus 

Pole/Sapling Aspen, Conifer, and Mixed 

Conifer 

Beaver 

 Castor canadensis 

Riparian 

Cutthroat trout 

 Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus 

 Oncorhynchus clarki utah 

Aquatic 

Updating MIS was recommended in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management 

Situation (USDA Forest Service 1999a). The Preliminary Analysis of the Management 

Situation proposed to use neo-tropical migratory birds for MIS. Upon further 

consideration and in discussions with the Regional Office it was determined that neotropical migratory birds would not be used because of criteria six and the fact that they 

are not, for the most part, year round residents of the forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 170 

The Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation also recommended vegetative 

indicators because vegetative changes will show up faster than detectable population 

changes in a faunal species. Vegetative indicators will not be used but will be monitored 

in connection with Properly Functioning Condition of vegetative types. 

Discussion of Individual Management Indicators 

Goshawk – aspen, conifer, and mixed conifer. The goshawk is a forest habitat 

generalist that uses a wide variety of forest ages, structural conditions, and successional 

stages. The goshawk preys on large-to-medium-sized birds and mammals, which it 

captures on the ground, in trees, or in the air. Three components of a goshawk's home 

range have been identified: nest area (approximately 30 acres), post fledging-family area 

(approximately 420 acres), and foraging area (approximately 5,400 acres). The species 

nest in a wide variety of forest types including aspen, coniferous, and mixed conifer 

forests. It typically nests in mature and old growth forests (Nature Conservancy 1999). 

Snowshoe hare -- pole/sapling aspen, conifer, and mixed conifer. In the Rockies and 

westward, hares mainly use coniferous forests. They are predominately associated with 

forests that have a well-developed understory that provides protection from predation and 

supplies them with food. Such habitat structure is common in early seral stages but may 

also occur in coniferous forests with mature but relatively open overstories. (Ruggiero 

2000)

Beaver – riparian. The beaver occurs throughout most of North America and is fairly 

common in Utah. It is found in permanent slow moving streams, ponds, small lakes, and 

reservoirs. On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Uinta Mountains are classed as 

“substantial value” habitat and the rest of the Forest as “critical value” or “high value 

habitat as indicated on Gap Analysis maps. 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout – aquatic. The number of fish in a 

reach of stream is not considered a good monitoring factor because some streams are 

stocked and most streams are fished. Number fluctuations due to stocking and angling 

make it difficult, at best, to determine the effects of forest management activities on the 

population. Cutthroat trout (Bonneville or Colorado River, depending on the drainage) 

will be used as MIS using a “condition” factor as the monitoring tool (see monitoring 

below). 

Vegetation types not monitored by MIS 

There are two vegetation types not covered by MIS. The first is the sage/grasslands of 

which there are 189,600 acres across the Forest. The species which best fit the criteria 

for sage/grasslands is the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Since the sage 

grouse is not spread across the Forest in a manner that it will be able to indicate the 

effects of management in the sage/grasslands across the Forest it was determined not to 

fit the criteria in a manner to be acceptable as an MIS. With proposed projects in used 

habitat the species can be used on a project to monitor the effects of the individual 

project. This would be determined in a site- specific NEPA document. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 171 

sage/grassland vegetation type will be monitored to track changes in amounts and age 

classes, as age classes are mapped. 

The other vegetation type not covered is oak/maple (mapped separately in the GIS layer 

with oak covering 90,800 acres and maple covering 14,600 acres). Work in the 

oak/maple is planned in the form of fuels reduction along the urban interface. This is 

planned to be mechanical and would serve to give better age class diversity in the type. 

As with the sage/grassland, oak/maple will be monitored as to assess changes in amounts 

and age classes, as age classes are mapped. 

A complete discussion on MIS and their habitats is contained in Appendix J. 

Wildlife Related Recreation 

Besides hunting, in the past 10-15 years public interest and participation in nonconsumptive recreation, such as wildlife viewing and photography, has greatly increased. 

With the urban expansion along the Wasatch Front, the Forest has become a favored of 

population growth in the state. Legislated caps on the number of some big game 

recreation destination for people. Fishing and hunting have increased, but not at the rate 

hunting permits have effectively leveled off participation for deer and elk hunting. 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

In evaluating effects of alternatives 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. By managing to achieve properly 

functioning conditions within the historic range of variability, it is assumed terrestrial 

wildlife species will reach an equilibrium with habitat and will move and adjust as 

structure and age class composition of vegetation progresses toward potential or is set 

back to an earlier seral stage. 

The primary determinant for evaluating management activities effects on species is the 

effects of those activities on vegetation communities relative to properly functioning 

condition (PFC). The effects analyzed in the Vegetation section of this chapter are the 

basis for much of the effects disclosed for wildlife. 

The Management Prescription that, when considered with other management direction 

such as standards and guidelines, provides the most protection for terrestrial wildlife, 

along with the ability to improve habitat, is Prescription 3.2 (Terrestrial Habitat 

Emphasis). Alternative 7 splits 3.2 into 3.2U that consists of those terrestrial habitat 

areas protected from development because of potential impacts to key habitat elements, 

and 3.2D that consists of those terrestrial habitat areas where development is allowed for 

the purpose of maintaining, improving or restoring key habitat elements. For comparison 

purposes 3.2U and 3.2D have been combined. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 172 

There are approximately 309,000 acres of designated wilderness on the Forest 

(Management Prescriptions 1.1 – 1.4). Within these prescriptions terrestrial wildlife 

habitat would potentially be protected, but very little or no direct habitat improvement, or 

other project work would be accomplished. Man caused fragmentation would be at a 

minimum. The forested lands will remain forested and continue progressing to the 

mature and old age classes until set back by wildland fire, insects, or disease. Terrestrial 

wildlife species that prefer the older age classes, such as woodpeckers, will do better in 

this situation, while those that prefer younger age classes would likely not have abundant 

habitat. 

Wilderness acreages have the potential to change through recommended wilderness acres 

identified as Prescription 1.5. This will increase the number of acres where potential 

effects described for designated wilderness apply. 

Table WL-6 shows the acreages under Prescriptions 3.2 and 1.5 that have added wildlife 

management emphasis and protection by alternative. 

Table WL-6 Acres of Protective Prescription by Alternative 

Management Acres by Alternative 

Prescription 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

3.2 86,800 138,200 201,600 11,500 24,600 218,300 0

3.2d 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

3.2u 0 0 0 0 0 0 122,300

1.5 388,900 145,900 51,500 0 0 69,400 61,400

The potential effects of other management prescriptions on wildlife vary. Emphasis on 

timber production and grazing, both of which can cause changes in age class, and 

structure will benefit some species that depend on younger age classes and more open 

structure such as vesper sparrow and snowshoe hares, while being detrimental to others 

that need older age classes and a more closed structure such as Brewer’s sparrow and 

goshawk. Fragmentation of continuous forested cover and displacement from activity 

disturbances that can be caused by all resource activities also affect different species 

differently. These are discussed below. Standards and guidelines set parameters that 

mitigate or lessen total impacts for all alternatives. Also, it is assumed that managing for 

the historic range of variation with properly functioning conditions is the most reliable 

way to ensure a mix of habitats conducive over time to sustained biodiversity and species 

viability. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Roads/Access Management 

 

Potential impacts from roads and trails come from fragmentation of habitat and 

displacement of wildlife. The amount of displacement on a road or trail is a function of 

the amount of use on the road or trail and the species of wildlife. Some species are more 

sensitive to disturbance than other species. Impacts of present roads and trails are the 

same across all alternatives. Present road densities range from 0.4 miles of road per 

square mile of habitat in the Stansbury Management Area to 1.4 miles of road per square 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 173 

mile of habitat in the Bear Management Area (see Table RM-1 under Topic 3 of this 

Chapter). As noted in Table RM-1, the total miles do not include private, county, state, 

or other Federal roads that total 166 miles across the entire Forest. Additional impacts 

come from new road or trail development. For roads, the increase over the next 10 years 

from timber harvest and oil and gas exploration and development are displayed in Table 

WL-7. Trail development is assumed to be similar for all alternatives. 

Table WL-7 Miles of Projected New Road Construction by Alternative Over 10 Years 

Alternatives Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Projected New 

Timber Harvest 

Roads (miles) 

0 6 39 49 49 6 7 

Projected New Oil 

and Gas 

Exploration Roads 

(miles) 

3 3 6 0 10-11 6 7.5 

Projected New Oil 

and Gas 

Development 

Roads (miles) 

0 0 4 0 4 4 4 

Projected New 

Roads over 10 

years 

3 9 49 49 64 16 18.5 

Since the Revised Plan and FEIS are programmatic documents it is not known where the 

needed roads will be located. For Timber harvest they will be on the Uinta Mountains or 

the Bear River Range (Kamas, Evanston, Mt. View, Ogden or Logan Ranger Districts). 

For the most part the timber roads will be located on big game summer range and may 

displace big game and reduce habitat effectiveness while in use. Roads constructed for 

oil and gas exploration and development will all be on the Uinta Mountains and could be 

located on either summer or winter range. New road construction would have minimal 

effects on landbirds. New roads will cause more fragmentation of habitat that could 

affect lynx and wolverine, if they should be present, especially if they remain open to 

snowmobiling in the winter. Effects on other TES species would be very low. Effects on 

MIS would also be very low, the effects being felt on the project areas that the roads 

access. 

Motorized recreation in winter can have adverse affects on wildlife caused by the use of 

valuable energy expended while trying to avoid the disturbance, especially on big game 

winter ranges. The amount of big game winter range open to winter motorized travel is 

identified in Table WL-8. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 174 

Table WL-8. Winter Recreation Use on Big Game Winter Range 

Use Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 EC1

Motorized 22,400 22,600 108,600 141,700 115,700 78,600 54,500 96,100 

NA 0 0 0 15,4002 0 0 0 0 

Non Motorized 185,000 184,400 98,900 52,200 91,700 128,900 152,900 111,200 

Wilderness 37,800 37,800 37,800 36,200 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 

1 EC = Existing Condition

2

NA = Not Analized (land was transferred into National Forest System after 1985 plan was released) 

In the above table, the alternatives that close the most winter range to motorized use are 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 nearly maintains current closures and Alternatives 4, 

and 5 would open some currently closed areas increasing the potential for negative 

impacts on wintering big game. Table WL-9, below indicates the same information as 

the percentage of winter range that is non-motorized. 

Table WL-9. Percent of Big Game Winter Range Identified as Non Motorized 

 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 EC 

Total Winter 

Range 

W-C N.F. 

245,400 245,400 245,400 245,400 245,400 245,400 245,400 245,400

Non 

Motorized 

Winter 

Range 

222,800 222,100 136,700 88,300 129,500 166,700 190,700 149,100

% Winter 

Range Non 

Motorized 

91% 91% 56% 36% 53% 68% 78% 61% 

It is noted that the important factor is not how many acres are open to snowmobiling but 

what acres are actually used and accessible. 

If more acres are open to snowmobiling there could be greater adverse impacts to 

wintering wildlife, depending on where the areas are. This affects big game on winter 

range by disturbance and species like the lynx and wolverine at higher elevations by 

disturbance and/or increasing access for competing predators over compacted snow. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 175 

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. Each of the Alternatives that reduce areas 

open to winter motorized use in the Uinta Mountains are consistent with the Conservation 

Strategy. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Timber Management 

Potential impacts include fragmentation, displacement, changes in vegetation structure 

and age class and grazing. In general, mature and old age classes currently dominate 

timber cover types. This may be less true on private lands adjacent to the Forest. Loss of 

the aspen type to conifers through natural succession and fire suppression decreases 

vegetative diversity that affects many species of wildlife. Alternatives with more 

potential for timber harvest, would benefit species that prefer more open areas in earlier 

successional stages, like the snowshoe hare. Species such as the woodpeckers, that prefer 

mature and old growth where insects are more plentiful would see a reduction 

proportional to the amount of timber harvest in habitat meeting these needs. Regardless 

of alternative, species that benefit from older age classes would continue to have an 

abundance of available habitat because of current conditions and the relatively small 

acreage to be harvested. 

Table WL-10. Possible Harvest in Aspen and Conifer in the 10 Year Peiod 

Available Timberland1 Alt.1 Alt. 2 Alt.3 Alt.4 Alt. 5 Alt.6 Alt.7 

Suited for Timber 

Production (Acres) 2 0 0 38,000 193,900 226,000 28,900 28,900

Unsuited and Harvest 

Allowed3

(Acres) 

0 79,900 131,6004 55,200 71,800 72,100 171,400

Total Acres of 

Timber Available 0 79,900 169,600 249,100 297,800 101,000 202,100

Allowed Acres 

Harvested Over 10 

Year Period 

Aspen and Conifer 

0 6,500 7,500 12,500 15,500 5,000 8,500

 

1

 From GIS layer of available capable aspen and conifer merged with management prescriptions 

for each alternative. 

2

 Areas available and capable with Management Prescription 5.2 or 6.2. 

3

 Areas available and capable with Management Prescriptions that allow other harvest for nontimber objectives. 

4

 Of these acres, an estimated 60,000 allow harvest but no road construction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 176 

The most benefits for wildlife would come in alternatives 7, 3, and 2. The most land 

available for harvest in these alternatives is in the unsuited with timber harvest allowed 

for other resource purposes. With this, harvest areas could be designed to provide the 

largest benefit to wildlife by more strongly considering the juxtaposition and age class 

diversity of harvest areas. Alternatives 4 and 5 have an abundance of suited timberlands 

in the 5.2 prescription and timber is harvested with more emphasis on timber harvest and 

monetary returns to the government and logger. 

With the projection of flat budgets, and the low level of management activity, and the 

goal of managing for PFC, wildlife on the Forest should be maintained at present levels if 

influences outside of the Forest do not cause decreases. Some species such as the 

goshawk will have reduced habitat due to the shift in mature and old growth but they will 

still function within the historic range of variation. Habitat for snowshoe hares would 

increase due to the set back of succession and the development of an understory of brush 

and young conifers to provide cover and forage. Ground nesting and open canopy 

landbirds would also benefit. Forage would increase for big game animals although with 

most timber harvest being accomplished in summer range this would be less of a benefit 

than it would be if the production is on winter range. 

There would be road construction in connection with some timber harvest. See the 

section on effects from Roads and Access Management. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Recreation 

Use of developed recreation sites is dictated by the size of the site. Differences in use 

levels from the present plan would be determined by newly developed sites. There are no 

new developed sites identified in alternative 1. All other alternatives identify 2 new 

developed sites. 

In prescription 4.2, recreation non-motorized, the larger the area the larger the benefits to 

terrestrial wildlife are. Wildlife would have more secluded areas to feed and rest in. 

When spread out across the Forest there is not enough difference between alternatives, 

except possibly for alternatives 5 and 6, to make a measurable difference. 

Motorized recreation settings (4.3 and 4.4) have the greatest potential for adverse effects 

on wildlife through the displacement caused by use on roads and trails and the destruction 

of habitat through indiscriminate cross-country travel. 

Prescription 4.3 is just the converse of 4.2 in that with backcountry motorized the smaller 

the acreage the larger the advantage to terrestrial wildlife. Again, the very small 

differences between some of the alternatives would make a measurable difference 

impossible. Alternative 4 by far has the largest advantage to wildlife with a very small 

amount open to motorized travel. 

Like prescription 4.3 in 4.4, recreation motorized, the less acreage is the most 

advantageous to terrestrial wildlife. Again, alternative 4 has the largest advantage to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 177 

wildlife with the other alternatives being so close that the disadvantages would be the 

same. 

Table WL-11. Comparison of Motorized and Non Motorized Recreation Settings 

Acres by Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

4.2 Recreation Nonmotorized 

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 Recreation Motorized 

Recreation Settings 

30,900 38,300 41,700 16,600 78,200 49,100 53,800

Management areas where ski resorts are located are the Central Wasatch and North 

Wasatch-Ogden Valley. Alternative 5 is the only alternative where ski resort expansion 

is allowed (expansion is defined as additional acres being added to a current permit or a 

new resort permit is issued). Potential effects from expansion are vegetative type 

changes if new runs are cleared, fragmentation of habitat and displacement of species. 

Expansion is not permitted on any of the existing permits although infrastructure 

improvements within the permit areas are permitted. New expansion proposals would be 

handled on a case-by-case basis with the proper NEPA documentation and decision. It is 

not possible to make determinations on the effects on wildlife beyond what is stated here 

with no concrete proposals in hand. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Livestock Grazing 

Impacts of livestock grazing on wildlife include displacement of wildlife, potential for 

disease transmission, and changes in plant composition and vegetation community 

succession that can cause unfavorable habitat conditions for some wildlife species. 

Desired future conditions for vegetation developed in the 1996 Rangeland Health 

Amendment and described in the Revised Forest Plan as well as those to be developed 

site-specifically for individual grazing allotments take wildlife habitat needs into account. 

To achieve these conditions, grazing standards and guidelines are also contained in the 

Revised Forest Plan. Full compliance with these will have positive effects on wildlife 

habitats within active grazing allotments. 

Both upland and riparian areas in unsatisfactory condition provide decreased quality and 

quantity of habitat for associated suites of wildlife species. One difference between 

alternatives for Forest Plan Revision is the degree to which they provide for rehabilitation 

of these areas through both vegetation treatments and improved livestock grazing 

management. In alternatives that remove lands in unsatisfactory condition from grazing 

suitability, there would likely be a range of improvement probability that can only be 

predicted with site-specific assessment. Factors include whether or not these are areas 

that can be easily avoided through livestock herding, and/or salting, and whether or not 

fencing is a viable option. Any improvement in condition would be a favorable effect for 

some wildlife species. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would result in this range of improvement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 178 

on a total of 18,300 upland and riparian acres and Alternative 3 would result in 2,100 

acres with a range of improvement on riparian acres. In addition, Alternative 2 would 

remove livestock grazing from 26,000 acres in watersheds with cutthroat trout emphasis 

providing for improved upland vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions as well. 

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. 

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. 

An additional difference between alternatives with regard to livestock grazing effects on 

wildlife is the relative reduction of risk for disease transmission from domestic sheep to 

bighorn sheep. Discontinuing domestic sheep grazing in overlapping areas used by 

domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in the Eastern Uinta Mountains and Western Uinta 

Mountains Management Areas would reduce the risk of disease being transmitted from 

domestic to bighorn sheep. Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7 reduce this risk by closing the 

three currently vacant allotments (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver). 

In addition to these vacant allotments, Alternatives 1, 2, 6 and 7 would discontinue 

domestic sheep grazing on three sheep allotments (Gilbert Peak, Henry’s Fork-Hessie 

Lake, and Red Castle) that overlap current bighorn sheep habitat if permits were 

voluntarily waived without preference. Alternative 7 would extend the area protected 

further for bighorn sheep to four additional allotments (East Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork 

Blacks Fork, East Fork Bear River, and Stillwater) immediately to the west, again if those 

permits were voluntarily waived without preference. These closures would extend 

bighorn sheep habitat and protection from disease across the upper Uinta Mountains. 

Finally, disposition of other vacant allotments (not associated with bighorn sheep habitat) 

is a difference between alternatives with implications for effects on wildlife. Closure of 

vacant allotments allows for ungrazed areas to provide for long-term habitat without 

wildlife displacement and without grazing associated changes in vegetation affecting 

habitats. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the most long-term habitat benefit closing all 

vacant allotments. Alternative 7 provides somewhat less long-term habitat benefits than 

1 and 2 because it focuses closures only on Salt Lake and Davis County watershed (in 

addition to the bighorn sheep habitat discussed above). Alternative 6 provides the longterm benefits for bighorn sheep habitat but not for the other vacant allotment areas. 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 do not close vacant allotments thus not providing for long-term 

habitat benefits although short-term, the allotments would likely continue to remain in 

ungrazed condition. This is because experienced budget levels have not been adequate to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 179 

conduct required analyses on active allotments, making analyses required for stocking of 

vacant allotments a low priority. This is not expected to change within the planning 

period. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife From Oil and Gas Activities 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal 

Settlement Zone” as described in Topic 9 – Oil and Gas. It is estimated to be about 

68,300 acres. 

Generally, direct and indirect effects to terrestrial wildlife habitat include potential loss of 

habitat, fragmentation of habitat, displacement due to traffic, noise and human presence, 

and possible mortality along roads. Effects to big game wildlife species may be 

increased if they are disturbed during critical seasons of use, such as during birthing and 

wintering phases. Raptor species react differently to human interference. Oil and gas 

activities could result in destruction of nests, elimination of essential habitat components 

and abandoning nests with eggs or young. Reducing the density of trees in some areas 

could be beneficial to some raptor species by increasing their hunting capabilities. 

Activities adjacent to wetland and riparian areas where shorebirds and waterfowl may 

nest could adversely affect the reproductive success of these birds. Non-game species 

will be displaced and habitat disrupted by oil and gas activities (USDA Forest Service 

1994a). As with many activities, oil and gas development will have negative impacts to 

some species while some activities may be beneficial to other species. Acres cited below 

are those directly affected, where vegetation is removed for road and well pad 

construction. 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases not existing ones. In all 

alternatives (except Alt 4) an area of existing leases, the Table Top Unit, could be 

explored and result in effects to wildlife habitat. The degree to which exploration is 

predicted within the Table Top Unit is affected by whether or not new leases could be 

issued and under what stipulations. 

Lease Notices would be attached where threatened or endangered wildlife species are 

potentially located. This would ensure the protection of these species through the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, 

development of existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect wildlife habitat. 

Loss of habitat because of oil and gas exploration activities is estimated to be 20 acres. 

In areas outside of the Table Top Unit that are not currently leased there would be no 

effects to wildlife. Once existing leases expire, Alternative 1 would likely provide the 

greatest protection to wildlife because the area is recommended as wilderness. 

Alternative 2 is very similar. Again, development of existing leases within the Table Top 

Unit could affect the wildlife habitat on about 20 acres. Once existing leases expire, 

leasing availability in areas recommended for wilderness is precluded. On remaining 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 180 

available acres, new leases could be issued but surface occupancy would not be allowed. 

No direct loss of wildlife habitat would occur but there may be some indirect effects, 

such as displacement if directional drilling occurred from adjacent lands since an access 

road would likely be constructed to the drill site and the sounds associated with 

construction and drilling may be heard from within the Appeal Settlement Zone. 

Alternative 3 precludes new leases in areas recommended for wilderness and does not 

allow surface occupancy in areas managed for undeveloped and backcountry recreation 

values. Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed above with 

stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,500 acres are 

available under Standard Lease Terms. Oil and gas activities are estimated to disrupt 

wildlife habitat on about 75 acres. Some of this development is predicted from existing 

leases within the Table Top Unit. Elk and bighorn sheep calving/lambing or winter range 

areas are protected with No Surface Occupancy or Timing Limitation stipulations to 

restrict activities during critical periods. Disruption and displacement causing stress to 

these species from oil and gas activities would be reduced. A Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation would be attached to all leases requiring surveys to determine the possible 

presence of any sensitive wildlife species. Operations would be designed or located so as 

to not adversely affect the viability of the population. 

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. 

Alternative 5 leases under standard lease terms. Oil and gas activities are estimated to 

disturb about 105 acres. Habitat could be disrupted and some species could be displaced. 

There would be a direct loss of habitat and habitat effectiveness could be diminished 

during the life of the producing field. Some of the effects could last 20-30 years because 

of field development. Standard lease terms allows moving operations up to 200 meters or 

delaying operations up to 60 days. For some critical wildlife periods, such as elk calving 

period and bighorn sheep lambing, (approximately 60 days), Standard Lease Terms 

could provide adequate protection. For other periods such as the wintering period for elk 

and moose (a period of over 150 days), Standard Lease Terms would not be adequate to 

protect them and could force them to move into marginal habitat creating additional 

stress. Relocating well pads or rerouting pipelines and roads up to 200 meters could 

reduce impacts to critical areas to some extent. Introducing increased public access into 

currently isolated areas could alter the quality and quantity of all habitats. 

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 prescription. 

Leases would be issued in areas managed for recreation motorized values and terrestrial 

habitat with appropriate stipulations applied. Oil and gas activities are estimated to 

disrupt wildlife habitat on about 75 acres. Effects to wildlife in the Table Top Unit where 

leases are reissued are expected to be less than Alternative 3. In the remainder of the area 

the effects to wildlife habitat would be minimal because of no surface occupancy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 181 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for wilderness. On 

the remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 

27,000 acres. Habitat could be directly affected on about 85 acres and some species 

could be displaced due to exploration and development. Some development (included in 

the 85 acre estimate) is predicted within the Table Top Unit because of existing leases 

and new leases being offered with surface occupancy. 

Under Alternative 7 increased access into currently isolated areas could alter the quality 

and quantity of all wildlife habitats. There would be a direct loss of habitat and habitat 

effectiveness could be diminished during the life of the producing field. Some of the 

effects could last 20-30 years. In critical big game habitats operations are precluded 

during critical times of the year on about 1,100 acres. Disruption and displacement 

causing stress to these species from oil and gas activities would be reduced. A Controlled 

Surface Use Stipulation would be attached to all leases requiring surveys to determine the 

possible presence of any sensitive wildlife species. Operations would be designed, 

located, or timed so as to not adversely affect the viability of the population. 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Fire Management 

Prescribed fire will have the effect of setting back succession and favoring species that 

use younger age classes. Effects are similar to timber harvest though on a much broader 

scale. Prescribed fire offers opportunities in the non-timber types such as sagebrush and 

oak. Where oak interfaces with urban areas mechanical treatment will be substituted for 

fire with the same effects. Opportunities are listed in the following table: 

Table WL-12. Acres treated by Alternative Over 10 years 

Vegetation Type Treated Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Prescribed Fire- Aspen & 

Aspen/Conifer Mixed 0 80,000 32,000 7,200 7,200 32,000 32,000

Prescribed Fire- Douglas-fir 

(non-lethal) 0 4,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000 

Prescribed Fire- Sagebrush/PJ 0 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000

Prescribed Fire- Oak 0 40,000 20,000 8,000 20,000 20,000 8,000 

Mechanical Treatment- Oak 0 16,000 8,000 0 8,000 8,000 20,000

TOTAL acres over 10 years 0 180,000 82,000 25,200 45,200 82,000 82,000

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatment, by improving the age class distribution of 

vegetative types towards PFC within the historic range of variation, will benefit the most 

species of terrestrial wildlife. 

Wildland fire has the potential of burning large areas, creating younger age classes and 

adding diversity because of the mosaic created by the fire. Wildland fire use has the 

same potential in a more planned manner with reduced costs and impacts of suppression.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 182 

Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife from Roadless Area Management 

Terrestrial wildlife exists better in secluded quiet settings that are not fragmented. 

Roadless areas provide this type of an environment. As roads are added fragmentation 

increases and use of the roads displaces many wildlife species and affects the naturalness 

of the area. The fewer the roads the bigger the benefit is to wildlife. This is displayed in 

Table WL-14. 

Allocations of acreage to non-motorized recreation (only the Semi-Primitive NonMotorized category) are highest in Alternative 1, and next highest in Alternative 2. 

Alternative 5 provides the least acreage to this category. Alternatives 6, 7, and the 

Existing Condition are about equal. Alternative 3 falls between the extremes of the other 

alternatives. 

The existing condition in roadless areas for motorized recreation provides 239,100 acres 

within motorized recreation ROS categories (the sum of Rural, Roaded-Natural, and 

Semi-Primitive Motorized); Alternative 7 provides the same amount. Alternative 5 has 

the most acreage in motorized ROS categories for inventoried roadless areas – 325,400, 

and Alternative 1 has the least – 112,900. Alternative 2 has 221,800 acres; Alternative 3 

has 254,900 acres; Alternative has 364,900 acres; and Alternative 6 has 241,100 acres. 

Summer motorized use is restricted to designated Forest system roads and motorized 

trails. While the acreage allocations shown in the ROS tables might seem to indicate that 

large areas are for available motorized use, in fact the area actually available for use is 

considerably smaller and limited to appropriate routes. ROS for motorized categories 

shows areas where the influence (sights, sounds) of motorized use may be expected by a 

forest visitor. 

Table WL-13. Acres of Roadless Area Designations by Alternative 

Acres by Alternative Activity 1 2 3 4/1985 5 6 7 EC 

NA 0 0 0 31,220 0 0 0 0 

Rural 6,500 6,400 8,400 2,200 10,400 6,800 0 0 

Roaded 

Natural 50,800 106,700 113,100 294,100 135,000 114,300 96,200 96,200 

Semi 

Primitive 

Motorized 

55,600 108,700 133,400 68,600 180,000 120,000 142,900 142,900 

Semi 

Primitive 

NonMotorized 

492,900 384,000 350,900 209,800 280,200 365,500 366,800 366,800 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 183 

 Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife Species 

Cumulative effects will vary due to the individual needs and habitat of individual species 

and impacts from resource uses outside the Forest. Cumulative effects to wildlife are 

also based on the cumulative effects described for vegetation, watersheds, and aquatic 

resources, in their respective sections in this chapter. 

Past impacts have included commercial and firewood harvest of timber. While structure 

within some forested stands has been altered, mature overstory canopies have remained 

due to a lack of clearcutting (except in lodgepole) or other such even-aged management 

methods in coniferous stands. Current harvesting methods and those planned for use in 

the future are uneven aged methods in spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands dominated by 

spruce, and even-aged methods in lodgepole pine stands, mixed conifer stands dominated 

by lodgepole pine, and aspen stands. 

Temporary changes in habitat may be evident through vegetation management or similar 

type non-permanent disturbances. Commercial timber, prescribed burning and wildland 

fire (including wildland fire use) are methods used for these temporary changes. These 

treatments would meet requirements for residual habitat components such as snags, dead 

and down material, and landscape structure. It is not likely that these activities in 

combined total would affect any of the wildlife MIS or SOR to the point where viability 

is compromised beyond current conditions. With the Forest adhering to the most current 

and preventative measures available for managing habitat, the cumulative effects to the 

species are anticipated to be minimal as a result of management activities proposed in all 

alternatives. Old growth would be retained to meet the planned requirement of 20% per 

vegetative community (30% in aspen). 

Livestock grazing has caused the loss of some forb communities and altered the 

understory of forested communities and the structure of shrub and grass/forb 

communities. However, grazing levels (in terms of number of livestock and use levels) 

have been greatly reduced from earlier decades. 

Livestock grazing and associated soil loss has altered watershed conditions and aquatic 

habitats for many species. While management is planned to alter these conditions and 

prevent any future impacts, recovery may not occur at a rate substantial enough to affect 

a change in the long term, particularly in terms of vegetative conditions. Watershed and 

fisheries projects are designed to improve these habitats. 

The lack of younger seral conditions is of concern from a diversity of habitat standpoint. 

Management directed at striving for PFC of vegetation communities would provide 

improved habitat for many species. 

Prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and mechanical (commercial harvest or other methods) 

methods would be used to diversify structural stages in all alternatives, although it is not 

anticipated that the level of activity proposed would bring the communities within PFC 

within the next several decades due to the inability to treat enough habitat, which is in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 184 

part due to other resource concerns (e.g. air quality) and in part due to funding. With 

alternatives that do not allow or significantly limit timber harvest these treatments may 

become dependent on prescribed fire and wildland fire use 

Potential habitat disturbances can be summarized by the number of acres disturbed 

through typical management activities. While development of roads and campgrounds 

was much greater through the 1960’s, it is not anticipated that the rate of increase will be 

that great in the future. In addition, some acres of habitat may be gained if roads are 

decommissioned, however this is an unknown level at this time. 

Species with unknown distributions and threats, such as the wolverine, may have more 

specific management direction applied should ongoing and recent studies and 

assessments indicate a need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are also 

potentials for immigration from other listed species, such as the wolf, into the WasatchCache NF. 

Introductions of non-native wildlife species, which is largely outside of Forest Service 

control, have the potential to increase cumulative effects through diseases or through 

resource competition. In all introductions the Forest Service has the responsibility to 

work cooperatively with the State to assess habitat and potential impacts. 

For wildlife species that are subject to hunting or trapping (e.g. big game and beaver), 

state regulatory mechanisms are responsible for the sustainability of these populations, 

and directly affect the ecology of managing these species. Should severe winters occur, 

effects would be more severe on big game species due to the reduction in amount and 

quality of winter range, primarily off Forest. 

Regional risk trends for many species of wildlife are due to trends started during past 

heavier exploitative uses of habitat. While recovery is slow, it is perceived to be 

occurring for some habitats and species, although the loss of other habitats in areas being 

developed or converted to annual grasses and invasive weeds is also of regional concern 

for many species, both on the Forest and adjacent to it. 

While cumulative impacts within the Forest may affect some species, the implementation 

of goals, objectives, standards and guidelines are expected to conserve existing habitat 

and improve habitat for some of these species. By managing within the range of historic 

variation and properly functioning condition it is expected that all species will be 

sustained in the long term. 

Cumulative Effects from Nearby Lands 

On lands outside the National Forest, most of the activities with the potential to 

negatively affect terrestrial resources are outside of Forest Service jurisdiction, such as 

timber sales on private lands and urban development. The cumulative effects for wildlife 

resources considers land within the Forest boundary, but takes into consideration the 

private, state, other National Forest, and BLM lands adjoining it as wildlife do not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 185 

recognize property boundaries. The trends of a predominance of mature vegetative 

conditions occur similarly on adjoining federal and state lands, largely due to similar fire 

suppression practices. The value of habitat on the Forest would continue to be of higher 

importance as private land adjoining the Forest is developed in the future. The similar 

management methods on the Uinta National Forest to the south, the Ashley National 

Forest to the east, and the Caribou National Forest to the north provide assurance on the 

maintenance of suitable wildlife habitat and connectivity of forested habitats, although 

similar concerns on lack of young seral conditions exist. 

With the predicted expansion of urban areas adjacent to the Forest, and on inholdings 

within it, the value of the Forest as a biological reserve will continue to escalate. Urban 

areas will exert the most influence on the Forest, through fire suppression needs and 

risks, through expansion of noxious weeds and other undesirable or non-native vegetation 

species, and through the increased user demand for recreation on the Forest. Urban 

expansion and development on private in-holdings within the Forest have the potential to 

increase fragmentation and reduce connectivity of habitats. Similar impacts are 

anticipated in winter range areas because of their lower elevations and development. 

These expansions would not likely affect old growth conditions. 

Concern is generated should trends of increased use of water diversions and increased 

recreation demands continue, carrying an associated risk of population declines and 

potential risks in viability depending on the needs of individual species. Similar trends 

are anticipated on National Forests and BLM lands adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache. 

Fragmentation/Connectivity 

“Fragmentation” of habitat on the Forest is naturally occurring in many areas, especially 

the overthrust belt and the western Uinta Mountains, as is evident viewing the vegetation 

map. In these areas there is a high degree of dispersion of native vegetative communities, 

rather than more contiguous or larger blocks of continuous forest canopy. The exception 

to this is in the Uinta Mountains in the lodgepole, mixed conifer, spruce-fir vegetation 

type. No conversion or loss of vegetation types has occurred to increase fragmentation at 

a large scale on the Forest. The high degree of mosaics was likely historically present, 

however likely represented by more structural diversity within vegetative communities. 

Smaller-scale habitat fragmentation has occurred primarily through the development of a 

network of roads and small recreation site developments within the Forest. Although a 

loss of habitat has occurred historically due to these developments, effects on 

fragmentation are minimal. Loss of some species such as the lynx, wolf, and grizzly bear 

was due to harvesting/trapping and competition from other predators, rather than an 

increase in habitat fragmentation. 

Connectivity of habitats at this point has mostly been compromised through development 

of urban areas adjacent to the Forest. Other than paved highways and small utility 

corridors, the Forest remains largely intact from its original composition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 186 

The maintenance of the forested corridor of connectivity along the Wasatch Range north 

to Idaho and Wyoming, south to the Uinta NF and east to the Ashley NF is important. 

Private land use is the greatest threat to this corridor. Corridor use is important for wide 

ranging species such as neo-tropical migratory birds, raptors, and for larger bodied 

mammals that are capable of dispersing across many miles 

For some species, such as neo-tropical migratory birds and wide-ranging carnivores, 

impacts from far off-site areas such as deforestation in Central America or urban 

expansions in the northwest and western U.S. may have far greater effects on 

fragmentation and viability than those of Forest management activities both on the 

Wasatch-Cache and neighboring lands. 

Evaluating Viability for Terrestrial Species 

A national White Paper on Managing Viable Populations provides the most recent 

direction for considering species diversity and viability (USDA 2001b). The white paper 

viability process involves eight steps based within a timeframe of both the planning 

process (15 years), and a more ecologically based timeframe of 100 years. The eight 

steps involve: 1) describing the ecological context; 2) identifying the species at risk; 3) 

collection of information on species-at-risk; 4) identification of species groups and focal 

species; 5) description of conservation measures; 6) incorporating the conservation 

approaches into the alternatives; 7) evaluating the effects of alternatives; and 8) 

monitoring. 

Expert reviews were conducted for the species chosen, the groupings, the assessment 

process, and the outcomes. These reviews will continue throughout the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) process period. 

No modeling or population viability analyses were conducted for any of the species due 

to a lack of population specific information on life histories and habitat relationships. 

Rather, a ecosystem sustainability approach was taken. 

For the W-C Forest Plan revision, the term “species-at-risk” includes: 

 -Fish and Wildlife Service endangered, threatened, candidate, proposed species. 

 -Regional Forester designated sensitive species. 

Also considered are: 

 -Species classified by The Nature Conservancy as G1, G2, and G3. 

 -Species classified by the State Natural Heritage program as S1, and S2. 

 -Partners in Flight species of concern (except for some fringe species for Utah). 

 -Species identified by the Forest that do not appear on any other lists. 

Species-at-risk for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are identified in Appendix B. The 

SAR list is dynamic and species will be added as deemed necessary or removed as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 187 

recovery occurs or new information indicates they are not at risk. As viability for all 

species is required, consideration of these species helps ensure this provision is met. 

Risks identified for these species are varied, but include, grazing, fire suppression, 

succession, developed sites, displacement, logging, energy development, water 

development, pesticides, fragmentation and non-natives. In summary, the 

implementation of standards and guidelines in the proposed forest plan would conserve 

existing habitat, improve habitat, and provide for the viability of SAR. By managing 

within the range of historic variation and properly functioning conditions it is expected 

that all species will be sustained in the long term. 

Legal mandates and regulations (i.e. Endangered Species Act) and policy (i.e. sensitive 

species management) will continue as separate processes for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive (TES) species listed under the SAR. These require analysis for any project 

implemented through the Revised Plan to ensure that negative effects are avoided and 

that viability is provided for these species. MIS species are also considered in most 

project specific analyses, though frequently in less detail. A heightened awareness of the 

non-TES and non-MIS species at risk and their habitat requirements in project planning is 

warranted to prevent them from becoming listed. Species not specifically addressed 

through implementation and monitoring for TES or MIS species will be managed for 

opportunistically. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 188 

Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability 

Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Resources 

Introduction 

Management of aquatic and semi-aquatic species on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest requires 

a coordinated effort between the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Game and Fish 

and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. This section addresses the Laws and Policies, the 

general condition of aquatic resources, the species that inhabit the aquatic and semi-aquatic 

habitats and how the individual alternatives may affect these resources. 

The WCNF is critical in providing for the long-term preservation of June sucker and Bonneville 

and Colorado River cutthroat trout in the Intermountain West. The Forest also provides 

important habitat for spotted frogs and other amphibians. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

The Endangered Species Act. 1972. Endangered Species Act of December 28, 1973, (87 Stat. 

884 as amended; 16 U.S.C 1531, 1532, 1533, 1536, 1540) declares that “...all Federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and 

shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” 

The National Forest Management Act. 1976. 

Policy and direction are outlined for riparian and aquatic resources can be found in Forest 

Service Manuals 2500 and 2600, and the following Forest Service Handbooks: 2510, 2511, 

2521, 2526, 2527, 2531, 2532, 2541, 2542, 2552, 2554, 2601, 2603, 2604, 2620, 2621, 2622, 

2623, 2624, 2625, 2670, 2672, 2676, 2509.18, and 2509.22. 

Affected Environment 

Habitat 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) includes approximately 1,200 miles of perennial 

streams and 2,200 miles of intermittent streams. The Forest also contains 4,700 acres of lakes 

and ponds, 4,400 acres of reservoirs and 2,300 acres of marshes. Habitat conditions across the 

forest are good with many stream and lakes containing trout. In a number of cases, man has 

altered the habitat to meet needs of the time. These alterations include the construction of roads 

across streams, the construction of dams and diversions, and the modification of stream channels 

to minimize flooding and to provide a means to transport railroad ties to the market. Timber 

harvest, grazing, and recreational activities have also impacted aquatic and semi-aquatic species 

habitats. 

From the Status Review For Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarki Utah), it 

states, “Trout, regardless of their evolutionary history, require 4 types of habitat during various 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 189 

stages of their life history: spawning habitat, nursery or rearing habitat, adult habitat and 

overwintering habitat. Spawning gravels are required for spawning success and can be a limiting 

factor in high gradient streams where the current carries off suitable spawning gravel (Behnke 

1992). Conversely, an even greater concern may be accumulation of fine sediments into 

interstitial spaces of spawning gravels which prevents egg incubation and reduces larval survival. 

Such fines can become dominant in the sediments when poor land-use practices alter flow 

regimes, remove riparian vegetation, and/or degrade overall watershed conditions. These 

human-induced activities can aggravate already fragile soils and geology in vulnerable desert 

climates.” 

Fish 

There are at least 24 fish species that occur in the waters of the WCNF. Eight of these were 

historically found within the planning area (Table AQ-1). More than 14 fish species have been 

introduced to enhance sport-fishing opportunities. In the 1985 Forest Plan Analysis of 

Management Situation (AMS) there are 24 species of fish listed. Of the fish species listed, it is 

questionable if lake trout, redside shiner and Utah chub were ever found on the Forest. None of 

these species have been found in surveys conducted over the past 8 years. Many of the fish 

species found on the Forest are considered economically important from a recreation and/or sport 

fishing perspective. While these fish may never have been found on the Forest, literature sources 

(Sigler 1963, Sigler 1987, Sigler 1996) do not distinguish between National Forest System (NFS) 

lands and non-NFS lands. The Paiute sculpin, Tiger Muskie and the June Sucker have been 

added to the species list. The Paiute sculpin has been identified in the lower Logan River. Tiger 

muskies have been introduced into Pineview Reservoir and provide a large predator to maintain 

sunfish sizes. June sucker were stocked in Red Butte Reservoir in the early 1990 for holding and 

have since successfully reproduced. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki utah) [Status: Petitioned for listing as 

“Threatened”—ESA; “Conservation Species”—State of Utah, “Native Species Status 2”—State 

of Wyoming, S2-Natural Heritage Rank]

In 1997, Utah’s Governor signed a bill making the Bonneville cutthroat trout the state fish of 

Utah (Utah State Library, 1997). Historically, Bonneville cutthroat trout occupied approximately 

90 percent of the Bonneville Basin (Duff 1996). Bruce May, (Personal communication, Inland 

Cutthroat Trout Conservation Coordinator, May 2000) in a rough estimate, suggests that 

Bonneville cutthroat trout are presently found in about 5 percent of their historic habitat. 

Further, 80 to 90 percent of the remaining populations currently reside on NFS lands (ibid.). 

This subspecies is found on seven national forests in Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. In the 

spring of 1999, of the 129.4 miles of stream currently occupied by Bonneville cutthroat trout in 

Utah, 70.4 miles (54%) are found on the WCNF. Thus, preserving the Bonneville cutthroat trout 

on the Forest is essential to the long-term preservation of this subspecies within the range of the 

species. Based on geologic history and location, Bonneville cutthroat trout was split into two 

management areas by the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Recovery Team: the 

Bear River Geographic Management Unit (BRGMU) and the Northern Geographic Management 

Unit (NGMU). 

The BRGMU starts in the Uinta Mountains of Utah, drains into Wyoming, back into Utah, back 

into Wyoming, into Idaho (with connection to Bear Lake in Utah and Idaho), and then back into 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 190 

the Wasatch Front of Utah before draining into the Great Salt Lake. Many of the small 

headwater tributaries are diverted for agricultural and municipal uses preventing species from 

migrating from the side tributaries into the mainstem Bear River and isolating populations into 

small headwater streams. A number of reservoirs have been installed providing for late summer 

irrigation flows. However, there are a few drainages that have a number of interconnected 

tributaries. On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest these include: Mill Creek (Summit County), 

upper mainstem Bear River, Woodruff Creek, Logan River, and the Blacksmith Fork River. 

Table AQ-1. Fish believed to have been found pre-settlement (1845) on the land currently 

administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Fish found downstream from the WasatchCache National Forest that may be affected by land management activities. Fish introduced on 

the land administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that continue to persist as of 

January 2002.

a. Fish b. Scientific Name Historically Downstream Introduced

Cutthroat Trout, 

Bonneville Oncorhynchus clarki utah X 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Colorado 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus X 

Long Nose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi X 

Paiute sculpin Cottus beldingi X 

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni X 

Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus X 

Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus X 

Colorado 

Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius X 

Colorado River 

Roundtail Chub Gila robusta robusta X 

Humpback Chub Gila cypha X 

Bonytail Chub Gila elangas X 

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus X 

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus mictus X X 

 

Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus X 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus X 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X 

Brown Trout Salmo Trutta X 

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio X 

Golden Trout Oncorhynchus aguabonita X 

Kokanee (lacustrine 

sockeye salmon) Oncorhynchus nerka X 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X 

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X 

Tiger Muskie Esox ♀masquinongy X 

♂lucius X 

Yellow Bullhead 

Catfish Ameiurus melas X 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X 

Yellowstone 

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri X 

(Adapted from Lentsch et al. 1995)
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 191 

The NGMU includes the tributaries along the Wasatch Front from Perry Creek, near Brigham 

City, Utah on the north, to Salt Creek, near Nephi on the south. This area includes a number of 

large river, many steep headwater tributaries, reservoirs and natural lakes. On NFS lands, the 

populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the NGMU are restricted to small headwater 

tributaries. Many of these tributaries are diverted at the forest boundary for agricultural or 

municipal use. Many of these small populations have been lost since the coming of the 

European settler. Some of the populations were lost as a direct result of habitat alteration from 

the 1983 floods. In the spring of 1983, mudflows out of Willard and Parish Creeks were 

believed to be of such magnitude that the cutthroat trout populations were lost. In other 

tributaries this was less the case. For unknown reasons, cutthroat trout have also been lost from 

a number of other tributaries. A good example is Big Cottonwood Creek. Once a source of eggs 

for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Sigler 1987), it is now void of a cutthroat trout population. 

Habitat alteration from mining, road construction, private development, timber harvest, stocking 

of non-native fish and exploitation may have all played a part in this loss. More than 10 nonnative species of fish have been stocked in the Salt Lake Valley starting as early as 1871 (Sigler 

1987). 

On February 5, 1998, Bonneville cutthroat trout was petitioned to be listed as “Threatened” 

under the Endangered Species Act 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 50C.F.R. 424.14 (Carlton, 2000.) On 

December 8, 1998 the 90-day finding identified that the petition had merit. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service found that a listing was not warranted on October 9, 2001. 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki pleuriticus) [Status: Petitioned for listing as 

“Threatened”—ESA; “Conservation Species”—State of Utah, “Native Species Status 2”—State 

of Wyoming, S2-Natural Heritage Rank] 

Historically Colorado River cutthroat trout occupied all accessible cool waters of the upper 

Colorado River Drainage, including the Green, Yampa, Gunnison, Dolores, San Juan, Duchesne, 

and Dirty Devil Rivers (Young et al. 1996). Bruce May, in a rough estimate, suggests that 

Colorado River cutthroat trout are presently found in about 1-2% of their historic habitat (2000). 

Of the remaining populations, 95 to 100 percent currently reside on NFS lands (May 2000). 

This subspecies is found on eight national forests in Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado and 

Utah. In the spring of 1999, of the 120 miles of stream currently occupied by Colorado River 

cutthroat trout in Utah, 35 miles (29%) (ibid.) are found on the Forest, making it an important 

forest for the long-term preservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah and within the 

range of the species. The Colorado River cutthroat trout are contained in the Northeastern 

Geographic Management Unit (NEGMU) (Lyntsch 1997b). The NEGMU boundary is based on 

geology and location. 

The portion of the NEGMU that is on the Forest starts with the Blacks Fork on the northeast side 

of the Uinta Mountains and continues east to include the Burnt Fork and Muddy Creek 

drainages. It drains north from the High Uinta Wilderness in Utah, into Wyoming. Few of the 

small headwater tributaries have been diverted, for agricultural and municipal uses, on National 

Forest Lands. Most of these diversions occur where the streams leave public lands. 

Connectivity among streams on the WCNF is still relatively good, allowing for populations to be 

biologically connected. The major streams in the NEGMU include but are not limited to Muddy 

Creek, Blacks Fork, Smiths Fork, Henrys Fork, Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek. Brook, rainbow 

and Yellowstone cutthroat trout have been stocked in many of these drainages. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 192 

In December 1999, Colorado River cutthroat trout was petitioned to be listed as “Threatened” or 

“Endangered” under the Endangered Species Act 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 50C.F.R. 424.14 (Petition 

to List the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, 1999). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

currently conducting their 90-day initial finding to identify if the petition has merit. 

June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) ) [Status: “Endangered”—ESA;—State of Utah, Native 

Species Status 1] 

The June Sucker historically inhabited Utah Lake and migrated up large tributary streams to 

spawn. Commercial fishing, dewatering of Provo River, and severe drought historically 

decimated this species. Pollution, predation by nonnative species, and hybridization with other 

species have been identified as major threats.

June sucker were stocked in Red Butte Reservoir, on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, in 

1992. Red Butte Reservoir is found in the Red Butte Natural Research Area. The purpose of 

this stocking was to provide a holding area for the fish. Since then the fish have successfully 

reproduced. It is suspected that there are currently more juvenile fish in the reservoir than its 

historic habitat of Utah Lake. 

 

Viability Assessments of Bonneville cutthroat trout and Colorado cutthroat trout. 

A viability assessment for fish species was conducted and is presented in Appendix B. All fish 

species on the WCNF were considered, although a viability assessment was not conducted for 

all. Several species were determined to have habitats that are more affected by activities outside 

of the WCNF, and others have such limited occurrence on the WCNF that maintenance of their 

habitats are assumed to be addressed by meeting standards and guidelines for water quality and 

riparian areas. Several native species share systems with the Bonneville cutthroat trout and 

Colorado cutthroat trout and are assumed to share their viability requirements. For these, the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout and Colorado cutthroat trout serve as indicators of viability. A review 

of the individual species and their habitat needs are found in Appendix B of the FEIS. 

At the subbasin (4th level hucs) level, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is expected to continue 

to provide habitat for the Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout and many other aquatic 

and semi-aquatic species (Table AQ-2). There were assumptions made about effects to viability 

through risks and threats described above because of the lack of all the data and basic 

understanding of life history stages. Risks are viewed as those things occurring naturally in 

nature where a threat is man caused. In addition to not having a long population data set, data 

are also not available for these species’ genetic variability, sex ratios, movements within and 

among populations and meta-populations. As such, assessments were made based on potential 

threats relative to current risk and status of the populations. 

Based on the viability assessment, the species are believed to be able to persist on the WCNF 

under current risks and threats, although losses of some populations and declines in some 

metapopulations are expected. The small very isolated populations appear to be at the greatest 

risk of extirpation. Some of these populations will probably be lost through the actions or lack 

thereof of man (Table AQ-3), while other may be lost as a result of natural consequences from 

past actions and/or natural events. There are seven populations of cutthroat trout that we have 

lost or are expecting to lose over the next 15 years (Table AQ-2). A number of other populations 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 193 

could be lost due to natural uncharacteristic events such as high intensity fires, debris flow, or 

even chemical spill. This has occurred in the past with limited documentation. 

Table AQ-2. Cutthroat trout populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that are believe to 

be headed for extirpation during the next 15 years. 

6th Level HUC Population 

Name 

Suspected Cause Potential Additional Action 

160101010103 Hayden Fork Limited population size. Nonnative fish competition. Loss of 

complexity from historic tie 

hacking. 

Treatment to remove non-native 

fish and habitat enhancement to 

restore complexity could decrease 

threats. 

160102020403 High Creek Interbreeding with non-native 

rainbow trout. No connectivity 

with other populations. Only 

hybridized cutthroat/rainbow trout 

have been found in the drainage. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage 

160102030306 Saddle Creek Lack of water, habitat impacts 

from roads, non-native fish and 

grazing upstream of the 

population. No connectivity with 

other populations due to 

intermittent stream flows. Current 

year class failures. 

Site-specific analysis to identify 

exact location of the problems and 

potential corrective solutions need 

to be identified. 

160201010105 South Fork 

Weber River 

Limited population size. Nonnative fish competition. 

Interbreeding with non-native 

rainbow trout. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage. 

160202040102 Little 

Cottonwood 

Creek 

Limited population size. Poor 

water chemistry (heavy metals). 

Upstream access to the stream 

and the potential for toxic spills 

are moderate. 

Efforts to explore correction of the 

water chemistry problem are being 

made. 

160202030101 Soapstone 

Creek 

The stream has been dry by late 

June in 2001 and 2002, which 

would cause year class failures. 

Lack of habitat complexity. No 

connectivity with other 

populations. Limited population 

size. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage. 

160202030101 Rock Creek Limited habitat and water. No 

connectivity with other 

populations (suspected biological 

barrier). 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if a 

biological barrier exists for this 

population. 

Current threats to aquatic species include grazing, poor timber practices, road construction, 

recreational uses, special uses, fire suppression, energy development, water development and 

non-native species to name a few. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 194 

Table AQ-3. The 15- and 100 year expectations regarding the likelihood of the cutthroat trout 

subspecies to maintain viability at the 4th level HUC under current management. 

Watershed 

Code 

Watershed Name 15 Year Call 100 Year Call Comments 

14040106 Henrys Fork River Viable Viable 

14040107 Blacks Fork River Viable Viable 

14040108 Muddy Creek Viable Viable Contingent on 

private land 

stewardship 

14060003 Duchesne River no cutthroat 

trout on forest

no cutthroat 

trout on forest 

surveyed in 2001 

16010101 Upper Bear River Viable Viable Loss of a 

population 

16010201 Bear Lake Off forest Off forest No fish on forest 

16010202 North Cache Valley Viable 

(declining) 

Nonviable Loss of a 

population 

16010203 South Cache Valley Viable Viable Some populations 

nonviable 

16010204 West Wellsville Mountains No fish No fish 

16020101 Upper Weber River Viable Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of a 

population 

16020102 Ogden Front Viable Viable 

(declining) 

16020203 Provo River Viable 

(declining) 

Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of populations

16020204 Jordan River Viable 

(declining) 

Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of populations

16020304 Rush-Tooele Valleys No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16020305 Skull Valley area No cutthroat No cutthroat 

Amphibians 

In the 1985 Forest Plan AMS there are 7 species of amphibians listed (Table AQ-4). Only the 

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) is on the sensitive species list. The Wasatch Front population 

was reviewed for listing and found not warranted on 23 August 2002. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas)

identified as warranted listing but precluded in Colorado is not listed in the Utah portion of it’s 

range. Amphibians are probably not a good group of species for monitoring management actions 

because they appear to be declining across the west in record numbers (Koch et al., 1996). This 

decline would affect the interpretation of any monitoring results. 

Table AQ-4. Amphibians historically present on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, January 

2000.

Amphibians Scientific Name 

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum 

Great Basin Spadefoot Toad Spea intermontana 

Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas 

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudaris Ttriseriata maculata 

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens brachycephala 

Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris

Woodhouse Toad Bufo woodhousei 

(Adapted from Lentsch et al. 1995) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 195 

Threats identified in the spotted frog 12 month finding, that would be applicable to all 

amphibians, include loss of habitat (caused by dam and reservoir construction, alteration of 

drainage patters, urban and agricultural use of water, and high and bridge construction), 

introduction of exotic species, lack of inventories of native wetland animals, insufficient impact 

analysis conducted prior to development and inadequate mitigation activities (Federal Register 

Vol. 67. No. 169). Loss of habitat is the primary threats to amphibians on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. This occurs as vegetation around water sources is removed through grazing, 

recreational use, and timber harvest, or that reduce riparian vegetation and water. As riparian 

vegetation and water quality and quantity is maintained the amphibians should persist. 

There is insufficient information on the current distribution, the species range across the forest or 

the importance of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in the conservation of these species to 

conduct an analysis as to the long-term preservation of amphibian species. It is believe that with 

the existing standards and guidelines and the identification of riparian habitat conservation areas 

and the recognition of the importance of riparian areas that amphibians will persist. This 

assumption is made when viewing that all alternative with the exception of alternative 5 

recognize the importance of clean water, riparian habitat and downed large wood than does 

alternative 4 or the existing conditions (Table AQ-7). 

Spotted Frog 

Spotted frogs are generally found in small springs, ponds or slough with a variety of herbaceous 

emergent, floating and submergent vegetation. Spotted frogs emerge from hibernation in the 

spring and tend to use different habitat. Primary prey for spotted frogs are insects. Historically, 

spotted frogs were found in the Beaver Creek Drainage, Summit County. Spotted frogs were last 

found on the WCNF in June 2002 in the Prove River Drainage below Soapstone Creek. Prior to 

that they a single individual was found in July 1996 at Farmington Ponds in Davis County. 

In the status review (Federal Register Vol. 67. No. 169) it states “Given the habitat protection 

already in place, habitat loss is not likely to put the frog in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 

future. Overutilization is not viewed as a threat to the species because of current regulations. 

Disease and predation is a greater concern as a number of non-native fish species have been 

introduced into the area. On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest fish do not inhabitat the ponds 

where toads are found. Mosquito fish are identified as a primary predator of concern. No 

mosquito fish are found on Forest. It is currently unknown as to the impact that diseases such as 

Chytrid fungus may have on the spotted frogs on the Forest. The status review for the Wasatch 

Front spotted frog, found “the trajectory of the Wasatch Front spotted frog status continue to be 

towards more secure populations, reduced threats, and improved habitat conditions.” Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas around ponds and streams should provide addition protection to the 

limited number of spotted frogs that are found on the Forest. 

Boreal Toad (Western Toad) 

Tanner (1931) stated that, ”This species is far more common in the northern part of the state 

than in the southern. It is the common species in the canyons and mountains of central and 

northern Utah.” Boreal toads have been found in the Forest in recent years as far north as 

Temple Fork, Cache County to Little Cottonwood Creek, Salt Lake County in the south. They 

have also been found in the headwaters of the Bear River, in the Uinta Mountains. However, 

they do not appear to be as common as Tanner suggested they were in 1931. The Forest Service 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 196 

has conducted limited survey work. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Forest has 

recently been conducting surveys for boreal toads. 

 

Stebbins (1985) gives a good description of habitat used by boreal toads. They use a wide 

variety of habitats that range from desert streams and springs, grassland, woodland, and 

mountain meadows. They live in and near ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, springs and streams 

and are active at night in warm, low-lying areas; diurnal at high elevations and in the north. 

Their elevation range is from sea level to over 11,800 feet. Muths et al. (2000) found that boreal 

toads are also known to travel up to 2.5 km between breeding sites.

Disturbance: Boreal toad eggs are generally laid in vegetation along the edge or in the middle of 

water. The eggs remain in incubation for up to 40 days in late May and June. During this time, 

the eggs can easily be crushed through hoof action by cattle or other animals. Toads also seek 

shelter in vegetation and large wood. If this vegetation is removed, the toads become more 

easily accessible for predation. The removal of vegetation can also impact the egg survival due 

to ultraviolet-B radiation from the sun (Blaustein and Wake, 1995). Shading is a critical part of 

the survival of eggs during incubation. 

Tiger Salamander 

Tiger salamanders have been found throughout the Forest in a variety of habitat, including stock 

watering ponds, river and streams and high elevation, pristine lakes. This species is of little 

value in monitoring management actions because of the diverse conditions in which it can 

survive. 

Great Basin Spadefoot Toad 

The Great Basin spadefoot toad inhabits a wide range of habitats from sagebrush flats to the 

spruce fir timber. Little is known of its occurrence on Forest. 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

The boreal chorus frog uses grassy ponds, lakes and marshes of prairies and mountains. It is 

well adapted to humans and is found on many farms (Stebbins, 1985). It would most likely not 

be a good management indicator because of its adaptability. 

Northern Leopard Frog 

The northern leopard frog inhabits grasslands, brush lands and woodlands and ranges high into 

the mountains. It frequents springs, slowly flowing streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, canals and 

reservoirs, usually where there is permanent water and growth of cattails or other aquatic 

vegetation (Stebbins, 1985). 

Woodhouse Toad 

The woodhouse toad frequents a great variety of habitats from grasslands, sagebrush flats, 

woods, desert streams, valleys, floodplains, farms, and city backyards. It prefers sandy areas 

near marshes, streams, ponds and irrigation ditches (Stebbins, 1985). 

Conservation Approaches 

Much of the management of native aquatic and semi-aquatic species involves minimizing risks 

and threats. We do not fully understand all of the complex relationships that cause these species 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 197 

to expand or contract their geographic range, how species and individuals act and react to each 

other and how habitat alterations may affect individuals and populations. Therefore, threat 

management consists of managing above population-loss thresholds. The further above these 

thresholds, the more secure a population and species is. There have been several proposals made 

in the past to minimize the risks for fish and amphibians. These include: (1) The establishment 

of fish reserves (Rahr et. al., 1998), (Spangler, 1994); (2) The elimination of actions within 

riparian zones without site specific analysis; (3) The elimination of man’s actions within known 

habitat; (4) The fencing of important areas to preclude livestock, wildlife and human caused 

trampling. 

There are a number of guiding documents, directives and processes currently in-place that will 

aid in the long-term conservation of aquatic ecosystems and pertinent to the Bonneville and 

Colorado River cutthroat trout on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The existing documents 

that guide the management of the general water quality conditions may be found in this 

document. The existing documents that provide direction for the long-term persistence of the 

cutthroat trout include: 

1. “Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures” of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR 1997). This document set out the general policy and procedures for stocking 

and transplanting of fish in the State of Utah. In its policy direction it states, “Fish 

stocking . . .will only be conducted in a manner that does not adversely affect the 

long-term viability of native aquatic species or their habitat, aids native species 

conservation, and enhances fish populations in existing aquatic habitats and aids the 

efficient and effective management of recreational fisheries to provide angling 

diversity and participation.” 

2. The Conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the State of 

Utah” (UDWR 1997). This conservation strategy identifies the major threats and 

actions to be taken to preserve this species. It is generally a fish management 

document with minimal emphasis on habitat protection and enhancement. 

3. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in the 

State of Utah” (UDWR 1997). This conservation strategy identifies the major threats 

and actions to be taken to preserve this species. It is generally a fish management 

document with minimal emphasis on habitat protection and enhancement. 

4. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming” ( 

CRCT Task Force 2001) provides an interagency approach for the conservation of 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

5. The “Range-wide conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki utah)” (Lentsch et al. 2000) provides a interagency approach 

for the conservation of Bonneville cutthroat trout across its range. 

6. The Final Environmental Impact Statement on Rangeland Health (WCNF, 1996), as 

ammended with this EIS, provides recognition of the value of waters with native 

cutthroat trout. These waters are containing native cutthroat are identified class I 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 198 

riparian values. 

7. The goals, standards and guides in this document also provide conservation measures 

along with the Forest Service Manual section 2600. As part of this direction, prior to 

approval of any ground disturing activity, a biological evaluation/assessment must be 

prepared. This document must then be signed by the botanist, trestrial and aquatic 

ecologists identifing the consequences of those activities. 

8. A major action that has taken place is merely the general recognition of the value of the 

streams on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the long term preservation of the 

cutthroat trout in the states of Utah and Wyoming. In Alternative 7 this had been 

done by designating all areas inhabitated by cutthroat trout as perscription 3.1A 

riparian. This sets forth the objectives for the area and the importance of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest in preserving these species. A 3.1A designation was 

also placed on the lower Provo River to recognize the importance of the spotted frog 

populations found there. 

In an effort to address the threats to aquatic and semi-aquatic species, the Forest staff reviewed 

all existing and proposed standards and guidelines. This review is document in a 10 July 2002 

white paper by Paul Cowley, the Forest Fish Biologist. The WCNF has authority and direction 

to implement some if not all of the actions identified the above documents 2 through 8, through 

cooperation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Wyoming Game and Fish. We 

also have provided input into activities relating to document 1. The Forest Plan, when 

approved, is expected to provide additional direction and conservation measures for reducing 

risks and threats. Item 8 will be implemented if alternative 7 is selected along with prescription 

categorie specific standards and guidelines. 

Environmental Consequences 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from Timber 

Harvesting. 

The factor used to compare alternatives is the amount of land tentatively suitable for timber 

harvest and allowed (by prescription) across the forest. Timber harvest which is allowed in 

management prescription 3.1A, 3.1W and 3.2D is not included because it is assumed that actions 

would be carried out to meet aquatic habitat or watershed improvement/restoration purposes only 

and to implement a project that would impact these resources would not meet the objective of the 

prescription. The greatest potential impact as timber harvest occurs is from additional road 

construction that often requires stream crossings. This increases the potential for direct and 

indirect mortality to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Direct mortalities occur, due to surface 

compaction, as roads are constructed through areas where frogs may hibernate. Eggs of both fish 

and amphibians are impacted as sediment from roads covers and suffocates them. Indirect 

impacts occur as concealment areas and shade is lost and water temperatures increase. Predators, 

because of increased access, may also find it easier to locate these species. Alternatives 4 and 5 

have the greatest potential impact followed by Alternative 3, 7, 6, 2 and 1 in that order (Table 

AQ-5). Alternative 7 would have about the same level of impact as alternative 3 with 3.1 

prescriptions being applied to all cutthroat trout populations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 199 

Proposed standards and guidelines for location and design of timber harvest activities can reduce 

impacts to aquatic habitat. Guideline 3 limits percent of equivalent clearcut area based on 

stability ratings at the 7th HUC level. This should decrease the potential for excessive runoff and 

soil movement preventing sediment impacts described above. Guideline 4 maintains large 

woody debris naturally found in riparian zones after projects are implemented, thus protecting 

concealment areas and shade. Guideline 65 allows for the removal of trees, in other than suitable 

lands, for restoration activities. These are an important part of riparian habitat improvement 

where conifer cover can be removed to allow aspen regeneration with subsequent benefits to 

aquatic habitats from increased beaver activity. 

Timber sale contract also provide additional, site-specific direction prior to implementing the 

projects. 

Table AQ-5. Acres of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which are available for commercial 

timber harvest, vegetation treatments, road construction, wildland fire, use, the development 

of new recreational facilities and prescribed fire. Acreages are in thousands of acres (e.g., 

122=122,000) 

Alternatives Activity 1 2(1) 3(1) 4 5 6(1) 7 

Commercial Timber 

Harvest 0 122 336 757 754 162 393 

Total Suitable Grazing 

Acres 278 252 300 300 300 288 286 

Maximum Suitable Grazing 

Acres in Respect to 

Capable Grazing Acres (%) 

75% 68% 76% 76% 76% 75% 75% 

Vegetation Treatment 0 783 879 930 932 859 740 

Acres Where Road 

Construction is Allowed 3 279 494 793 799 317 555 

Wildland Fire Use 1,239 1,238 1,239 997 951 1,238 1,225 

New Recreation 

Development 0 291 467 795 803 333 284 

MPC 1.1-1.4 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 

MPC 1.5 389 146 51 0 0 69 61 

MPC 2.4 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 

MPC 3.1 or 3.1A and W 138 182 159 106 70 186 190 

total for above MPC 842 643 524 421 384 570 566 

MPC=Management Prescription Category 

(1) Road building numbers are less than shown as roadless areas are excluded from road 

construction. 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from 

Livestock Grazing. 

Direct effects on aquatic and semi-aquatic species from livestock grazing include the trampling 

of eggs and juvenile fish. Cutthroat and rainbow trout eggs are in the gravel from mid May 

through mid August. There is sufficient overlap in the grazing season that direct mortality can 

occur as cattle and sheep cross through the streams. Indirect impacts can consist of loss of 

overhanging vegetative cover, loss of bank stability, increase sedimentation, and increases in 

temperature and stream width. Potential threats from grazing have been identified by “head 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 200 

month use per mile of stream” in a sixth code HUC analysis (see FEIS Appendix B). Field 

observations validate that higher use levels do affect riparian habitat conditions. This 

information will assist in identifying the highest priority needs for revising allotment 

management plans from an aquatic habitat perspective. Additional adjustments may need to take 

place during allotment management planning to reduce threats and provide for the conservation 

of these aquatic and semi-aquatic species and to protect watershed conditions. 

A number of measures can be taken to reduce the threats to aquatic and semi-aquatic species and 

their habitat from livestock grazing including changes in timing, season of use, and standards and 

guidelines for aquatic habitat. Steps taken to reduce potential threats in all alternatives through 

the Revised Forest Plan are: (1) the riparian class rating system used to set stubble heights 

recognizes the importance of conserving species-at-risk; (2) riparian class 1 requires a stubble 

height of 5 inches on key species and sets utilization standards for range in satisfactory 

condition; (3) in areas mapped with prescription 3.1A, grazing livestock must meet the standard 

for riparian Class 1 utilization; (4) a guideline to modify grazing practices that prevent 

attainment of desired future conditions for vegetation and/or aquatic resources. Site-specific 

desired conditions can also be developed. 

The following are steps taken to reduce threats to aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats that vary by 

Alternative in this FEIS. Alternative 2 removes approximately 26,000 acres of 6th order 

watersheds within seven allotments (Blacks Fork, Gilbert Creek, Logan Canyon, Middle Fork, 

Poison Mountain, Walker and West Fork Smiths Fork) from the suitable range acres. These 

watershed have both existing populations of Colorado River or Bonneville cutthroat trout and at 

least 20 acres of riparian acres identified in the INFRA database as either estimated or verified as 

not meeting Forest Plan objectives. Livestock grazing would be removed from these areas for 

achievement of site-specific objectives developed to meet needs for these fish populations. 

Effects on aquatic habitats in these areas would be positive with full rehabilitation expected 

because livestock grazing could be removed from these large contiguous areas and riparian areas 

are known to improve relatively rapidly with exclusion of livestock grazing. No other 

alternatives remove entire portions of watersheds within allotments. 

In Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 about 2,100 acres of riparian habitat not meeting objectives are 

subtracted from suitable grazing acres to achieve rehabilitation of these areas. Rehabilitation of 

these areas will vary depending on effectiveness of herding, salting, and/or fencing of these areas 

to prevent livestock grazing. Effects on aquatic habitats would be positive with a range of results 

from full rehabilitation to slower and less consistent improvement in areas with difficult or 

expensive livestock management needs. Without site-specific information the exact 

improvement probability for each area is not known. In Alternative 7 only, rehabilitation of 

these riparian areas is achieved through implementation of a lower forage utilization allowance 

(30-40% rather than 50%) on the areas. This will require monitoring and movement of livestock 

upon reaching the lower utilization. Improvement of aquatic habitats 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 201 

consistent than in any of the other Alternatives. Slow progress would be expected in 

rehabilitating unsatisfactory aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats. 

Closure of vacant allotments provides long-term aquatic habitat benefits including maintenance 

of watersheds, and maintenance of ungrazed riparian habitat conditions for strongholds and 

benchmarks. The relative amount of aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats within vacant allotments 

defines the degree of benefit. Given that the Allotments are currently vacant, there is no 

immediate or direct effect on aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats from these allotment closures. It 

is also important to note that experienced budget levels in recent years have been inadequate to 

complete site-specific analyses on active allotments, making vacant allotments an even lower 

priority for analysis. Even in alternatives where vacant allotments are left open, it is highly 

unlikely that resources would be available to conduct the required site-specific analysis for reintroducing livestock grazing. Therefore, the short-term on-the-ground consequences of these 

alternatives would be similar to closure- i.e. the vacant allotments would remain in ungrazed 

condition. Given this, closure of vacant allotments is considered only as a long-term effect. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the most long-term aquatic habitat benefits closing all vacant 

allotments. Alternative 7 provides somewhat less long-term benefits than 1 and 2 because it 

focuses closures only on Salt Lake and Davis County watersheds and on the three vacant 

allotments in the Eastern Uinta Mountians Management Area. Alternative 6 provides the longterm benefits for these three allotments but not for the other vacant allotment areas. Alternatives 

3, 4, and 5 do not close vacant allotments thus not providing for long-term benefits although as 

explained above, short-term the allotments would likely continue to remain in ungrazed 

condition accruing those aquatic and semi-aquatic habitat benefits for the short-term. 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from Travel 

Management. 

The greatest potential impact as travel management occurs is the form of additional public 

access, unauthorized road and trail development and road construction that often requires stream 

crossings. This increases the potential for direct and indirect mortality to aquatic and semiaquatic species. Direct mortalities occur, due to surface compaction, as roads are constructed 

through areas where frogs may hibernate. Eggs of both fish and amphibians are impacted as 

sediment from roads covers and suffocates them. Indirect impacts occur as concealment areas 

and shade is lost and water temperatures increase. Predators, because of increased access, may 

also find it easier to locate these species. 

The primary factor used to compare the alternatives is the area where road construction is 

allowed. It is recognized that the total additional miles of road to be constructed will be far less 

than what could be perceived by the use of acres where road construction is allowed. Alternative 

1 has the least land available for road construction and would minimize the threats to aquatic 

species and their habitat. Alternatives, in order of least threat to greatest potential threat, are 1, 2, 

6, 3, 7, 4 and 5 (Table AQ-5). Trail development is assumed to be similar to road construction 

in the degree of potential impacts. Alternative 1 has the fewest acres where new trails would be 

allowed and Alternative 5 has the greatest potential for new trails. Alternative 7 does provide 

additional benefits with only crossings being allowed in MPC 3.1A and a stronger emphasis on 

providing prescription direction for MPC 3.1A both inside and outside of roadless areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 202 

Under all alternatives it is assumed that efforts will be made to reduce impacts associated with 

existing roads. Alternative 2 is the most aggressive in restoring properly functioning conditions 

associated with existing roads. 

Changes in amount, location, and design of trails and roads could allow recovery of riparian and 

stream channel functioning condition. Standards and guidelines that provide direction include: 

(S2) runoff will be controlled; (S3) unclassified roads and trails will be closed; (S4) sources of 

chemical and pathogenic pollutants will be stored correctly (this refers to oils and fuels used in 

heavy equipment); (S16) all decommissioned road/trails will be properly drained; (S19) new 

roads and trails will be constructed to minimize sediment discharge; (G4) beneficial volumes of 

large woody debris will be maintained in riparian areas; (G28) stream crossing will provide for 

desirable aquatic passage; (G40) effects from constructing roads and trails are to be minimized 

with regard to species-at-risk and their habitat; (G41) access routes will minimized impacts to 

riparian vegetation and in channel habitat; (G42) water supply points and supply points will be 

identified and controlled; and (G43) while grading roads, sidecasting will be minimized in order 

to reduce the amount of material entering the stream course. 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from 

Recreation Management. 

The impacts from recreation are in the form of loss of riparian vegetation from bank trampling, 

bank destabilization, removal of large wood, and direct fuelwood harvest. This increases the 

potential for direct and indirect mortality to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Direct mortalities 

occur as people are attracted to the waters edge to play, explore and fish. Eggs of both fish and 

amphibians are impacted as sediment from disturbed banks covers and suffocates them. Harvest 

of fish and amphibians also has a direct impact on populations. Indirect impacts occur as 

concealment areas and shade are lost and water temperatures increase. 

Listed in order of increasing level of threat from potential recreational development are 

Alternatives 1, 7 and 2, 6, 3, 4, and 5. Alternative 1 has no new recreational facilities while two 

new facilities are allowed in the other alternatives. The major difference between alternatives is 

the differing number of acres where new facilities may be allowed (Table AQ-5). By limiting 

the acres where new facilities are allowed the potential impacts from the new facilities should 

also be limited. 

With existing facilities, under all alternatives it is assumed that efforts will be made to reduce 

impacts from developed recreational facilities. This assumption is based on what has been 

accomplished over the last 15 years with a number of sites being moved away from the stream 

and concentrated closer to roads within developed sites. Alternative 2 is the most aggressive in 

reducing impacts to aquatic ecosystems. It is assumed, that some of the greatest threats to 

aquatic resources from recreation will come in the form of undeveloped recreation. As trailers 

are improved to carry increased volumes of water, with higher clearance and the public search 

for less urbanized setting, more people will be looking for area away from campgrounds to stay 

for extended periods. This is especially true as construction of new recreation facilities slows or 

stops. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 203 

Areas under special use permit can also have effects on aquatic resources depending on the 

degree to which they allow activities and facilities with direct and indirect effects on habitats. 

These vary in hydroelectric plants, ditches for irrigation withdrawals, ski resorts, and summer 

homes. Most of these impacts will continue in place. Alternative 4, implementing the 1985 

Forest Plan provides the most restrictive and specific direction for special uses. Site-specific 

management plans and permit conditions will be the primary tools to provide protection of 

aquatic resources in these areas under other alternatives and the Revised Forest Plan. 

Changes in amount, location and design of recreational facilities including campgrounds and 

trailheads may allow recovery of riparian and channel functioning condition. Excluding users 

from rehabilitated sites adjacent to streams and campgrounds is becoming increasingly difficult. 

Even with fences it is sometimes difficult to exclude the public from these areas. Standards and 

guidelines identified for the protection of aquatic resources include: (S19) new facilities will be 

constructed to minimize sediment discharge; (G4) beneficial volumes of large woody debris will 

be maintained in riparian areas; (G40) effects from constructing facilities are to be minimized to 

protect species-at-risk and their habitat; (G42) water supply points will be identified and 

controlled; (G48) facilities will be designed, constructed and operated to minimize adverse 

effects; and (G50) if riparian objectives cannot be met, the plan directs the period, type and 

location of use to be adjusted. 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from 

Vegetation Treatment (Excluding Timber Harvest and Wildland Fire Use and 

Prescribed Fire). 

Vegetation treatments can have a positive or negative impact on aquatic systems depending on 

the treatment and how and under what conditions it is implemented. Treatments could include 

prescribed fire, thinning, seeding, and cut and scattering or cut and let lay vegetation. For 

aquatic systems this can have a positive affect by restoring properly functioning conditions in 

riparian zones across the forest. Although alternative 2 has fewer acres available for vegetation 

treatments than Alternatives 5, 4, 3, and 6 the focus would be directed more towards riparian 

restoration and not just fuels reduction which may be the emphasis in other alternatives. For 

aquatic ecosystems, Alternative 2 emphasizes restoration efforts for aquatic and terrestrial 

systems. The major treatment would be the removal of conifers in areas that were historically 

dominated by aspen. This would allow for beavers to re-colonize areas they historically used. 

Beaver have been identified as a management indicator species, which will allow for 

effectiveness monitoring of vegetation treatment in riparian habitat conservation areas. 

Alternative 2 is therefore identified as the most beneficial for aquatic resources. Alternatives, 

listed in order of greatest to least opportunity, or area available for vegetative treatment 

beneficial to aquatic species, are Alternatives 2, 5, 4, 3, 6, 7, and 1 (Table AQ-5). 

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from Oil and 

Gas Activities 

(Note: The following description of effects relates only to the area identified as “the appeal 

settlement zone” as described in Topic 9. It is estimated to be about 68,300 acres). 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases only. No existing leases are 

affected. In all alternatives (except Alternative 4), 19,000 currently leased acres in the Table Top 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 204 

Unit, could be explored with possible effects to soil and water resources. The degree to which 

exploration is predictable within the Table Top Unit is affected by whether or not new leases 

could be issued and what stipulations would be included in those leases. 

Fish resources could be affected by the construction of access roads and well pads. Effects could 

be short-term decrease in fish productivity due to increased stream sediment loads from new 

crossings and road construction. All alternatives also carry some risk of direct mortality to fish if 

toxic materials are accidentally spilled into streams. The application of lease terms, stipulations 

and mitigation to protect water quality and riparian habitats reduce the risk of effects on fish 

habitat. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development of 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect aquatic and semi-aquatic species as a 

result of oil and gas exploration activities on an estimated 20 acres (Table OG-2). Impacts 

could be also result from oil and gas development on private minerals. As existing leases expire, 

lands would no longer be available for leasing and the threat to aquatic species would be 

reduced. 

Alternative 2 is very similar to Alternative 1. Again, development of existing leases within the 

Table Top Unit could disturb about 20 acres (Table OG-2). Once existing leases expire, leasing 

availability in areas recommended for wilderness is precluded. On remaining available acres, 

new leases could be issued but surface occupancy would not be allowed. The potential effects 

from new leases to aquatic and semi-aquatic species would not increase with this leasing option. 

Alternative 3 precludes leasing in areas recommended for future wilderness designation in the 

future and does not allow new leases with surface occupancy in areas managed for undeveloped 

and backcountry recreation values and terrestrial habitat (see Prescriptions 2.6, 4.1, 4.2, and 3.2). 

Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed above with stipulations applied to 

protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,500 acres are available under Standard Lease Terms. 

Oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 75 acres (Table OG-2). Some of this 

development is predicted on existing leases within the Table Top Unit. Within the large areas 

that allow no surface occupancy, the effects to aquatic and semi-aquatic species are not 

increased; however, because this alternative allows occupancy on about 12,900 acres, the 

chances for adverse impacts are not totally eliminated. 

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 to aquatic and semi-aquatic species are predicted. 

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 (Table OG-2). Some of the effects could last 20-30 years because of field 

development. Standard Lease Terms include moving the site up to 200 meters (656 feet) if the 

site could be better located. This would allow for location outside the Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area (RHCA). Although this leasing option appears to have the highest potential 

to result in adverse impacts to surface waters, compliance with the Clean Water Act and 

implementing State and Federal regulations is mandatory. This leasing option is the least 

restrictive and offers the greatest potential threat to aquatic and semi-aquatic species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 205 

In Alternative 6 leasing availability is precluded in areas recommended for wilderness. In new 

leases issued as a result of the leasing decision made in the plan revision, surface occupancy is 

not allowed. 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 renewed in 

areas managed for motorized recreation values and terrestrial habitat. Oil and gas activities are 

estimated to disturb about 75 acres (Table OG-2). Some of this development is predicted on 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit. In this alternative most areas are leased with no 

surface occupancy. In areas leased that allow surface occupancy, wetlands and riparian areas 

over 40 acres are protected in new leases with no surface occupancy so the effects to aquatic and 

semi-aquatic species are similar to Alternative 2. Leasing stipulations would also provide 

protection of stream environments. 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for wilderness. On the 

remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 27,000 

acres. Of this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 85 acres (Table OG2). Areas associated with field development could be affected for 20-30 years. Some 

development (included in the 85 acre estimate) is predicted within the Table Top Unit because of 

existing leases and new leases being offered with surface occupancy. 

Alternative 7 is the second least restrictive and offers a higher potential risk to aquatic and semiaquatic species than most other alternatives. Oil and gas well pads would be required to be 

outside the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA); however, the risk for adverse impacts 

would not be totally eliminated. Road crossings would also introduce additional risk to aquatic 

habitats. 

Ranked by potential threats, alternative 4 would have the least threats followed by alternatives 1 

and 2, 6, 3, 7, and 5 (Table AQ-7). Alternative 6 does allow surface occupancy on 3,600 acres 

where alternative 3 allows for surface occupancy on 12,900 acres, and thus alternative 3 poses a 

greater threat. 

 

Effects from oil and gas activities will be reduced as standards and guidelines and followed. 

Standard 1 (S1) allow not surface occupancy on slopes greater than 40%. S2 applies runoff 

controls. S4 provides direction to reduce potential spills. S27 requires the Forest to follow the 

standard lease term of which some allow greater aquatic resource protection. G6 allows for the 

use of best management practices to meet water quality guidelines. G7 precludes soil-disturbing 

activities in wetlands or riparian area.

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from Fire 

Management Activities 

Fire management activities include wildland fire use, prescribed fire and fire suppression. 

Wildland fire use is the allowing a naturally ignited fire to continue to burn when other resource 

goals are being met and the fire is within designated parameters. Prescribed fire is where the 

Forest Service ignites a fire to meet specific resource objectives and the burn takes place within 

designated parameters. Parameters, under which prescribed and wildland fires take place, are 

identified as part of the NEPA process on a site-specific basis and will provide the necessary 

levels of protection to preserve aquatic species. It is assumed that while in prescription aquatic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 206 

resources are protected. Both wildland fires and prescribed fires have been know to burn out of 

prescribed parameters and be reclassified as wild fires therefore the affects are treated as part of 

the affects of wildfire and fire suppression. 

Effects from fire and fire suppression activities include direct mortality and indirect effects. 

Mortality can come from overheating the water to lethal levels, the dropping of retardant into 

water bodies causing death and the running of equipment through streams crushing eggs. 

Indirect effects range from dewatering eggs as water is siphoned for suppression efforts to 

increased sedimentation and debris flows. 

 

During wild fires the greatest threats to aquatic ecosystems comes in the form of fire suppression 

activities and/or when a fire burns extremely hot causing the soil to become hydrophobic, and 

runoff potential increases. In an ideal world, if a fire were to start a resource specialist or 

specialists would be called in to provide information to the fire management team to help reduce 

impacts to all resources. A Forest-level fire management plan would be in place listing all of the 

objectives and standards and guidelines that would need to be followed to protect forest 

resources. Site-specific information would also be available to make good decisions. It is 

important to understand that this is not the case. History has shown that fire suppression 

activities can cause substantial aquatic damage. They range in impact from direct mortality, 

from air tanker slurry drops, to loss of riparian vegetation as camps are constructed adjacent to 

streams. 

All alternatives are essentially the same in regards to wildland fire use with the exception of 

Alternative 5, which does not allow wildland fire use in MPC 5.2. The increase of wildland fire 

use should decrease the potential threats from wild fire and therefore threats from wild fire 

suppression actions. All alternatives are essentially equal with the exception of Alternative 5 as 

identified above.

Effects on Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species and Their Habitat from 

Management Prescription Categories 

Management prescriptions can reflect the direction and emphasis across the landscape. 

Emphasis of and activities allowed within the prescription can directly affect aquatic resources. 

It is assumed that if an activity is not allowed in an area there is less threat to aquatic species. (In 

aquatic environments, this assumption is not true in cases where species diversity has been 

altered by the stocking of fish in areas outside their historic range. In this case lack of action 

may cause addition threats to a population of historically present fish.) The more activities 

allowed in a management prescription, the greater the threat. Prescription emphasis and the 

standards and guidelines associated with a prescription may reduce threats from land 

management activities. 

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, 

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. With the emphasis of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 207 

prescription being on “protection, maintenance and or restoration of quality aquatic habitats, 

water shed conditions...” threats in this prescription should be significantly reduced. 

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. 

Non-native Species and Other Threats 

Additional threats also include non-native species, over utilization and accidents. Changes in 

fish stocking, treatment, and harvest limits are typically state actions. The Forest Service 

provides comments and may assist but leaves the general everyday fish management actions up 

to Wyoming Game and Fish and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Increased participation 

has come in these discussions and decisions through Regional Advisory Councils and 

conservation agreements and strategies for the Bonneville cutthroat trout, Colorado River 

cutthroat trout, and the spotted frog. 

Nonnative species pose a threat to the aquatic species of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

These include but are not limited to brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, Myxosoma 

cerebralis (whirling disease) and the New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). 

These threats come in the form of competition for space and food, predation, interbreeding and 

crippling deformities. 

Over utilization through scientific collections and harvest can also impact populations especially 

when combined with habitat lost and isolation of populations. 

Accidents also have the potential to impact populations. These vary from vehicles going into 

stream channels along some of the major rivers, to flushing of water holding tanks with 

chemicals, to opening head gates on reservoirs and dropping water levels. All of these situations 

have occurred on or near the Forest. Little can be done about these threats through forest 

planning. 

Fishery Enhancement 

Fishery enhancement work ranges from altering channel configuration to fish interpretive 

signing. Other actions may include, but are not limited to, the installation of bank protection 

structures, pool formation structures, spawning gravel, fencing to exclude livestock, planting of 

riparian vegetation, installation of migration barriers to exclude exotic species and/or the 

chemical treatment of streams to remove non-native fish. It could also include the stocking of 

sterile fish versus reproductive fish. Some of these efforts are conducted by the states of 

Wyoming or Utah. 

Construction and maintenance of barriers to prevent exotic species expansion and coordination 

with the State on aquatic species management could reduce potential impacts from exotic 

species. In an effort to reduce threats from non-native species, the State of Utah will now be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 208 

stocking with sterile rainbow or the appropriate subspecies of cutthroat trout (personal 

communication, Tom Pettengill, UDWR sport fish coordinator, March 13, 2001.) The state of 

Utah is also working to develop sterile brook trout for stocking. In some of the identified 

potential sites for expanding cutthroat trout populations (Table AQ-6), which receive a high level 

of recreational fish pressure and where cross breeding has not occurred, an alternative may be to 

shift to stocking sterile fish to meet the recreational demand and alter fishing regulations to 

provide greater conservation of the native population. 

The potential to reduce threats and expand populations of native species is being addressed. The 

Forest Service has identified a number of areas where opportunities exist to coordinate with the 

states of Utah and Wyoming to expand native fish populations (personal communication with 

Paul Thompson, March 15, 2001)(Table AQ-6). The areas are located in a number of drainages. 

Alternative 2 identifies the greatest number of expansion areas for aquatic species that are 

mapped as 3.1 in the selected drainages. Alternative 6 and 7 would not recommend expansion 

into the Smith-Morehouse Drainage. Alternative 1 would be the most restrictive with the largest 

amount of recommended wilderness. Alternatives 3-5 do not identify streams recommended for 

population restoration. These alternatives, however, do not preclude restoration from occurring 

in any drainage. Most of the treatment and removal streams were identified in an effort to 

expand existing meta-populations. The exception to this is the South Fork of the Weber River. 

Currently a natural barrier exists on this stream that would allow a population to be established 

above this area. 

Table AQ-6. Potential restoration area for Bonneville cutthroat trout by alternative. 

Drainage Stream Alt. 2 Alt. 6 Alt.7 

Hayden Fork Hayden Fork Drainage Yes Yes Yes 

West Fork Bear Whitney Reservoir Yes Yes Yes 

Temple Fork Yes Yes Yes Logan River Drainage Beaver Creek (1) Yes Yes Yes 

Ogden River Causey Reservoir Tributaries Yes Yes Yes 

South Fork Weber Yes Yes Yes Weber River Drainage Smith-Morehouse Reservoir and above Yes No No 

(1) The majority of this work would need to be conducted on the Caribou National Forest in Idaho. 

Cumulative and Viability Effects Summary. 

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

semi-aquatic species (Table AQ-7). The individual ratings for Table AQ-7 are explained in the 

above narratives. Alternative 1 ranks out high as an alternative that provides for aquatic and 

semi-aquatic 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 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 209 

Table AQ-7. Ranking of Wasatch-Cache National Forest’s alternatives by threats with 1 being 

least threat for aquatic and semi-aquatic species and 7 being greatest threat. If two or more 

alternatives are equal the ranking were averaged. 

Ranking of effects, compared to current, from 

Potential threats affected by Wasatch- changes by alternative 

Cache NF management Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Timber 1 2 5 6.5 6.5 3 4 

Grazing 2 1 4.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 3 

Travel Management 1 3 5 6 7 4 2 

Recreation Management 1 2 5 6 7 3 4 

Special Uses 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 

Vegetation Treatment (excluding fish and 

timber action) 6 1 4 3 2 5 7 

Oil and Gas 2.5 2.5 5 1 7 4 6 

Fire Management Activities 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 7 3.5 3.5 

Management Prescription 1 2 5 6 7 3 4 

Fish Enhancement 5.5 1 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.5 2.5 

Overall average 2.8 2.3 4.7 4.5 6.0 3.7 4.1 

The viability assessment for native fish (Appendix B and summarized above), with emphasis on 

the Bonneville cutthroat trout and Colorado cutthroat trout, indicates that the native fish species 

are expected to persist on the WCNF for the next 100 years even under current risks and threats 

(Alternative 4). Comparison across alternatives is, therefore, based on the effects and cumulative 

effects analysis presented above, including the differences in the level of threats that would be 

addressed under each alternative, as presented in Table AQ-7. The overall average is used to 

provide a sense of difference between alternatives. No weighing of individual threats has been 

done because any one factor could be sufficient to cause the loss of a population. The difference 

in effects on viability would therefore be the same as identified above for cumulative effects. All 

of the Alternatives, except Alternative 5, would result in either a similar to or at reduced levels of 

threats and would therefore result in continued persistence of the species. 

Of these, Alternative 2 would be expected to provide the most beneficial effect to the viability of 

the species, followed by Alternatives 1, 6, 7, 3, and 4, in that order. Alternative 5 would result in 

an increase over the current level in risks and threats to the populations. Persistence is possible 

under Alternative 5, but the potential for losses of species is greatest due to the greatest potential 

for threats to populations and their metapopulations. 

It is important to recognize that the threats identified in Table AQ-7 are merely a ranking and not 

absolute numbers. A ranking of 6 in the grazing row is not equally equated to a ranking of 6 in 

the recreation row. It should also be recognized that the threat differences between rankings of 1 

to 2 in grazing may be significantly different than the threat difference between a ranking of 2 to 

3. The rankings are just that, a ranking. 

The standards, guidelines, and monitoring and implementation measures that were developed for 

the Revised Plan to minimize risks and threats for species viability have been identified (Table 

AQ-8), as previously discussed in the effects discussions with the exception of general protection 

as identified below. These include standards pertaining to watershed health. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 210 

Table AQ-8. Standards and Guidelines in the Revised Plan Pertaining to Threats 

Threat Reference # 

Timber Harvest G3, G4, G65, G3.1A1, 

Domestic Livestock Grazing S23, S24, G67, G71, G72, G3.1A2 

Travel Management S2, S3, S4, S16, S19, G4, G28, G40, G41, G42, G43, G3.1A3 

Recreation Management S19, G4, G40, G42, G48, G50, S3.1A1, S3.1A2, G3.1A3, G3.1A4 

Oil and Gas Activities S1, S2, S4, S27, G6, G7 

Fire Management G35, G3.1A1, Wasatch-Cache Fire Management Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 211

Topic 3 – Roads Access Management 

Introduction 

Transportation facilities are essential in providing access to and through the Forest. They provide 

access for administration and for Forest visitors for recreation, driving for pleasure, hunting and 

fishing and economical livelihood use. Most of the transportation system is in place and 

generally appears to be serving the Forest well. The Forest Plan will provide a framework for an 

efficient and environmentally sensitive system for future Forest needs. 

This topic addresses the general conditions of roads and current access to the Forest. It is closely 

related to Topic 4 – Recreation. Further information about recreation-related travel can be found 

there. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• The National Forest System Road Management and Transportation System; Final Rule 

and Policy, approved January 12, 2001, provides direction for a road system that is safe, 

responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, and affordable and efficient to manage. 

The purpose is to help ensure that additions to the National Forest System network of roads 

are those deemed essential for resource management and use; that construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance of roads minimize adverse environmental impact; and that 

unneeded roads are decommissioned and restored. 

• The Roadless Area Conservation Rule. January 12, 2001, prohibits road construction and 

reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands, unless certain 

exceptions are met. 

• 36 CFR Part 212. Administration of the Forest Transportation System. 

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7700. Transportation Systems. 

• Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709. Transportation and Related Activities.

• Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest 

Transportation System (USDA Forest Service 1999), is an integrated ecological, social and 

economic approach to transportation planning based on science that provides a process to 

analyze existing and future road needs and management.

Affected Environment 

Travel Management 

Travel management is the integrated planning of and providing for the movement of people and 

products to and through Forest lands. A travel management plan provides clear, specific 

direction on the appropriate levels of access to the Forest to be made available and the forms of 

transportation this access will take. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 212

Travel management planning is critical for the management of Forest infrastructure and public 

access needs. At one time, many roads on the Forest were constructed for commodity needs 

such as timber production, mining and special use access, and range management. Although 

access is still needed for these purposes, access for recreational purposes are now the highest use 

of roads. 

Traditional forms of recreation travel, such as driving for pleasure, hiking and horseback riding 

are showing steady increases. The popularity of mountain biking, snowmobiling, all-terrain 

vehicles and cross-country skiing have grown as well as other newer forms of travel such as 

hang-gliding, skateboards, trail skates, and dog sleds. Lakes and reservoirs receive a variety of 

uses such as motorboats, canoes, personal watercraft, and wind surfers. 

The current Forest plan directs the development of travel plans to manage off-road vehicle use to 

protect resource values and to resolve recreation conflicts. Project level travel management 

planning can also be used to reduce undesirable road density levels. Travel management is an 

ongoing process that goes beyond the Forest planning stage. As travel management plans are 

amended, site-specific direction will be needed in some areas. 

 

Travel management addresses more than the simple opening and closing of roads and areas to 

motorized use. A number of complex travel and access issues are involved in travel 

management: 

• Recreation uses and impacts 

• Legal public access to Forest lands 

• Legal public access to private inholdings 

• Closed versus open policy 

• Economics of transporting commodities 

• Law enforcement 

• Public health and safety 

• Travelway maintenance costs 

• Effects and impacts on other Forest resources 

Each District on the Wasatch-Cache has an approved current travel management plan. Travel 

plans are updated periodically by the Districts and involve public input, an Environmental 

Assessment, and an appealable decision. Routes and areas that are designated open to different 

types of vehicles (OHV, ATV, snowmobile, motorcycle) vary by location and season and are 

listed on the district travel plans. Revised travel plans will show specific areas open to 

snowmobiles and routes open to mechanical use (i.e. mountain bikes). The status of these vary 

by District: 

• Salt Lake – 1997 (mainly includes allowed motorized trail use) 

• Kamas – 1995 

• Evanston/Mountain View – 1988 (currently being revised) 

• Ogden – 1991 (updated in 1997 for minor changes) 

• Logan – 1991 (updated in 1997 for minor changes) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 213

Recreation-related travel on the WCNF has increased in volume and will continue to do so. 

They are affected by technological advances; economic conditions; changing demands for 

recreational experiences, population increases and other social influences. Worthy of note is the 

rapid increase in use of mountain bikes and OHV’s. Growth has increased in sections of the 

Forest located near urban populations. 

Recreation-related travel stands out as a significant issue. Recreational conflicts occur on the 

Forest because of increased use on the Forest and different needs of users. Areas that were once 

used by only a few users of one type, now face crowded conditions with several different types 

of users present. A key concern is the perceived incompatibility of various modes of travel. 

Non-motorized recreationists view their experience to be degraded by the presence of motor 

vehicles. They are finding it more difficult to find areas outside of wilderness that are free of 

motorized use. 

Mountain biking has increased at a fast rate and current travel management has few restrictions 

on mountain biking, except in wilderness and research natural areas. Complaints about bikes 

from hikers and horseback riders have increased. At the same time, bicyclists would like to see 

more trails specifically designed and managed for mountain biking. 

Motorized recreation users express frustrations on more limited areas to use and greater 

restrictions and regulations. They feel there is more than ample opportunity for non-motorized 

users with land already designated wilderness or non-motorized and are concerned that future 

management could further reduce motorized access. Some recreationists have expressed a desire 

for uses to be separated or at least to have some areas designated in which other uses are not 

permitted. 

In the future, there will be increased use from other user groups such as senior citizens, 

minorities, and the physically challenged. These other visitors may have different recreation and 

access needs. 

The increased urbanization of lands adjacent to the Forest has led to the closing or impairment of 

several traditional access routes. This is especially true for routes near areas like the urbanized 

Wasatch Front. 

Evident resource damage attests to unauthorized off-road travel by motorized vehicles in some 

areas. These violations occur yearlong, but peak during the fall hunting season. Resource 

damage is especially critical if it occurs in watersheds, highly erosive soil, and key wildlife areas. 

There are trespass problems by motorized vehicles in wilderness areas, including snowmobiles 

during the winter. Vandalism and destruction of signs and barricades meant to enforce travel 

plans is a problem in some areas of the Forest. 

Roads Management 

A road is a motor vehicle route more than 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a 

trail. There has been a steady increase in road miles in the Forest Service since the 1940’s. 

Some of that increase is due to better inventorying and classifying of existing roads. Many of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 214

roads were constructed to support timber harvest activities, as well as other commodity uses 

(mining, grazing, special uses). Today, recreation is the largest single use of National Forest 

System roads, accounting for the majority of the use on them. 

Roads can have both beneficial and negative effects. Roads provide access for multiple uses, 

access to private lands, and firebreaks, and if properly constructed can mitigate negative effects 

of past roading. They can have undesired effects on hydrology, sedimentation, source of humancaused fires, habitat fragmentation, predation, road kill, invasion by exotic species, dispersal of 

pathogen, some recreational experiences, water quality and chemical contamination, soil 

productivity and biodiversity (Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, 2000). 

Roads management is an important aspect of Forest management on the Wasatch-Cache NF. 

Most of the administrative, commercial and public travel on the Forest occurs on roads. The 

Forest transportation system contains about 1,500 miles of forest roads under Forest Service 

jurisdiction that provide access to and through National Forest System lands. These include twotrack roads that are planned for closure. Roads that are under municipal, county, and state 

jurisdiction or private roads that provide access to the Forest complete the transportation 

network. Forest roads are authorized primarily for the administration, protection, and utilization 

of National Forest lands. Through travel management planning, public access opportunities on 

roads are provided, along with the controls and restrictions necessary to achieve specific land 

management objectives and direction. 

The extent of the road system varies by management area. The Western Uintas, Eastern Uintas, 

and Cache-Box Elder management areas have the largest mileage of District travel plan roads, 

while the Central Wasatch Management Area has the fewest travel plan road miles. Management 

areas that are smaller in size and have a high amount of wilderness and roadless acreage tend to 

have fewer roads. 

Table RM-1. Management areas and their associated size and miles of road found within the area. 

Management Area Size 

(acres) 

Total Forest 

Service Road 

(miles(1)) 

Private 

Roads 

(miles) 

County 

Roads 

(miles) 

State 

Roads 

(miles) 

Other 

Federal 

Roads 

(miles) 

Bear 52,251 115

Cache – Box Elder 288,173 307

Central Wasatch 97,543 92

Eastern Uintas 306,167 370

North Wasatch – 

Ogden Valley 142,193 162

Stansbury 68,931 42

Western Uintas 280,670 419

Forest-wide (2) 1506 25 20 84 37

(1) This does not include the Federal, State or County roads which may be found in the 

Management area. 

(2) Forest-wide miles of road do not include Forest Service access roads located outside of the 

management areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 215

A road might be classified, unclassified, or temporary. Classified roads are those needed for 

motor vehicle access, authorized by the Forest Service, and intended for long-term use. They 

include state, county, private, and National Forest system roads. Temporary roads are authorized 

by contract, permit, lease or emergency operation, not intended to be part of the NFS 

transportation system and not necessary for long term resource management. Unclassified roads 

are unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways and off-road vehicle tracks, which have not been 

designated and managed as a trail. In the past, these unclassified roads were termed “temporary”, 

“pioneer”, “ghost”, “ways”, and “two-track” roads. Several of these roads were added to the 

Forest inventory in 1993 to assist in road management and so their future decommissioning 

could be carried out in a planned manner. With insufficient budgets enforcement, 

decommissioning, and restoration of these roads has been limited. 

Road Management Objectives 

Road Management Objectives (RMO) are established for all classified roads and provide criteria 

for design, operation and management of the road. Design standards such as number of lanes, 

lane width, surface type, vehicle types, expected traffic volumes dictate management standards 

including functional class, traffic service levels and maintenance level. Access needs, 

environmental constraints, and economics are considered when determining the appropriate 

standards to be applied. 

Functional Class. Forest roads provide access in a branching system of arterial, collector, and 

local roads. Arterials provide access to large land areas, typically by linking to county roads, 

state highways, or communities. They have the highest standards for construction and 

maintenance, because of a larger volume of traffic they carry. Collector roads disperse traffic 

from arterials to large forest areas, such as watersheds. Local roads used to access specific 

project areas or sites are usually short roads of a lower standard of construction. 

Table RM-2. Miles of Road by Function Class 

Functional Class Miles 

Arterial 21 

Collector 243 

Local 1,341 

 Source: Forest Service INFRA Database. 

Traffic Service Levels. Traffic service levels represent the significant traffic characteristics and 

operating conditions for a road: Level A (most efficient and free-flowing) through D (single 

purpose, low volume). 

Table RM-3. Miles of Road by Traffic Service Level 

Traffic Service Level Miles 

A 19 

B 150 

C 923 

D 511 

Source: Forest Service INFRA Database 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 216

Surface Type. The surface type of the road represents the material placed on the road template, which the 

vehicle tires are in contact with. Different surface types are utilized to provide an efficient transportation 

system in terms of use, maintenance level, traffic service level and maintenance costs. Table RM-4 

shows miles of road by surface type. 

Table RM-4. Miles of Road by Surface Type 

Surface Type Miles of Road 

Asphalt 55

Bituminous Surface Treated 16

Crushed Aggregate or Gravel 143

Improved Native Material 226

Native Material 1,165

Maintenance Levels. Road maintenance levels prescribe the upkeep and restoration work 

necessary to retain a desired service level. Maintenance levels are divided into operational 

maintenance levels and objective maintenance level. Operational ML describes the existing 

condition of the road in terms of current maintenance activities. Objective ML prescribe the 

upkeep and restoration work necessary to retain a desired service level. Level 1 maintenance is 

the lowest standard and is used to close roads from motor vehicle traffic, while preserving the 

investment in the road structure. Level 2 through 5 are maintenance levels for roads open to fullsized motor vehicle traffic. Level 2 is used for high-clearance vehicles, such as trucks and fourwheel drive vehicles. User comfort improves as the maintenance level increases up to level 5, 

which is a road with a paved smooth surface. 

Table RM-5. Miles of Road by Operational and Objective Maintenance Level 

Maintenance 

Level 

Objective

(Miles) 

Operational 

(Miles) 

1 27 75

2 903 1069

3 499 368

4 74 39

5 102 54

Source: Forest Service INFRA Database 

Road Maintenance and Decommissioning 

As a result of road maintenance budgets not keeping up with inflation and road deterioration, the 

condition of many roads on the Forest has fallen below the levels necessary for resource 

protection and to efficiently support the traffic volumes being carried. Commercial user 

contributions, because of fewer activities like timber sales, have decreased in recent years. 

Several county roads that provide access to the Forest are substandard. County governments 

continue to provide maintenance on some Forest roads, but at reduced levels. Trends indicate 

that increased volumes in the future; especially from recreation-oriented traffic will continue. 

With road maintenance budgets not keeping pace with inflation and road deterioration and traffic 

volumes on the Forest road system dramatically increasing, many roads have not been 

maintained to the levels prescribed in management objectives. Maintenance on roads is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 217

expensive, with new roads costing, on average, approximately $1,500 per mile annually. In FY 

2000, the Forest Service received about 30% of the estimated funding needed to maintain its 

existing road infrastructure. Annual accomplishment reporting indicates that the Wasatch-Cache 

road maintenance program has achieved maintenance on approximately 23% of the 

transportation system. This means that a large number of miles of road are in a deteriorating 

condition and are causing resource damage, especially because of erosion control problems. 

Many are rutted and rough and barely usable. Road maintenance activities have been mainly 

focused on stabilizing and removing public safety hazards on Forest roads. 

 To address the declining ability of the Forest to provide adequate maintenance and restoration 

work, physical closures to motor vehicles (Maintenance Level 1) and road obliteration have been 

employed to an increasing degree. There has not been adequate funding to decommission 

unclassified roads at more than a few miles per year. Decommissioning a road usually includes 

stabilization, restoration or conversion of an existing roadbed to a more natural state. A number 

of these unclassified roads are user created roads. Reporting of roads decommissioned started in 

1991 and since then an average of 20 miles of road per year have been obliterated. This includes 

90 miles of classified FSRs and 128 miles of unclassified roads on the Forest. Figure 1 shows 

miles of classified and unclassified roads decommissioned per year since 1991 as reported in 

annual accomplishment reports. The cost to decommission a road varies greatly by the standard 

and location of the road as well as the level of needed treatments. Cost estimates should be 

based on a case-by-case basis. 

Many local roads are primitive, poorly located and difficult or impossible to maintain. They are 

continuing to deteriorate, cause resource damage and become safety hazards and many need 

reconstruction. Non-system travelways are usually not necessary for administration of NFS lands 

or access to them. Many of these routes are old timber, range or mining roads that may or may 

not have been altered to eliminate vehicular traffic. Others have been created by unapproved 

recreational use. Because many of these ways appear on the landscape as a road and in many 

cases cause resource damage, there is a need to monitor their use and condition and close them as 

soon as funding allows. 

Figure RM-1. Roads decommissioned on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest from 1991 to 2001. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

19911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Miles of Road

Unclassified

Classified
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 218

Roads decommissioned include classified and unclassified roads. This chart may include roads 

where the use has been converted to trails. It may also include roads that have been 

decommissioned as a road has been rerouted to minimize environmental damage such as the 

Temple Fork Road. 

Public scoping has shown that many of these travelways are of interest and value to some Forest 

users. Some of the public wants them kept open (or re-opened) for motorized and mechanized 

recreation and access, while others want them closed to protect roadless, non-motorized 

recreation, wildlife and watershed values. As these routes are located and inventoried, 

management objectives for them need to be developed. In many cases, the objective will be to 

eliminate the route by obliteration and revegetation. 

Road Construction and Reconstruction 

The current plan had miles of new roads construction and reconstruction planned on the Forest. 

Primarily, because of reductions in the timber sale program and lower than expected 

appropriations for capital investments, many of these roads were never constructed or 

reconstructed. Over the past decade, road construction has declined significantly. Since 1986, 

there have been 48 miles of road constructed and 214 miles of road reconstructed. Road 

reconstruction and realignment is intended to improve water quality, provide wildlife security 

areas, and create an efficient transportation system. 

Figure RM-2. Road improvements as projected in the 1985 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan 

(●) compared to the actual improvement completed () on the Forest for the year 1986 

through 2002. 

New Construction

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Fiscal Year

Miles of Road

Reconstruction

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Fiscal Year

Timber Purchaser

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Fiscal Year
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 219

Road Density 

The 1985 plan states road density levels will be established for management areas based on 

criteria such as public safety, excessive soil loss or water quality degradation, conflict with 

wildlife habitat use, roads not needed for resource management, protection of visual quality, 

returning area to forest production, reducing user conflicts, reducing maintenance costs, and 

providing diverse opportunities for non-motorized recreation. As a result of establishing density 

levels, roads were to be closed, further evaluated or left open. In some cases on the Forest, actual 

densities inventoried during project planning were found to be much higher than the maximums 

presented in the 1985 Plan. Some areas identified in 1985 as too high in road density, still have 

undesirable road densities (Wasatch – Cache Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation, 

1999). Travel Management planning has been the approach for evaluating these on a case-bycase basis for retaining or decommissioning. 

Revised Statute 2477 

It is believed there are few Revised Statute (RS) 2477 roads on the Forest. These roads are public 

ways constructed across public lands prior to the date of National Forest reservation, have some 

form of construction, and have been used as a public highway. The Forest Service does not have 

a definitive regulatory mechanism by which it can administratively recognize public roads under 

RS 2477. Only a legal determination usually through a court action can actually establish an RS 

2477 right-of-way. 

Roads Analysis 

In January of 2001, the Chief of the Forest Service approved a new road policy that uses a 

science-based forest transportation system that meets the needs of the public yet minimizes or 

reverses the environmental impacts often caused by roads. The new policy is aimed at providing 

managers tools to make better more informed decisions about where, when and if new roads 

should be constructed, to close or decommission old unneeded and unauthorized ghost roads; to 

upgrade forest roads as appropriate, to meet changing uses, local communities access needs and 

growing recreation demands and to identify sustainable funding sources for maintaining forest 

roads system. 

Interim directive 7710-2001-3 of the Forest Service Manual provides managers direction for 

completing the roads analysis. It relies on the Forest Service report called Roads Analysis: 

Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA Forest 

Service 1999). Roads analysis is an integrated ecological, social, and economic science-based 

approach to transportation planning that addresses existing and future road management options. 

A Roads Analysis of the forest’s higher standard roads, Maintenance Objective Levels 3-5, was 

completed during the winter of 2002. Identification of potential environmental risks and benefits 

for individual road segments will be helpful in prioritizing future watershed analysis or other 

site-specific analysis of the transportation system. A more detailed description of the analysis 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 220

process followed can be found in FEIS Appendix B-5. The complete report is posted on the 

forest website at www.fs.fed.us/wcnf. 

Scenic Byways and Backways 

Several US and State Highways, as well as County roads access the Forest. There are several 

designated Forest Service scenic byways and backways on the Wasatch-Cache: 

Table RM-6. Scenic Byways and Backways on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Name Number Type 

Logan Canyon US 89 Byway 

Ogden River Utah 39 Byway 

Big Cottonwood Utah 152 Byway 

Little Cottonwood Utah 210 Byway 

Mirror Lake Utah 150 Byway 

Skyline Drive FS Roads 007, 008 and 167 Backway 

Trapper Loop Utah 167 Backway 

Willard Peak FS Road 084 Backway 

Hardware Ranch Utah 242 Backway 

South Willow FS 171 Backway 

Guardsman Pass Utah 224 Backway 

Pioneer Memorial Utah 65 Backway 

North Slope FS Roads 058 and 072 Backway 

Broadhead Meadow FS Road 416 Backway 

Source: Forest Service GIS Database. 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

Road construction and reconstruction are usually associated with timber harvest, utility lines, 

mineral and energy development, recreation facilities, and public safety. Most of the Forest road 

needs for the current level of use are in place. Reconstruction, maintenance, and 

decommissioning of existing facilities are expected in all alternatives. Projections for new 

construction are much lower than was predicted for the previous planning period. Commercial 

use of the transportation system has declined in the 1990s and this trend is expected to continue 

in the coming decade. On the other hand, recreation traffic has increased substantially. This 

shift in traffic composition and user types is a driving force for development of new travel 

management philosophies and strategies. 

New standards and guidelines have been developed to mitigate the impacts on natural resources 

resulting from the current road system and its increased use. Nationally, the trend in the 1990s 

has been to redirect maintenance funding to decommission unneeded roads and improve the 

maintenance conditions of those remaining. A smaller, more efficient transportation system is 

the expected outcome. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 221

Even though the total overall miles of roads do not change significantly by alternatives, the 

management prescriptions assigned to areas may affect some future road management objectives 

for specific areas. An example of this would be within a Prescription 3.2D, after completion of 

vegetation treatment projects to improve terrestrial habitat, whether or not roads remain open 

will depend on the overall road density and specific wildlife management needs in the area. 

Maintenance effects are the same for all alternatives based on experienced budget levels. Roads 

are usually maintained on a priority basis with items like user safety, resource protection, and 

user comfort needs used to prioritize roads for maintenance. Road maintenance will probably 

remain below full capacity based on those budgets, but it is hoped that it will improve over 

current levels, because of the emphasis nationally on environmental effects caused by roads and 

needed maintenance to reduce those effects. 

Travel Management Planning 

Presently, travel management across the Forest is identified in District travel plans. These travel 

plans remain in effect until they are revised based on site-specific analysis including public 

involvement. The final decision for plan revision could have some effects on travel management 

planning. This includes potential road management changes based on management prescriptions 

as described in the example above. 

Public comments and discussions after review and comment on the DEIS revealed needs for 

updating some District Travel Plans, particularly Ogden, Salt Lake, and Logan Ranger Districts. 

Given this need an Objective was developed and included in the Revised Forest Plan to complete 

this work in the near future. Changes resulting from these site-specific Travel Planning analyses 

may require Forest Plan amendment, particularly if they affect Recreation Opportunity Class 

mapping. This is an expected and appropriate type of adaptation of the Plan to changes in the 

future. 

The Revised Forest Plan provides implementation guidance for travel management planning in 

the form of criteria and considerations to be used during updates. Site-specific issues to be 

addressed in future travel planning could include seasonal road closures, wildlife and fisheries 

habitat needs, undeveloped recreation site access, resolution of user conflicts, designated OHV 

routes, and/or mountain biking routes. 

Comments on the DEIS also raised questions about how Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

mapping was intended to be used in the future when Travel Management Plans are updated. 

People wanted to know whether a mapped ROS Class such as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

would preclude consideration of additional motorized routes in that area, for example to develop 

a loop between existing motorized routes. Likewise, people asked if an area is mapped as SemiPrimitive Motorized because of an existing motorized trail, would that trail be precluded from 

consideration for closure and return to non-motorized status because of the ROS Class. These 

excellent questions resulted in re-examination of how ROS was to be used and what its 

relationship is to Travel Management Planning. Our conclusion was this: ROS Maps will 

provide direction for managing recreation settings until such time that Travel Management Plans 

are updated through site-specific analysis. As Travel Plans are updated, that analysis can 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 222

include alternatives that would require amendment of the Forest Plan ROS Maps. In other 

words, ROS Mapping necessarily follows Travel Management Plan updates, rather than 

preceding them or precluding certain changes to them. This ensures that a range of options can 

be considered at the site-specific level which is the appropriate scale for decision making on 

designated open travel routes. 

Open road densities are defined by current District travel plans. Generally road density stays the 

same in alternatives for most areas, except for slight decreases, where there are roadless areas 

recommended for wilderness and slight increases, where there would be roads constructed for 

timber harvest or oil and gas exploration and development in roadless areas. Disposition of 

roads after use for these purposes needs to be decided in site-specific analyses and will be tied to 

Management Prescriptions. 

Results of Roads Analysis 

As stated earlier the Wasatch-Cache, using the roads analysis process, conducted an analysis of 

roads with a Maintenance Objective level of 3, 4, and 5. This process resulted in 

recommendations, not decisions. Roads were evaluated with consideration of their “costs” and 

“benefits”. Costs were defined as environmental threats to resources such as water quality, 

riparian habitat, terrestrial species and aquatic species. Of the 423 road segments analyzed, 28 

segments or 13.0 miles of road had insufficient information to identify environmental risks. 

Seventy-five road segments or 77.8 miles of road were identified as having a low environmental 

risk. Two hundred segments or 357.1 miles of road were identified as moderate environmental 

risk. One hundred and twenty road segments or 179.2 miles of road were identified as having 

high environmental risks. 

Benefits were defined as providing public, private or administrative access and maintenance 

costs. No road segments were identified as being low benefit based on the above criteria. This 

finding was likely given that the roads analyzed were of higher maintenance objective levels. 

One hundred and sixty two road segments or 131.1 miles of road were identified as having 

moderate benefits. Two hundred and sixty one road segments or 496.1 miles of road were 

identified as having high benefits. 

By comparing the cost and benefit relationship for a road segment, the initial forest wide review 

suggests that 275 road segments or 434.9 miles of road should be retained. No roads segments 

of maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 were initially identified for potential decommissioning. Sitespecific analysis will be required to validate these findings. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Roads and access management are affected in several different ways from management of 

inventoried roadless areas. Because recommended wilderness does not allow mechanized or 

motorized use, access for these uses on currently open roads and trails within areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 223

recommended for wilderness would be eliminated. Alternative 1 has 2.3 miles of system travel 

plan roads that would be closed as a result of inventoried roadless areas being recommended for 

Wilderness designation (1.9 miles in Lakes and 0.4 miles in Stansbury roadless areas). All other 

alternatives have no system travel plan roads in recommended wilderness areas and therefore no 

road closures would result from wilderness recommendations. 

Alternatives 1 would be the most restrictive on motorized access on trails in roadless areas 

recommended for wilderness. Alternative 1 would affect about 76 miles of motorized trails in 

roadless areas recommended for wilderness. Alternative 2 would affect about 7 miles of 

motorized trails in roadless areas recommended for wilderness, Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 have no 

motorized trails in roadless recommended for wilderness. There would be no displacement of 

motorized recreation users because no wilderness recommended in alternatives 4 and 5. 

Mountain bike use is not allowed in wilderness or recommended wilderness. Alternative 1 has 

the most miles of trail currently open to mountain bikes that are in recommended wilderness at 

167 miles, followed by alternatives 2, 7, 6, and 3. Alternatives 4 and 5 with no recommended 

wilderness should have no effects on mountain biking. 

The Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule would have an effect on road construction 

and reconstruction. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 incorporate this rule. The direct effect of the rule in 

these alternatives is that roadless dependent values in inventoried roadless areas would receive 

protection and management emphasis. It could preclude new road access (not trail) within these 

areas to forest resources such as timber, minerals, and additional motorized recreation 

opportunities. 

Under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, no new road construction or reconstruction would 

be permitted within Inventoried Roadless areas without one or more of the following exceptions: 

• To protect health and safety threatened by a catastrophic event; 

• To conduct environmental cleanup, 

• To provide for statutory or treaty rights; 

• To prevent irreparable resource damage; 

• To rectify existing hazardous road conditions; or 

• A road is part of a Federal Aid Highway project. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Recreation

Access that is safe and convenient to the Forest Visitor is critical to ensure a positive recreation 

experience. Recreation use will continue to increase as the population growth along the Wasatch 

Front continues and along with that, the use of forest roads will also increase. Arterial and major 

collector roads that connect the forest will experience increased day-use traffic especially on 

weekends. This traffic will add to the maintenance necessary to keep the roads in a safe and 

structurally sound condition. 

In alternatives 3 and 5, roads constructed from timber harvest could be left open after the harvest 

to maximize access for recreation. Roads could also be left open in alternative 4, but other roads 

would have to be decommissioned to maintain current road densities. Roads being considered for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 224

decommissioning in future travel planning decisions can be evaluated on a site-specific basis to 

see if they could be converted to meet motorized and non-motorized trail needs. 

New road construction is not allowed in Alternative 1. For Alternatives 2 to 7, new road 

construction for recreation purposes is expected to be very low and not vary much by alternative. 

It is anticipated that some reconstruction will occur, but it will be minimal, since most of the 

infrastructure in is place. Road operation and maintenance activities will continue to be essential 

in providing safe and convenient transportation facilities. 

An adequate budget to support road maintenance will continue to be a challenge. Paved roads 

provide access to many campgrounds and cost $10,000 to $15,000 per mile to maintain. For 

most roads in the Forest, road damage occurs in the spring from recreational driving and in the 

fall from hunting activities, when wet weather conditions often saturate road surfaces. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Timber Harvest

Alternatives with higher amounts of timber harvest would have greater amounts of new road 

construction. Alternative 1 would have no new roads constructed for timber harvest. 

Alternatives 2, and 6 would have about 6 and Alternative 7 would have about 7 miles of new 

roads constructed for timber harvest. Alternative 3 would require about 39 miles of road 

constructed for timber harvest, while alternatives 4 and 5 would require the most new roads at 

about 49 miles. Given that the current budget levels for roads maintenance are not equal to the 

needs for the already existing road system, new roads would to the maintenance backlog. 

Indirect effects of timber harvest include additional access provided for other Forest activities 

such as recreation uses, management of livestock grazing, and fire suppression. Also funds 

generated through timber sales may be used to decommission unneeded roads within the sale 

area. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Oil and Gas Activities

Road construction is often associated with mineral and energy exploration and development 

activities. Limited road construction for these activities is anticipated for all the alternatives. Oil 

and gas exploration and development activities would require some road construction and 

reconstruction. Alternative 4 would have no new roads constructed because no leasing decision 

would be made. Alternatives 1 and 2 project 3 miles, Alternatives 3 and 6 project 6 miles and, 

Alternative 7 projects 7.5 miles. Alternative 5 would be the highest with an estimated 11 miles 

of road construction or reconstruction needs. For alternatives where new road construction is 

required, indirect effects would be access provided for other Forest activities such as recreational 

use and fire suppression if through site-specific analysis it is determined the road stays in place. 

Effects on Roads/Access Management from Special Use Authorizations

Pipelines, overhead power lines, and communication developments can potentially require road 

construction or reconstruction for installation and maintenance. In some cases, helicopters can be 

used effectively reducing new road construction needs. Little or no road construction and 

reconstruction associated with these sites is anticipated for all alternatives. A site-specific 

analysis would be needed prior to final approval of any utility or telecommunications site. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 225

Cumulative Effects 

Analysis Area and Area of Influence 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

The use of Forest roads will increase as populations grow and urban development expands near 

the WCNF. Primarily for recreational purposes, Forest arterials and major collectors that 

connect the WCNF to these areas are expected to experience the most increased day-use traffic, 

particularly on weekends. This traffic adds to the maintenance work necessary to keep roads in a 

safe and structurally sound condition. Road use for non-recreational purposes is not expected to 

increase and should not add substantially to road use surrounding the WCNF. 

As travel to and through the WCNF increases, there will be an increase in congestion on 

surrounding public roads. Roads could see increases in use during the winter as decisions by 

other land management agencies such as in Yellowstone National Park restrict the use of 

snowmobiles within their areas. This could lead to more use locally as snowmobile use is 

displaced elsewhere. 

The Forest Service is required by law to provide reasonable access to private inholdings. As 

ownership of these lands has changed in recent years, routes previously open to public access are 

frequently gated and locked. Current funding levels for activities to obtain right of ways are 

inadequate to keep up with these changes and public access to National Forest boundaries is 

decreasing. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 226 

Topic 4 – Recreation/Scenery Management 

Recreation 

Introduction 

The following discussion provides information regarding recreation in the WCNF. The initial 

discussion concerns the currently existing condition (or affected environment) of the WCNF as it 

relates to recreation management. It provides descriptions of management concerns regarding 

recreation; factors considered to predict how recreation may be affected by the various 

alternatives; and existing laws, regulations, and policies by which recreation is managed. 

Following these discussions is a section describing how the various alternatives could affect 

recreation management. It describes general effects regarding each alternative, then more 

specific effects from potential management actions and the possible consequences of those 

actions. 

Other resource areas and concerns also affect recreation management. Other topics closely 

related to Recreation Management include Topic 3-Roads and Access Management and Topic 5 

Roadless Areas/Wilderness. 

Recreation management for the USDA Forest Service involves a majority of natural and natural 

appearing settings that can assist in “quality recreation opportunities within the sustainable 

capabilities of National Forest ecosystems. We will emphasize natural settings and address the 

diverse interests of all Americans...” (USDA Forest Service. 2000a, pp.1). Managing recreation 

use within the sustainable capabilities of the land will be no easy task as “recreation is the fastest 

growing use on the national forests and grasslands” (USDA Forest Service 2000a, pp.2). This is 

true on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) where providing quality natural and natural 

appearing settings has long been a focus of management to promote a quality recreation 

experience. 

The WCNF is a worldwide attraction for visitors seeking a variety of recreation settings. 

Recreation is currently the predominant use in the forest. Because of the forest’s adjacent 

relationship to urban communities it is highly influenced by the rapid population increases 

occurring in the area. As recreation use has increased, so have conflicts between various user 

groups that are seeking the same areas for their recreation experience. This increased demand 

for specific recreation settings has created concerns for managers due to the deterioration of 

resources and facilities from overuse or conflicts among visitors with incompatible recreation 

activities or desired experiences such as motorized versus non-motorized. 

In 1985 and 1995 the WCNF ranked first in total recreation visitor days (RVD’s) in the National 

Forest system and consistently ranks in the top five forests for overall recreation use numbers. 

Factors affecting recreation management on the WCNF relevant to Forest Plan development 

include: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 227 

• rapidly growing and diversifying urban populations adjacent to the Forest and the 

competition with rural historic uses in the less urban parts of the forest resulting in 

conflicting desired uses and experiences 

• education of the public to understand the effects of their activities on National Forest System 

lands and the need for them to actively participate in the management of these lands 

• increasing undeveloped recreation demand, both summer and winter, where undeveloped 

sites may not provide adequate resource protection 

• development of new technologies which change or increase visitors’ ability to access and use 

various parts of the forest 

• need for integrating recreation management with other resource values 

• lack of awareness and understanding among recreationists of the potential for undesirable 

resource and social impacts from their behavior while using the Forest 

• budget allocations which are flat or decreasing in spite of ageing facilities and increasing 

demands 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

People have always enjoyed relatively free access and opportunities on federal public lands, 

although outdoor recreation as we now know it was not a priority consideration when the country 

began to set aside national forests. Laws from the late 1800’s and early twentieth century 

focused on the establishment of national forests; on extractive uses including water, minerals, 

timber resources and livestock grazing; and on a variety of property and administrative 

management needs. Recreation use was present, but it was an unstated ancillary benefit. 

Since World War II demand in America to use national parks, national forests, and other public 

lands has grown continuously, and legislation from the 1960’s through the present day has more 

specific language on outdoor recreation on federal lands. 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960) – adds outdoor recreation as a use for which national 

forests were established. 

Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 – provides for establishing 

Wilderness for environmental preservation as well as recreation. 

Land and Water Conservation Act (1964) – provides continuing access to national forests and 

funding for recreation and defines admission and recreation fee collection guidelines. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968) – establishes that buildings, facilities, and vehicles meet 

standards suitable for persons with disabilities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 228 

National Trails System Act (1968) – establishes that trails be provided to meet increasing 

recreation needs. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) – establishes Wild and Scenic Rivers system, designates 

some rivers for the system, and defines appropriate levels of use and recreation within the 

system. 

Executive Order 11644 (1972) and 11989 (1977) Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands – 

provides for closing areas to off-road vehicles where resources would, or are, being negatively 

impacted. This is also covered under 36 CFR 295. 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974) – includes recreation 

among resources for which forest planning is required. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) - provides for standards so that disabled persons will 

not be discriminated against and have opportunities for access and use of facilities. 

 

Over the past decade additional federal emphasis has been placed on outdoor recreation as a 

primary purpose for national forest use. Recently, the Forest Service has developed The 

Recreation Agenda, (USDA Forest Service. 2000a). This document clarifies agency policy and 

defines national principles, processes, and priorities in providing quality recreation 

opportunities. Recreation emphases from 100 years ago are being redefined. 

Affected Environment

Forest-wide Recreation

“The Forest Service has a unique ‘niche’ of nature based recreation to offer, including 

undeveloped settings, built environments reinforcing the natural character, and wildland settings 

that complement enjoyment of these special places” (USDA Forest Service. 2000a, pp.2). 

The WCNF is unique in several recreation aspects. Recognized as an urban forest, the WCNF is 

the backyard to nearly 1.7 million people living in close proximity to the forest. These people 

bring with them a wide range of recreational interests. People can drive from 15-30 minutes 

from their home and be at a ski area, developed recreation facility, trailhead, or Wilderness area. 

This part of the forest is most commonly visited for day use or short trips. Generally, these areas 

are more developed and have more recreation visitor days (RVD’s) than other parts of the forest. 

The backsides of the Wasatch Front, including areas around Kamas, Logan, the north slope of 

the Uintas, and the Stansbury Mountains are generally less developed and provide fewer RVD’s. 

Visits are of longer duration and rural values influence the desired opportunities. 

 

Finally, during winter, the WCNF is known for some of the best snow and skiing conditions 

available. Utah is nationally known for its quality snow and skiing terrain. Out of the 14 

downhill ski resorts in the state, the WCNF administers five special use permits for operations 

based on WCNF lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 229 

The backsides of the WCNF offer less developed areas for winter snow-play, snowmobile 

touring and hi-marking, groomed ski trails, and backcountry winter yurts used by the more hardy 

winter visitors. 

Recreation managers generally concern themselves with managing settings and with determining 

what types of activities may be appropriate within each setting. To match the diversity of 

recreation interests with appropriate opportunities, the WCNF offers a variety of recreation 

settings. These settings are differentiated by the amount of development and other attributes 

incorporated into a recreation-planning tool called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). 

The Forest Service uses this mapping and classification system to distinguish between different 

types of recreation settings in the Forest. The ROS system provides a way to help managers and 

recreation users understand what recreation experiences to expect and where these are available 

across the Forest. ROS can help people visualize the variety of natural outdoor settings, the 

types of activities that can be pursued, and how many other people might be found in an area of 

the Forest. 

For WCNF planning, the Forest was divided into six recreation opportunity categories and one 

sub-category that are differentiated by the physical setting (remoteness and human modification), 

social setting (the amount of social interaction between users) and managerial setting (the 

amount of managerial presence and information). See FEIS Appendix D-2 for complete 

descriptions of settings for the ROS classes. The ROS classes were conceptualized to range from 

a primitive setting with little development or site modification, low visitor interaction and 

minimum management presence (such as the interior of the High Uintas Wilderness), to an urban 

setting where visitors may see an unlimited number of people in a highly developed landscape 

with the highest level of management presence (e.g. Pineview Reservoir area). Table REC-1A 

and Figure REC-1 display the existing condition (as inventoried) Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum acres, by Ranger District, for summer recreation opportunities in the WCNF. 

Table REC-1a. Existing Condition Summer ROS Acres by District 

ROS Category Summer ROS Existing Condition Acres by Ranger District 

 Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mtn. View Ogden Logan W-C Total

Rural 0 0 0 0 700 0 700 

Roaded Natural 38,500 29,000 34,200 53,400 32,900 44,700 232,700 

SPM 28,400 64,300 32,200 39,700 55,300 56,800 276,700 

SPNM 86,800 75,500 50,200 29,800 67,900 105,800 416,000 

Urban 100 0 0 0 100 0 200 

Wilderness/Primitive 0 4,300 47,000 67,600 0 0 118,900 

Wilderness/SPNM 61,600 12,800 17,800 30,300 0 67,500 190,000 

SPM: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

SPNM: Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 230 

Figure REC-1. Relative Acres Inventoried Existing Condition ROS by District 

ROS summer existing condition was mapped separately from winter recreation existing 

condition. Both ROS summer and winter recreation existing condition is derived from current 

District Travel Management Maps. A comparison of Tables REC-1A Existing Condition and 

REC-1B 1985 Forest Plan shows that since 1985, the Forest Plan ROS map for both summer and 

winter has not been updated to show changes in management resulting from Travel Planning. 

The inventoried existing condition is used as a base line for comparing Alternatives other than 

Alternative 4 which represents direction of the 1985 Plan. For comparison of Alternatives and 

how they might affect today’s recreation opportunities, the existing condition is more meaningful 

than Alternative 4. The Alternative 4 (1985 Plan) ROS summer classes reflect higher levels of 

maintenance on roads than what is currently being managed for. However, available budgets 

have not matched 1985 projections and subsequent maintenance and development was less than 

anticipated creating the current existing condition. Alternative 4 represents the 1985 plan ROS 

map for desired future condition showing a possible increase in budgets and an increased level of 

maintenance for roads neither of which have happened to the degree anticipated. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Acres

Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mtn. View Ogden Logan

 Existing Condition Summer ROS

R

RN

SPM

SPNM

Urban

Wilderness/Primitive

Wilderness/SPNM
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 231 

Table REC-1b. Relative Acres in 1985 Forest Plan ROS by District 

For winter recreation, budget had little to do with changes in management. For actual motorized 

winter access in 1985, technology was the limiting factor. There are numerous areas on the 

Forest that are shown as open to winter motorized recreation on 1985 maps but that were not 

accessed by motorized users due to the steepness of slope, snow conditions, and vegetation 

densities. Since 1985, winter motorized access has changed significantly because of 

technological enhancements. Today few areas on the Forest are not accessible by wintermotorized users. Again, the 1985 Maps were not kept up-to-date as changes were made to 

winter motorized recreation through Travel Planning. Tables REC-2a and REC-2b show the 

comparison of Existing Condition Winter Recreation (REC-2a) and 1985 Winter Recreation 

(REC-2b). Note that we have included an inventory of areas both in and outside of designated 

Wilderness where motorized use is occurring even though the areas are closed to motorized use. 

These are labeled “w/Trespass” in Table REC-2a. 

 

Table REC-2a. Existing Condition Acres of Winter Recreation by District 

Winter Recreation Opportunities Existing Condition Acres of Winter Recreation by Ranger District

Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mtn. View Ogden Logan W-C Total

Heli-skiing 17,300 0 0 0 0 0 17,300 

Motorized 8,500 154,100 94,800 93,500 108,400 175,400 644,500 

Non-Motorized 144,800 14,700 20,100 27,700 49,400 27,600 274,400 

Non-Motorized w/Trespass 100 0 1,600 1,600 0 4,100 7,300 

Wilderness 61,300 17,100 64,800 97,900 0 51,300 292,400 

Wilderness w/Trespass 400 0 0 0 0 16,300 16,700 

ROS Category Summer ROS 1985 Plan Acres by Ranger District 

 Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mtn. View Ogden Logan W-C Total

R 6,400 500 0 0 5,300 1,500 13,700 

RN 25,400 109,600 93,300 122,700 59,100 135,300 545,400 

SPM 34,100 2,400 0 0 24,300 24,700 85,500 

SPNM 83,200 56,400 23,100 200 59,600 19,300 241,800 

Urban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wilderness/Primitive 61,500 17,100 64,800 98,000 0 66,100 307,500 

Wilderness/SPNM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 232 

Figure REC-2a. Relative Acres of Existing Condition Winter Recreation Opportunities by District 

Table REC-2b. Acres from 1985 Forest Plan of Winter Recreation by District 

Winter Recreation Opportunities 1985 Forest Plan Acres of Winter Recreation by Ranger District

 Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mtn. View Ogden Logan W-C Total

Heli-skiing 17,300 0 0 0 0 0 17,300 

Motorized 65,900 168,600 95,100 122,700 103,800 167,000 723,100 

Non-Motorized 83,200 200 21,400 200 49,300 13,900 168,200 

Wilderness 61,500 17,100 64,800 98,000 0 66,100 307,500 

Types and Levels of Recreation Use 

While the different settings classified above provide the basic opportunities for recreation 

experiences, it is important for recreation managers to recognize what activities visitors are 

coming to the Forest to enjoy and to understand any trends in user demand. The Forest Service 

Recreation Information Management (RIM) reports display information on the types and amount 

of recreation activity that takes place on the Forest. These reports contain estimates of the 

number of Recreation Visitor Days (RVD = number of people on WCNF for a 12 hour period of 

time) for selected activities. These reports were updated yearly, until 1997, by looking at the 

percent of change based on fee payments, highway traffic counts, and field manager estimates of 

the changes in use. 

Between 1984 and 1997, WCNF RIM reports indicate that use on the forest increased by nearly 

1 million visitor days. Although RIM reports do not display exact numbers of visitors, they are 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Acres

Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mtn. View Ogden Logan

Ranger District

Heli-skiing

Motorized

Non-Motorize

Non-Motorize/Trespass

Wilderness

Wilderness/Trespass
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 233 

useful to show trends in use patterns over time. Table REC-3 ranks the top ten selected activity 

categories for the WCNF based on 1996 RIM numbers and shows how these activities ranked 

within the Intermountain Region (R4). 

While not in the top ten use categories some activities and trends are of additional management 

concern. Mountain biking showed no RVD’s in 1984 and over 95,000 in 1997. Off highway 

vehicles showed 100 RVD’s in 1984 and 10,973 RVD’s in 1997. There is a dramatic trend 

toward increased use of ATV’s and snowmobiles. The number of snowmobiles and ATV’s 

registered in Utah has climbed from about 26,000 in 1980 to about 111,000 in 2000 (Thompson, 

H. 2001 2001). There is a trend toward increasing numbers of ATV user created trails and ATV 

operation on roads with mixed traffic. Growth in these activities is an important consideration for 

managers as well as visitors. 

Forests nationwide are developing new databases to help recreation managers provide consistent 

information to users, Congress, and agency decision makers. The National Recreation Business 

Management System (Meaningful Measures) is being developed to help improve management 

effectiveness by establishing quality standards, estimating costs, and prioritizing workloads. 

Information for this database is still being input and analyzed. Eventually this system will 

provide the most consistent data available. 

Table REC-3. Ranking of the Top Ten Forest Activities by 1996 Reported RVD’s and How That 

Activity Ranks in the Intermountain Region (R4) 

*Similar categories were combined to create these categories. 

^These uses account for 84 percent of total reported 1996 RVD’s. 

Demand

As a primary provider of outdoor recreation settings for Northern Utah, the WCNF is feeling a 

tug-of-war between various recreation user groups and their desires and demands of the forest. 

In general, there is a continuing and growing demand for a diversity of recreation opportunities 

on public lands. As the population continues to grow (predicted to be an increase of 1,000,000 

by 2020, (EU, 2002), it is expected that the demand for outdoor recreation will increase at a 

similar or greater rate (USDA Forest Service, 1995). 

Managers do know that undeveloped recreation use is increasing. According to Cole (1996) in 

an analysis of National Wilderness and Park Service use data, backcountry recreation use has 

increased with an average annual growth rate of 11.4 percent per year since 1990. This rate is 

Activity^ 

Regional 

Ranking 

 1. Auto Travel 2 

 2. Camping* 1 

 3. Downhill Skiing 8 

 4. Hiking/Walking* 5 

 5. Viewing Scenery* 4 

 6. Picnicking 9 

 7. Hunting* 7 

 8. Fishing* 6 

 9. Recreation Cabin Use 14 

10. SnowPlay* 3 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 234 

likely even higher since the analysis did not include day use, which is also thought to be 

increasing rapidly, or motorized undeveloped recreation. Many of these demands are not 

compatible with the desired experiences of other recreation user groups as well as the various 

other multiple use interests (e.g., grazing, oil and gas leasing, timber harvesting, etc.). 

Conflicts between users are becoming more prevalent and according to one study (Muth and 

Fairey, 1995) social conflicts over recreation opportunities will increase in the future. This is 

largely due to an increase in conflicting individual and social values leading to a greater diversity 

of special interest groups, each advocating recreation activities that suit their own needs. 

Competition for allocations of recreation opportunities often results in conflicts when desired 

activities are not compatible (Blahna, Smith, and Anderson, 1995). This is resulting in an 

increasing need for conflict management. In light of population growth estimates, we also 

anticipate conflicts will increase. The day will come in the near future when the WCNF will not 

be able to meet the diversity of demands placed on it. This leaves forest management in the 

position of deciding which demands may or may not be met in the future. 

Tourism, and marketing associated with it, also affects demand and availability of recreation 

opportunities. The State of Utah considers tourism an important source of current and future 

economic growth. According to information in the (Utah, State of. 2000e) tourist demand has 

shown only modest growth recently (1-2 percent), but is expected to grow at a greater rate over 

the next five years due to the publicity and recognition related to Salt Lake City hosting the 2002 

Winter Olympics. For the WCNF much of the tourist industry is associated with driving for 

pleasure and downhill skiing. Additional services of value to visitors from outside of the area, 

and provided within WCNF lands, include outfitting and guiding for hunting, fishing, and winter 

sports activities. 

The diversity of Utah landscapes provides spectacular scenic vistas for the traveling public. The 

WCNF is no exception as demonstrated by the one National Scenic Byway, four State Scenic 

Byways and nine State Scenic Backways (see Table RM-6 in Topic 3-Roads Access 

Management) providing opportunities for driving for pleasure and viewing scenery. Downhill 

skiing is a major attraction bringing visitors to Utah. Being within a one-hour drive from a major 

international airport and a large metropolitan area, the five ski resorts on the WCNF provide 

some of the easiest downhill ski access anywhere for out-of-area visitors. Nature-based activities 

such as hunting and fishing depend on large, open areas with intact habitats one could find on the 

WCNF. Winter sports are also dependent on open, high elevation settings found largely on the 

WCNF. 

Current demand on the WCNF from the tourism industry is not known. Demand is affected by 

numerous factors such as weather, economic considerations, currency exchange rates, and 

marketing and promotion efforts. By providing a diversity of recreation opportunities within the 

natural setting, the WCNF partners with the tourism industry to provide for many of the 

opportunities they market. 

 

Developed Recreation 

Developed recreation sites are those areas containing a concentration of improvements, facilities 

and services which are built primarily to invite, encourage or enhance participation in a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 235 

recreation activity or visitor experience as opposed to providing facilities just for resource 

protection. Improvements considered developed sites could range from campgrounds with water 

systems, flush toilets and showers, to small trailheads with bulletin boards or barrier rocks, to 

delineated parking lots. 

The WCNF manages a wide array of developed recreation sites. Concessionaires now operate 

approximately 98 percent of these sites under permit. Concessionaires are private businesses, 

which operate and maintain Forest Service recreation facilities under special-use-permits 

(SUP’s). Five major ski areas are managed under SUP’s on the WCNF. Private concessionaires 

operate about 70 campgrounds and assorted day-use, picnic areas, boat launches, interpretive 

sites, and some trailheads (Table REC-4). Many campgrounds are older facilities, which have 

trouble accommodating visitors driving larger vehicles, often with recreation vehicles in tow. 

Many of these older sites are also not designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. 

Table REC-4. Number of Developed Recreation Sites 

by Ranger District on the WCNF and the 

Number of People at One Time (PAOTs) Sites are designed to Accommodate 

Data from Meaningful Measures Report # 34, developed on Jan. 5, 2001 

Some of these developed facilities are constructed by the Forest Service on public land, but are 

managed and maintained by concessionaires. These publicly developed facilities often include 

campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads. The WCNF also has permitted uses where the 

facilities are constructed and maintained by the businesses or private individuals, but are located 

on public lands. These privately developed facilities can include Winter Resorts (generally ski 

areas), recreation residences, and organization camps. Whether these developed facilities are 

SLRD 

(D1) 

KRD 

(D3) 

ERD (D4)/ 

MVR (D5)

ORD 

(D6) 

LRD (D7) FOREST 

TOTALS 

SITE TYPE # Sites / 

PAOTs 

# Sites / 

PAOTs 

# Sites / 

PAOTs 

# Sites/ 

PAOTs 

# Sites / 

PAOTs 

# Sites / 

PAOTs 

Publicly Developed Facilities 

Campgrounds 13 / 3205 19 / 3572 15 / 1995 13 / 1935 16 / 2355 76 / 13062 

Picnic Areas 19 / 2105 6 / 435 1 / 45 3 / 1190 10 / 605 39 / 4380 

Interpretive/Obser. 2 / 410 7 / 326 5 / 125 2 / 70 15 / 325 31 / 1256 

Boat Launch/Swim 3 / 758 3 / 758 

Trailheads 10 / 904 16 / 1653 13 / 1322 10 / 640 18 / 1497 67 / 6016 

Angler Parking 10 / 693 2 / 120 12 / 813 

Winter Resorts 4 / na 1 / na 5 / na 

Winter Play Area 1 / 420 1 / 420 

Privately Developed Facilities (Under Special-Use Permit) 

Recreation 

Residences 142 / 710 41 / 205 40 / 200 45 / 225 83 / 415 351 / 1790 

Organization Camps 1 / 50 2 / 100 1 / 50 2 /100 2 / 100 8 / 400 

Clubs 2 / 100 1 / 50 1 / 50 2 / 100 6 / 300 

Restaurants 1 / 100 1 / 100 

Stores 1 / 25 1 / 25 

Outfitter and Guides 6 / na 3 / na 1 / na 0 / na 5 /na 15/na 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 236 

public or private, they all operate under Forest Service regulations specified in their individual 

permit. 

Currently most districts on the Forest report that campgrounds and many other developed sites 

are full on weekends from July through September. In the more popular sites, use exceeds 

capacity. There are two types of capacity considered for management of developed sites, design 

capacity and operational capacity. Design capacity is based on the number of people at one time 

(PAOT) a site is designed to accommodate. The operational capacity of a site is calculated as 40 

percent of the design capacity and is the level beyond which long-term resource damage is likely 

to occur. Information extracted from the Meaningful Measures database (Table REC-5) suggests 

that developed recreation sites are nearing design capacity, or meeting it at the most popular 

individual sites, during holidays and week ends in the summer season. Table REC-5 also shows 

that developed sites are exceeding operational capacity during the high use and holiday seasons. 

Table REC-5. The Weighted Average Occupancy, 

by Percent and Season of Use, 

of Developed Recreation Sites on the WCNF 

Season of Use and Percent Occupancy 

Ranger District High Shoulder Low/Closed Holiday 

Salt Lake RD 48% 15% 1% 99% 

Kamas RD 78% 31% 5% 92% 

ERD/MVRD 35% 7% 0% 75% 

Ogden 51% 30% 8% 85% 

Logan 33% 15% 3% 69% 

WCNF 49% 21% 4% 84% 

Data from Meaningful Measures Report 34, developed on Jan. 5, 2001 

In light of the population growth projections for the state, visitation is expected to continue to 

increase, causing some weekend visitors to be displaced or unable to find their desired recreation 

setting or experience. Some of these visitors will be displaced to less developed or undeveloped 

areas where increasing concentrations of human use are more likely to cause unacceptable 

resource impacts. 

Undeveloped Recreation 

Concentrated Use Areas (CUAs) are areas where undeveloped site(s) are located where 

amenities management focuses on resource protection rather than user convenience. They may 

contain some level of development, but improvements are made with the primary purpose of 

protecting the biophysical resource. 

 

As developed campgrounds fill–up on weekends during the summer, visitors are displaced, often 

to undeveloped camping areas where no mitigation measures have been taken to protect the 

resource. Many other visitors choose an undeveloped setting for their desired activities or 

experiences. Some visitors, such as horseback and OHV groups, are often restricted from 

developed sites and must choose undeveloped recreation sites. These groups often select 

trailheads for their camp, increasing impacts there and affecting availability for other user groups 

and day use activities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 237 

Recognizing their uses have impacts some organized groups, such as Backcountry Horsemen of 

America, work with the Forest Service to educate the public concerning equestrian impacts and 

assist the Forest Service in maintenance and rehabilitation projects. 

Recreation managers do not know exactly how many people use the forest daily, what they come 

for, or how they perceive their visit. We do know that there are unacceptable levels of resource 

impacts in some areas. Heavily used undeveloped campsites in riparian areas; evidence of litter 

and human waste; and campsite impacts relating to soil, vegetation, aquatic resources, and water 

quality are all concerns. 

While the aerial extent of these factors in relation to the total size of the WCNF is small, these 

localized concerns can cause unacceptable impacts to valued biophysical or social resources. 

These impacts may be the result of desired activities, but may also affect the desired experiences 

of other visitors or the desired condition of associated resources. 

Hunting is one activity that places a high demand on undeveloped recreation settings. This use is 

seasonal and intense. Visitors tend to camp in large groups extending resource impacts beyond 

other typical uses. The major hunts for deer and elk occur in the late fall when roads and trails 

are often wet, causing impacts to these systems as well as soil, water, and vegetation resources. 

Fishing use occurs over a longer period with peak use on weekends. Impacts are localized to 

lake and stream shores with some additional impacts at highway pullouts and associated access 

trails. 

Trails Management 

Another important component of undeveloped recreation is the trail system. Trails provide 

visitors access away from developed recreation sites and support many recreation activities such 

as backcountry camping, hiking, hunting, horseback riding, OHV riding, and mountain biking. 

The Forest trail system is managed for multiple-use. However, not all uses are accommodated on 

all trails. Trails are managed to facilitate public travel and access in the backcountry. Continued 

access to well-maintained and signed trails is of great importance to our public users. An 

increased demand for trail activities has placed a greater emphasis on trail system planning, 

construction, and reconstruction. 

In general, many trail users expect a primitive experience with physical challenges. However, 

there are exceptions, such as urban trails with limited grades and easy walking surfaces, nature 

trails, and short popular destination trails. Access for range, fire control and other administrative 

uses are other purposes for trails. 

 

The need for trails and their management is a priority by both the public and the Forest Service. 

In January of 2001, President Clinton signed an executive order called “Trails for America in the 

21st Century” which emphasized providing trail opportunities of all types with minimum adverse 

impacts and maximum benefits for natural, cultural and community resources. 

Most of the trails on the WCNF receive very high use, except for a few more remote, low 

maintenance trails. Many trails now receive year-round use. Hiking, horseback riding, biking 

and motorized use of trails are popular in the summer. Winter use on trails for cross-country 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 238 

skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling has greatly increased. Trails are often crowded at 

popular trailheads on weekends and holidays, particularly near the Wasatch Front. 

One of the most challenging issues for trail managers is where to provide opportunities for 

motorized and mechanized travel on trails, as well as to minimize user conflicts and resource 

impacts. All trails are open for hiking and most are open to horseback riding and biking. There 

are a few closures for horses such as in the Salt Lake City watershed (which is also mostly closed 

to motorized uses), on interpretive-nature trails, boardwalk trails, during some recommended 

seasonal closures such as during wet conditions, and winter cross-country ski or snowmobile 

trails. A few trails in the Forest, primarily interpretive nature trails, are barrier free and facilitate 

access for the physically challenged. 

Specific routes and their appropriate uses are displayed in Travel Maps created at the Ranger 

District level. These maps indicate which routes are motorized or non-motorized in the summer 

and winter, as well as showing which areas are open and closed to oversnow motorized uses. On 

the WCNF summer overland travel is on designated-open routes only. Oversnow travel is less 

restricted with open areas and a few designated routes. Motorized use is especially popular 

during the fall hunting season. 

There are 1679 miles of system trails on the Forest of which 1381 miles (82 percent) are nonmotorized and 306 miles (18 percent) are motorized. Motorized uses are also allowed on most of 

the approximately 1600 miles of road within the Forest many of which are relatively primitive 

providing a rugged motorized experience. Of the non-motorized trails 358 miles (26 percent) are 

in Wilderness (Table REC-7). In addition to these total miles, there are approximately 162 miles 

of state groomed snowmobile trails on all but the Salt Lake Ranger District that have not been 

added to the system trails inventory. There are approximately 427 different trails on the forest. 

In addition, there are many user-created non-system trails. The 1985 Forest Plan listed 

approximately 1,041 miles of trails. This shows a 38 percent increase in mileage since 1985; 

however, much of this difference may be due to changes in inventory accuracy and types of trails 

counted. 

The Cache-Box Elder Management Area has the highest percentage of total miles of trails and 

non-motorized trails (25 percent) of the seven management areas, while the Western Unitas 

Management Area has the highest percentage of motorized trails (29 percent) (Table REC-6). 

Table REC-6 includes only trails and portions of trails that are on WCNF lands. The table does 

not include portions of trails that are on private or state lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 239 

Table REC- 6. Trail Miles by Management Area 

Management Area % of Total 

Miles on the 

Forest

% of NonMotorized Total 

Miles on the 

Forest

% of 

Motorized 

Total Miles on 

the Forest

Bear 3 3 2 

Cache – Box Elder 25 25 23 

Central Wasatch 14 16 4 

Eastern Uintas 20 23 9 

North Wasatch-Ogden Valley 13 12 20 

Stansbury 5 3 13 

Western Uintas 21 19 29 

Appropriate trail uses are typically managed at the Ranger District level. The Salt Lake Ranger 

District has the most miles of trails (total miles and non-motorized miles) of all the Ranger 

Districts, while the Kamas Ranger District has the highest amount of motorized miles (Table 

REC-7). There are several designated, motorized trail networks. Approximately 57 trails are 

open to ATV use and 74 trails are open to motorcycle use on the Forest. 

Table REC-7. Non-Motorized, Motorized, and Wilderness System Trail Miles 

by Ranger District 

In the winter, snowmobile use is very popular. There are groomed snowmobile trails on all 

Districts except for Salt Lake. Most of these routes are on roads closed for the winter and are 

groomed in partnership with the State of Utah, Division of Parks and Recreation. Snowmobiling 

is not allowed in Wilderness, research natural areas, groomed cross-country ski areas, or critical 

big game winter range. Trails open to snowmobiles vary, depending on District travel plans and 

snow conditions. 

miles

% 

Dist % WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

WC

1 Hiking 36.1 10 14 76.3 28 30 77.2 33 31 20.0 7 8 34.6 15 14 6.9 2 3 251.1 15

2 Hiking, Biking 96.8 27 79 0 0 1.0 0 1 23.0 8 19 0 0 2.0 1 2 122.8 7

3 Hiking, Biking, Horse 116.0 32 21 77.4 28 14 39.3 17 7 19.2 6 4 158.7 68 29 137.5 49 25 548.1 32

4 Hiking, Horse 35.0 10 8 70.0 25 15 93.2 40 20 171.8 56 37 0 0 88.8 32 19 458.8 27

5 Hiking, Biking, Horse, Motorcycle 42.3 12 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.0 12 30 19.6 7 22 88.9 5

6 Hiking, Biking, Horse, ATV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 100 3.0 0

7 Hiking, Biking, Horse, ATV, Motorcycle 25.6 7 12 52.8 19 26 22.2 10 11 71.5 23 35 12.7 5 6 21.6 8 10 206.4 12

8 Hiking, Biking, ATV, Motorcycle 7.7 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.7 0

Total 359.5 100 21 276.5 100 16 232.9 100 14 305.5 100 18 233.0 100 14 279.4 100 17 1,686.8

miles

% 

Dist % WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

Dist

% 

WC miles

% 

WC

1 None* 313.9 87 30 45.0 16 4 123.6 53 12 172.7 57 17 150.5 65 14 237.3 85 23 1,043.0 62

2 XC Ski 4.0 1 6 9.0 3 14 10.2 4 16 20.0 7 31 21.2 9 33 0 0 64.4 4

3 Snowmobile 41.3 11 11 200.5 73 52 32.1 14 8 89.8 29 23 19.6 8 5 3.9 1 1 387.2 23

4 Snowmobile, Groomed Snowmobile 0 0 21.9 8 14 67.0 29 41 23.0 8 14 41.7 18 26 8.3 3 5 161.9 10

5 Groomed Snowmobile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.3 11 100 30.3 2

Total 359.2 100 21 276.4 100 16 232.9 100 14 305.5 100 18 233.0 100 14 279.8 100 17 1,686.8

Summer Trail Use Categories

Winter Trail Use Categories

Salt Lake Kamas Evanston Mountain View Ogden Logan Total WCNF
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 240 

The types of trail uses, the volume of trail users, trail conditions, maintenance, available 

information, signing, and parking affect trail user experience. Many trails are open for more than 

one type of user. There are conflicts between user groups on trails. Many trails have evolved 

without considering trail location suitability or priority of uses. Problems with travel 

management direction include unclear management direction and the lack of loop facilities. 

Some trails that access National Forest land actually begin on private land, have been historically 

used for access and need right-of-ways for access because of developments and private 

landowners closing them off. Trailheads on the Forest vary from those with large parking lots, 

kiosks, and facilities to those that are just a small pull-off by the road. 

Some trails are groomed for cross-country ski opportunities and closed to motorized use. These 

areas on the Forest are quite popular. The main areas that are groomed for cross-country skiing 

are Mill Creek (Salt Lake District), Beaver Creek (Kamas District), Lily Lake (Evanston 

District), Henrys Fork and Dead Horse (Mountain View District) and about 10 trails on the 

Ogden Ranger District. 

In the 1985 Plan the goal was to construct and reconstruct 20 miles of trail annually. Only about 

25 percent of that objective was met, due to experienced funding. The 1992 Plan Monitoring 

Report identified an average of 4.7 miles of trail construction and reconstruction from 1986 to 

1991. From 1992 to 2000, approximately 46 miles of new trail have been constructed and 102 

miles of trail reconstructed on the Forest. Most new trails were constructed on the Salt Lake and 

Ogden Districts (Central and North Wasatch – Ogden Valley geographic areas), while the 

Kamas, Evanston/Mountain View (Western and Eastern Uintas geographic areas) and Logan 

Districts (Cache – Box Elder geographic area) have higher mileages of reconstructed trails. 

A large backlog of trail maintenance exists and many of the older trails in the system are in poor 

condition and continue to deteriorate because of lack of budget for maintenance and improper 

location. Only a small percentage of trails receive adequate maintenance due to limited trails 

management budgets. Some maintenance of trails is done by volunteer labor. The Forest Service 

is currently doing inventories of existing trails (INFRA) and determining costs to maintain and 

bring trails up to standards (Meaningful Measures). 

Special Designation Trails 

The Forest has two designated National Recreation Trails – Bald Mountain Trail on the Kamas 

Ranger District and the Naomi Peak on the Logan District, more than half of which is in the 

Mount Naomi Wilderness. 

There are also small National Historic Trail segments of the Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and 

the historic Donner-Reed route. These three trails use the same route, cross small portions of the 

Forest just north of Mountain Dell Reservoir and south of Big Mountain Pass on the Salt Lake 

Ranger District. In addition, the Weber Canyon route of the Hastings Cutoff National Historic 

Trail passes through about two miles of National Forest lands on the Ogden Ranger District. It is 

believed there is no intact portion of this route remaining. There are two very important regional 

trails on the Forest, the Great Western Trail and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 241 

The Great Western Trail (GWT) is a trail of National, Regional and Statewide importance. The 

plan for it is to include over 4,455 miles of roads and trails crossing five states including Utah 

from Canada to Mexico. Approximately 1,600 miles of the trail is in Utah, including those 

segments on the WCNF. The trail has been proposed as a national trail in a new designation 

called “National Discovery Trails”. These National Discovery Trails will be continuous 

interstate trails and their purpose is to help users experience and learn about aspects of American 

life and history and aid in connecting urban areas with rural and backcountry areas. 

In most cases, the trail corridor is a combination of existing roads and trails and has both 

motorized and non-motorized segments. Trail segments facilitate both winter and summer use. 

Often the trail has parallel routes to separate motorized and non-motorized users. Local 

communities view the GWT as providing both recreational and economic benefits. Most of the 

route exists on the Wasatch – Cache and segments cross all Districts on the Forest except for 

Mountain View. The segment on Kamas and Evanston Ranger Districts is winter only and 

follows the Mirror Lake Highway 150 and Soapstone Basin Road 80037. 

The Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST) is a trail proposed by the State of Utah with regional and 

local importance. The trail was designated as one of sixteen national Millennium Legacy Trails 

in October 1999. It will stretch more than 100 miles north to south along the Wasatch Front, 

tracing the ancient eastern shoreline of Lake Bonneville as much as possible. The proposed route 

is from Santaquin in the south to Brigham City in the north. Additional proposals extend the 

BST north from Brigham City along the Wellsville Mountains to Tremonton, and then the trail 

would enter Cache Valley and follow the shoreline there. This trail affects the Salt Lake, Ogden 

and Logan Ranger Districts of the Wasatch – Cache, as well as the Uinta National Forest. 

Local communities look for the BST to provide both recreational and economic benefits. Parts of 

the trail have been constructed, other segments are in various planning stages and much of the 

preferred trail route is off the Forest, but it could provide essential ties between the communities 

and the WCNF. The route is proposed for non-motorized use. Uses such as horse back riding, 

biking and hiking may vary by the segment and location of the trail. 

The objectives of the trail are: 

• Provide ready access to the Wasatch foothills public lands. 

• Provide a place for people to pursue their recreational pursuits that is safe and aesthetically 

pleasing, trying where possible to accommodate a broad range of non-motorized uses. 

• Provide a place for people to have an opportunity for quiet and scenic recreational use 

nearby, yet apart from the urban Wasatch front. 

• Provide for rapid deployment of fire fighting resources to the urban/foothills interface, 

opportunities for backfiring operations, cleared trails for firefighter escape routes, and to 

serve as a buffer between the urban and natural environments. 

• Contribute to the preservation of aesthetic, wildlife, historic and educational values of the 

foothills. 

Recreation Special Uses 

Many uses on the WCNF require formal management authorization. All commercial uses on the 

WCNF are regulated. These uses are generally authorized by Special Use Permits (SUPs). 

Recreation special uses range from agreements with private entities to manage publicly 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 242 

developed facilities such as campgrounds and picnic areas to agreements regarding private 

facilities or activities such as ski areas, recreation residences or outfitter and guides (refer to 

Table REC-4 for uses under permit). 

Ski Area Management

Five ski areas operate on National Forest System Lands administered by the WCNF. Existing 

resorts include Alta, Snowbird, Solitude and Brighton located in Salt Lake County and 

Snowbasin located in Weber County. Since the 1985 Plan was written, Beaver Mountain ski 

area in upper Logan Canyon is no longer on National Forest System lands as the result of a land 

exchange completed in 1999. 

A number of ski areas lie outside, but near the Wasatch-Cache and influence development at 

National Forest-based areas. The Canyons Ski Resort, Park City Mountain Resort, and Deer 

Valley resort are located in Summit County and play a significant role in the ski industry of 

Utah. 

Nordic Valley, Beaver Mountain and Powder Mountain are smaller ski areas that serve local 

clientele. New development is also being planned on Bonanza Flat in Wasatch County with ski 

lifts and ski terrain connecting to Park City and Deer Valley and adjacent to Brighton’s 

development area boundary. 

 

Annual Skier Visits 

The number of skier visits to the resorts on the WCNF is shown in Table REC-8. It shows the 

average annual growth rate since the 1985-86 skiing season. The 1985 Wasatch-Cache Forest 

Plan predicted a compound growth rate of 3.02 to be most likely during the time period 1985 

through 2000 (USDA Forest Service. 1985). Forest plan projections were much higher than 

what has been experienced since 1985, which is essentially no growth. While these projections 

were oriented towards a different measure of skier activity, they provide a context for evaluating 

the accuracy of projections. The 1985 Forest Plan’s projections were too high every year, 

especially during years with poor snow conditions. (Utah, State of. 1998) 

Master Development Planning 

Of the five major ski resorts under special use permit from the Forest, four have recently 

completed updates to their Master Development Plans (MDP). These updates outline ski trail 

terrain modifications and new or replacement facilities to be built within the next five years. All 

approved MDPs are in various stages of implementation. 

Alta Ski Area MDP update was approved in November of 1997. Projects include trail 

modifications; lift replacements, building replacements, a remodeled day lodge, an access road 

and snowmaking facilities. All projects were approved to take place within current ski permit 

boundaries.

Brighton Resort MDP update was approved in October of 1999. Projects include trail 

modifications, lift replacements, replacement of buildings, a new day lodge, and additional 

snowmaking and further lighting for night skiing. Summer activities were expanded to provide 

more mountain biking opportunities. All projects were approved to take place within current ski 

permit boundaries.\ 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 243 

Table REC-8. Estimates of Utah Skier Visits 

by WCNF Ski Areas (in thousands) 

Governors Office of Planning and Budget – Utah Ski Database – available at 

www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/publications; and for more recent years (98,99,00)USDA-FS, 

Intermountain Region Annual Skier Totals (2000) 

Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort MDP update was approved in December of 1999. Projects 

include: trail modifications lift replacements, a new day lodge, a new mountaintop building, 

parking lot and road improvements and snowmaking facilities. Summer activities were 

expanded to provide more hiking opportunities. All projects were approved to take place within 

current ski permit boundaries. As part of the MDP, 500 acres of additional skiing terrain was 

opened on private land in Mineral Basin. 

Solitude Ski Resort MPD update was approved in January 2002. Projects include trail 

modifications, lift replacements and upgrades, remodeling of buildings, a new mountain 

operations center, new day lodge, new fire station, new mass transit center and entrance 

modifications and additional snowmaking. Summer activities were expanded to provide more 

mountain biking opportunities. All projects were approved to take place within current ski 

permit boundaries. Extensive development on private land at the base is mostly complete.

 

Snowbasin MDP was approved in 1997. A land exchange authorized by Congress, was finalized 

in the summer of 2000. About 1200 acres of National Forest System lands at the base of the 

resort are now private lands where future development is planned or ongoing. Mountain 

facilities continue to be operated under permit. Facilities, lifts, ski trails and connector highway 

were constructed for use in the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. 

Table REC-9 displays the number of Skiers At One Time for each of the ski resorts on the 

Forest. 

Ski Areas 

On Wasatch 

Cache NF 

Skier 

Visits 

1985/1986 

Percent of 

total Utah 

skier 

visits – 

1985/1986 

Skier 

Visits -

1999/2000 

Percent of 

Total Utah 

skier 

visits –

1999/2000 

Average 

annual 

growth 

rate - 

1986-2000 

Alta 439.7 17.7% 382.1 13% -1.0% 

Brighton 236.8 9.5% 337.1 11% 2.6% 

Snowbasin 77.6 3.1% 79.6 3% 0.2% 

Snowbird 343.2 13.8% 393.1 13% 1.0% 

Solitude 230.9 9.3% 175.3 6% -1.9% 

UTAH 2,491.0 100% 2,977.0 100% 0.2% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 244 

Table REC-9. Skiers At One Time (SAOTs) Capacity by Ski Area 

1985 1999 

SKI AREAS Lift Capacity 

(SAOTS)1

Number of 

Lifts2

Lift Capacity 

(SAOTS) 

Number of 

Lifts 

ALTA 4,525 8 5,2023 8 

BRIGHTON 3,000 4 5,1004 7 

SNOWBASIN 2,650 6 6,775 9 

SNOWBIRD 4,400 8 5,9505 10 

SOLITUDE 3,400 5 5,600 7 

1

WCNF Forest Plan, pg II-7 

2

WCNF 1982 Analysis of the Management Situation 

3

Approved capacity from 1997 MDP FEIS 

4

Approved capacity from 1999 MDP FEIS 

5

Approved capacity from 1999 MDP FEIS 

Permitted Acres 

The five ski areas on the WCNF have been under permit for many decades. Since the Forest 

Plan was approved, the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act was enacted. It allows the private 

sector to be permitted to operate ski areas on National Forest System lands for a period of up to 

40 years. All resorts now operate under the newly issued 40-year permits. Table REC-10 

shows that acres under permit have not changed significantly since 1985. Permitted acreages are 

often slightly different than acres that have been accurately measured during MDP planning with 

computer digitized mapping of permit boundaries. 

Table REC-10. Permitted Acres, 1984 and 1999, by Ski Area 

Acres Permitted – 

1985 

Acres Permitted1999 

SKI AREAS Private WCNF Private WCNF 

ALTA 321 1768 327 1803 

BRIGHTON 158 845 164* 851* 

SNOWBASIN 40 1801 40 1618 

SNOWBIRD - 881** 1629 1633** 

SOLITUDE 164*** 362 164*** 363 

Acreage taken from permits and applicable amendments except: 

- data not available at time of publication. 

*873 acres reported in MDP EIS. Difference in acreages is due to mapping. Brighton may have added 3 

acres within Brighton Circle as part of 1991 MDP decision. 

**from SL Ranger District FEIS, MDP and decision. 75 acres added in Mineral Basin, also private land in SL 

and Utah Counties. 

***from SL Ranger District – no change in permit boundaries since 1985. More recent mapping of boundaries 

shows about 527 acres NF lands. Any differences due to more accurate mapping. 

Future Expansion 

In 1991, Brighton proposed expansion onto private land in the Snake Creek drainage in Wasatch 

County and into Hidden Canyon in Salt Lake County. A land trust eventually was able to 

purchase the lands in Wasatch County. Salt Lake County never approved expansion into Hidden 

Canyon. In Brighton's most recent Master Development Plan (MDP), no expansion outside the 

permitted boundary was proposed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 245 

In the recent 1999 MDP decision for Snowbird, a proposal to include Scotty's Bowl in the permit 

area was denied. Snowbird has also expressed interest for expansion into White Pine.

Private Land 

Private land expansion and development are ongoing at the Canyons Ski Resort, Park City 

Mountain Resort, and Deer Valley Resort located in Summit County. New development is also 

being planned on Bonanza Flat in Wasatch County with ski lifts and ski terrain connections to 

Park City and Deer Valley. Development adjacent to Snowbasin on private lands is anticipated 

over the next several years. 

 

Statewide Visitation Trends 

Total skier visits in Utah are forecasted to grow from around 3 million currently, to over 4 

million by 2007. The forecast annual growth rate of 3.4 percent per year is almost twice the 

recently experienced rate of 1.8 percent per year since 1985. The major reason skier visit growth 

to 2007 is expected to grow more rapidly than since 1985 is that Utah’s skiing age population 

will grow much more rapidly than it has since 1985. Destination skier visits are expected to 

grow a bit more rapidly to 2007 at 3.1 percent per year. This is somewhat higher than the trend 

anticipated nationally. (USDA Forest Service. 1999d) 

Skiing in Utah has been on a steady growth path the last four decades. From a couple of hundred 

thousand during the early 1960s, skier visits in Utah have grown to over 3 million in the late 

1990s. While the overall Utah ski market has been growing, the structure of the market has been 

changing. Skiing in Utah has evolved from a predominately resident day outing activity to more 

of a destination week long vacation. By the 1990s, destination tourists made up 55 – 60 percent 

of the skier visits (USFS Forest Service. 1999d). 

Descriptions of Recreation by Ranger District 

Each Ranger District on the Wasatch-Cache offers unique recreation opportunities dependent on 

the physical setting, access systems, customer preferences for different types of recreation, and 

the relationship of recreation to other uses or management concerns. The following profiles are 

meant to provide a short description of the variety in recreation with some observed trends for 

the Ranger Districts on the forest. The variety and amount of recreation is considerable 

compared to most other national forests. (See Landscape for descriptions of physical settings 

within which recreation occurs.)

Salt Lake Ranger District 

The Salt Lake Ranger District (SLRD) manages recreation use in the Central Wasatch, North 

Wasatch-Ogden Valley and the Stansbury Management Areas. Managers consider three distinct 

areas on the district: the Wasatch Front, Davis County, and the Stansbury Mountains. 

Recreation use along the Wasatch Front is seasonal with distinctive peaks in both summer and 

winter. Summer use occurs from May to October, with a shorter season at higher elevations. 

Popular activities include hiking, camping, backpacking, driving for pleasure, fishing, and 

mountain biking. Local watershed protection regulations preclude horses and dogs from most 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 246 

Wasatch Front recreation areas. Winter use occurs from early November until April and popular 

activities include alpine/cross-country/nordic/backcountry skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, 

snow play, and helicopter skiing. 

Recreation use in Davis County and the Stansbury Mountains also occurs year-round. The 

majority of use occurs during the summer, from May to October. Popular activities include 

hiking, mountain biking, equestrian use, OHV use, hunting and camping. Winter use occurs 

from November to May and includes primarily snow machine use, however, minimal 

backcountry skiing, snowboarding, snow shoeing, cross-country and nordic skiing occur. 

Access Systems 

The SLRD is adjacent to the Wasatch Front urban center. Year round recreation areas are 

accessed by State Highways and Scenic Byways 210 (Little Cottonwood Canyon, LCC), 190 

(Big Cottonwood Canyon, BCC) and Salt Lake County Road Mill Creek Canyon, which is 

managed through a partnership with Salt Lake County. Visitors can also access the SLRD on 

several Scenic Backways including Immigration Canyon, East Canyon (SR 65), Farmington 

Canyon, Skyline Drive, Ward Canyon, and South Willow Canyon. 

SLRD also provides approximately 344 miles of system trails. This system includes motorized, 

non-motorized, and Wilderness trails as well as four miles of winter groomed ski trails. 

Notable Areas of National/Regional Significance 

The SLRD manages all or part of four Designated Wilderness areas: Lone Peak, Twin Peaks, 

Mount Olympus, and Deseret Peak. The Great Western Trail and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail 

are also part of the district. There are also four major downhill ski areas on National Forest 

System lands managed by the SLRD. 

Demand 

Over the past several years, recreation use has increased, particularly along the Wasatch Front. 

Traffic counts in LCC indicate a growth rate of approximately 2.9 percent over the last 20 years. 

In BCC there has been a growth rate of approximately 3.1 percent over the last 21 years. Salt 

Lake County, directly adjacent to the District, was receiving 30 percent of the state’s growth in 

1996. The population there is expected to grow from approximately 820,000 to 1,000,000 

people by the year 2010. Much of the projected growth is anticipated in Sandy (20 percent) and 

Draper (20 percent), which are adjacent to Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. 

High existing use levels, the proximity to a large urban population base, and the projected 

population increases all combine to create management concerns. Currently, managers deal with 

increasing and often intense user conflicts as well as issues regarding recreation management and 

facility development in a culinary watershed. Domestic animal management issues have 

increased as population increases. 

Developed Recreation 

There are a total of six developed campgrounds on the SLRD. Two are located in BCC, two in 

LCC, and two in Davis County. SLRD also provides 10 picnic areas, three interpretation sites, 

and 10 developed trailheads and a visitor information/interpretive center with a barrier free trail 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 247 

at Silver Lake. In the winter, the SLRD administers special use permits for four alpine ski areas, 

one nordic ski area and one heliski operation. The ski resorts also provide a range of 

undeveloped and developed-site summer recreation opportunities including lift and non-lift 

served hiking and mountain biking as well as interpretive and educational programs. Developed 

opportunities for fishing are provided in BCC at the Silver Lake Boardwalk and in Mill Creek 

Canyon at the Terraces Boardwalk. 

Undeveloped Recreation

Undeveloped recreation occurs in all three areas of the SLRD: Wasatch Front (primarily the tricanyons), Davis County, and the Stansbury Mountains, with the majority of use in the tricanyons adjacent to Salt Lake City. Hiking and mountain biking are the primary recreation 

opportunities along the Wasatch Front in the summertime. Opportunities for fishing are 

provided in LCC, BCC and Mill Creek. OHV and equestrian use are permitted in some areas 

where there is no conflict with watershed regulations. The Stansbury Mountains provide the best 

opportunities for undeveloped camping and equestrian use on the District. 

In the winter, backcountry skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing are the primary uses and are 

concentrated along the Wasatch Front. The SLRD manages three outfitter and guide permits for 

winter backcountry skiing. These uses all appear to be growing. Davis County and the 

Stansbury mountains receive substantial OHV and snow machine use. 

Kamas Ranger District 

The Kamas Ranger District (KRD) manages uses on a portion of the Western Uintas 

Management Area. July through September is the busiest season on the District, with 

campgrounds full nearly every weekend. Popular activities include camping, scenic driving, 

rock climbing, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and backpacking. Winter activities 

that visitors enjoy include snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. There are two 

permitted organization youth camps and two outfitter and guides that provide youth at risk 

programs, 

Access Systems 

The KRD is within one hour of the Wasatch Front urban center and is immediately adjacent to 

numerous small towns and rural areas in Summit and Wasatch Counties. State Highway 150, 

Mirror Lake Highway, is a designated State Scenic Byway, which provides the main arterial 

access into the heart of the KRD. There are approximately 270 miles of system trails including 

motorized, non-motorized, Wilderness, and winter groomed ski and snowmobile trails. 

Notable Areas on the District of National/Regional Significance 

The KRD is the western portal to the High Uintas Wilderness. This is the closest high elevation 

access point from the heart of the Wasatch Front urban center. The Mirror Lake Scenic Byway, 

a Forest Service Fee Demonstration Area, also bisects the KRD. The Bald Mountain National 

Recreation trail provides visitors opportunities for a short steep hike with exceptional views of 

the surrounding landscape. Bald Mountain stands at the juncture of four of the most productive 

watersheds in Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 248 

Demand

Over the past several years recreation use has increased, particularly along the Mirror Lake 

Highway corridor. Much of this use is spilling over from the urban areas of the Wasatch Front. 

Weekend activities are the most prominent. Group recreation sites continue to be very popular. 

Developed Recreation 

The KRD has 16 developed campgrounds along the Mirror Lake Highway. In addition, there are 

two campgrounds at the Smith and Morehouse area in the Weber River drainage on the northern 

edge of the KRD. There are also four picnic areas, nine trailheads and several interpretive sites. 

Undeveloped Recreation 

Undeveloped recreation management along the Mirror Lake Highway corridor has begun to 

emphasize more designated and hardened undeveloped areas to protect resource and social 

settings and provide for RV camping. Side routes and canyons continue to remain more open to 

user selected undeveloped sites. In winter, the Mirror Lake Highway is closed at the Soapstone 

Basin Road turn-off about 14.5 miles from Kamas. The remaining roadway and the Soapstone 

road are groomed for snowmobile traffic. The district also grooms the very popular Beaver 

Creek Ski trail along the highway. Three winter backcountry ski huts are under special use 

permit providing overnight backcountry and educational opportunities. 

Evanston and Mountain View Ranger Districts 

The Evanston and Mountain View Ranger Districts (E&MVRD) are managed as one district. 

They manage a portion of the Western Uintas and the entire Eastern Uintas Management Areas. 

These areas are the farthest from the Wasatch Front urban center with parts of the Mountain 

View District in Wyoming. With a relatively short season of warm weather, campgrounds and 

trailheads are full most weekends during July, August, and September. Popular activities include 

camping, fishing, horse use, hiking, backpacking, and ATV and mountain bike riding. In the 

fall, hunting season for two states (Utah and Wyoming) and four species of big game is a huge 

impact. With the change in technology of the snowmobile industry in the last 10 years the 

snowmobile use on the west side of the district is very large. The E&MVRD provide a full 

grooming program for both snowmobilers and cross-country skiers. Yurt and cabin rentals are 

also offered. 

The North Slope of the Uintas is a relatively gently rolling slope with elevations ranging from 

8,000 to 10,000 feet up to the High Uintas Wilderness. This Wilderness is comprised of steeper 

slopes dotted with high mountain lakes and streams with elevations of 10,000 to 13,580 feet. 

Lodgepole pine dominates the landscape, with significant areas vegetated with aspen or 

sagebrush communities. At higher elevations, Engelmann spruce and subalpine firs are the most 

common trees, with Douglas fir in isolated pockets. The landforms and soils are the result of 

massive uplifting followed by centuries of glaciations and erosion. 

Access Systems 

The west side of the district is within 11⁄2 hours of the Wasatch Front urban center via the 

Designated State Scenic Byway, State Highway 150, Mirror Lake Scenic Byway. Travel time 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 249 

increases to 21⁄2 to 3 hours from the Wasatch Front the further east visitors’ travel on a 

combination of Interstate 80, county and state highways, and graveled county and forest roads. 

In the winter, travel is longer as the Mirror Lake Highway is not plowed open. 

There are approximately 500 miles of system trails including motorized, non-motorized, 

Wilderness, and winter groomed cross-country ski and snowmobile trails. 

Notable Areas on the District of National/Regional Significance

The districts are the gateway to the heart of the north slope of the High Uintas Wilderness. They 

provide a very popular main access point to the highest peak in the state of Utah, Kings Peak at 

13,584 feet. The E&MVRD are also considered part of the National Petroleum Showcase. The 

Mirror Lake Scenic Byway and Fee Demonstration Area are also part of the districts. 

Demand 

Over the past several years recreation use has increased, particularly along the Mirror Lake 

Highway corridor. Much of this use is spilling over from the urban areas of the Wasatch Front. 

Weekend activities are the most prominent. 

Developed Recreation

There are nine campgrounds on the Evanston side of the District, with seven campgrounds along 

the Mirror Lake Highway. There are an additional five campgrounds on the Mountain View side 

of the District. Fifteen trailheads ranging from very small to fully developed campground 

facilities provide access throughout the north slope of the Uintas. Most of these trailheads 

provide access to the High Uintas Wilderness for hikers and equestrian users as well as summer 

ATV and mountain biking use outside of the Wilderness areas. Three picnic areas and six 

interpretive sites are also scattered across the districts. 

Undeveloped Recreation

Undeveloped recreation opportunities are widespread across the District, primarily due to the 

ease of terrain: Undeveloped sites are abundant on most of the districts, with well over fifty 

concentrated use areas. These uses range from motorized recreation to mountain biking and 

hiking, watercraft and fishing, hunting and ATV use. In winter, some trailheads provide access 

for winter snowmobiling, cross-country skiing with three groomed areas, and snowshoe use. 

Ogden Ranger District 

The Ogden Ranger District (ORD) is located adjacent to the northern edge of the dense 

population areas of the Wasatch Front. The ORD manages parts of the North Wasatch-Ogden 

Valley, the Bear, and the Box Elder-Cache Management Areas. Recreation management is 

complicated by the extensive amount of intermingled public and private land ownership. The 

ORD is primarily a day-use area. May through September is the busiest season on the District, 

with developed facilities full every weekend. Popular summer activities include camping, scenic 

driving, hiking, biking, boating, swimming, bird watching, hunting, and fishing. Winter 

activities include snowmobiling, ice fishing, downhill and cross-country skiing. Pineview is 

managed as a day-use reservoir with restriction on camping. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 250 

Access Systems 

The majority of the district is within one hour of the Wasatch Front urban center. The primary 

access route is State Highway 39 up Ogden Canyon and over Monte Cristo. Minor access points 

are from Interstate 84 over SR 167, Trappers Loop, or County Road 166 over North Ogden 

Divide. System trails just outside of the Ogden City limits are in significant demand for day use. 

Some of these miles of trail are on private property. Trails around Snowbasin Ski Area are also 

very popular. 

Notable Areas on the District of National/Regional Significance 

Pineview Reservoir with the adjacent shoreline and developed sites is the most heavily used 

recreation site on the WCNF. 

Demand 

Recreation use has increased slowly every year. Customer surveys have shown Most of the users 

are from the urban areas of the Wasatch Front. Nearly all of the recreation use comes from a five 

county area around Ogden. 

 

Developed Recreation 

There are thirteen campgrounds, one picnic-ground, two marinas, three swim beaches, two 

fisherman parking, eleven trailheads, and two overlooks on the ORD. Most of the developed 

sites are located in either the Pineview Reservoir, South Fork of the Ogden River, and Causey 

Reservoir. Pineview is the highest use recreation destination in northern Utah and is managed as 

a day-use area with overnight stays in developed campgrounds only. All campsites are full every 

Friday and Saturday night. Weekday use is approximately one-half that of weekend use. 

Developed recreation facilities under concession operation generate one of the highest annual 

revenues in the nation. A significant amount of the revenue is from second vehicles that come in 

after the primary recreation site user, and pays an additional fee. 

Snowbasin Ski area is under permit and affects 1850 acres of National Forest System Lands as 

well as adjacent private property. Snowbasin was a venue during the 2002 Winter Olympic 

Winter Games. There is authorization in concept for development of a four-season destination 

resort. 

Undeveloped Recreation 

Undeveloped recreation occurs along most of the paved and natural surface roads in the District. 

Hardened undeveloped areas, to protect resources, have been provided in the Monte Cristo area 

near State Highway 39. Many of the inventoried undeveloped sites are used only during the big 

game hunting season. In winter, most of the Monte Cristo and Curtis Creek areas are extremely 

popular for snowmobiling. The snowmobile trailhead at Monte Cristo is one of the highest use 

winter trailheads in the state. 

Logan Ranger District 

The Logan Ranger District (LRD) manages most of the Cache-Box Elder and part of the Bear 

Management Area. The LRD shares management of these areas with the Ogden Ranger District. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 251 

The LRD is located in Cache Valley, Utah with a population nearing 80,000. It is within a 1.5-

hour drive from the Wasatch Front urban center. 

Visitors to the LRD participate in world-class rock climbing, mountain biking, horseback riding, 

canoeing, kayaking, as well as the more traditional uses like hunting and fishing. Some of the 

best snowmobile high-marking and touring in the country, cross country skiing, and telemark 

skiing are also found here. 

 

Access Systems 

Highway 89, a Scenic Byway and major north/south transportation route, is a very popular scenic 

drive, which links this area with Jackson Hole, WY and Yellowstone National Park. Hardware 

Ranch Utah 242, a Forest Service Scenic Backway provides for travel along the southern and 

eastern portion of the District, linking back into Highway 89 just before it drops down to Bear 

Lake. There are approximately 25 motorized access points onto the LRD providing travel on 

about 297 miles of roads. There are an additional 59 miles of motorized trails, 136 miles of nonmotorized trails, and 85 miles of Wilderness trails. In the winter, the LRD and the ORD also 

share about 150 miles of snowmobile trails groomed by the State of Utah. 

Notable Areas on the District of National/Regional Significance 

The portion of Highway 89 which bisects the LRD is a regionally significant travel way. It was 

designated a National Forest Scenic Byway in 1989, a State of Utah Scenic Byway in 1990 and a 

National Scenic Byway in 2002. Approximately $600,000 of Federal Grant, private and local 

government funds were invested in interpretation and additional visitor services in this stretch of 

highway in 1998 and 1999 with the project completed in 2000. The LRD also manages two 

designated Wilderness areas, the Mount Naomi Wilderness and the Wellsville Mountain 

Wilderness. Within the Mount Naomi Wilderness is the Mount Naomi Peak National Recreation 

Trail that takes visitors from a low elevation trailhead in Cache Valley to the popular Tony 

Grove recreation area. The Great Western Trail also traverses the district providing a regionally 

significant trail travel corridor. 

The LRD also contains a regionally significant biodiversity corridor, thought to connect 

ecosystems to the north and south. More locally significant are the cliff walls of Logan Canyon, 

home to many endemic plant species as well as world-class rock climbing routes. 

In the winter, the LRD is nationally known for its snowmobile opportunities. The complexes of 

groomed trails shared with the ORD have been rated among the top 15 areas in the west and is 

considered the most popular area in the State of Utah. 

Demand 

Over the past several years, recreation use has increased all over the district. More and more 

visitors are spilling over from the Wasatch Front. Developed recreation sites are generally full 

on weekends from July to September. In the summer, motorized use has increased dramatically 

with recreation ATV riding increasing in popularity. Rock climbing remains a popular activity, 

but the pioneering of new routes is decreasing. Horse use also remains popular, with local users 

requesting new facilities to increase resource protection. In the winter, snowmobile use has 

boomed with trailheads full every weekend. Visitors come from all over the country for the fine 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 252 

powder and steep slopes. As the popularity has increased, so has the season of use with riders 

sledding in marginal conditions. Telemark and cross country skiing remain popular, although 

conflicts with other uses have affected the opportunities provided and skier experiences. 

As technology advances and the population grows, use patterns appear to be changing. Aging 

campgrounds on the LRD are not sized or suited for the larger vehicles visitors now drive. 

Snowmobiles and ATV’s power up slopes and through vegetation not previously explored. 

Backcountry skiers go further, stay out longer, and attack steeper terrain than previously. 

Fishermen read about and visit the Logan River more frequently. Rock climbers visit for the 

5.11+ rated routes. 

There is no longer an off-season. In some areas, springtime hikers compete for parking space 

with skiers and snowmobilers. Kayakers play in sections of the Logan River along with the 

fishermen. Summer campers are increasingly accompanied by OHV’s. During the fall, visitors 

drive the area and stay to view the fall colors, while others are road hunting for deer or elk. 

Hunters seem to be doing less camping and more day hunts using ATV’s. As winter approaches, 

snowmobiles and ATV’s share the same trails to hunt or recreate. Full parking lots on weekends 

have displaced some snowmobiles to weekdays or nighttime. As the local population increases 

homes are being built ever higher on the benches, eliminating winter range and increasing 

recreation (and Wilderness) trespass along the Cache Valley front. 

Developed Recreation 

There are 15 campgrounds providing a variety of family and groups sites for day and overnight 

use. Two are along the northeast district front, 10 are up Logan Canyon, two in Blacksmith Fork 

Canyon, and one in Box Elder County. There are also nine picnic and day use sites, seven 

interpretive sites, and 17 developed trailheads. Tony Grove Lake is the most popular summer 

attraction with camping, fishing, canoeing, and hiking the favored activities. 

Undeveloped Recreation 

Undeveloped recreation is very popular on the LRD. Most of the camping sites are associated 

with the extensive road system. Almost 500 undeveloped vehicle camping sites have been 

inventoried by the LRD. The majority of these sites occur in the bottom of drainages along or in 

riparian areas. Low elevation sites are popular in late spring. As summer temperatures reach 90 

to 100 degrees and upper elevations dry out, campers tend to move to the shade in the higher 

elevations. 

Popular summer activities include hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, 

and viewing scenery and wildlife. The greatest increase in an activity with significant potential 

resource impacts is recreational riding of OHVs. Many visitors come to camp and bring OHV’s 

to tour the areas. Some are familiar with where they are and some are not. Many travel off of 

designated open routes due to lack of adequate signing or because designated routes do not take 

them where they want to go. 

In the winter, snowmobile touring, snowmobile highmarking, crosscountry skiing, and telemark 

skiing are very popular. Snowshoeing is a growing activity, while many scout groups visit for 

camping in snow caves. Conflicts between skiers and snowmobilers have been a concern for a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 253 

number of years. The district does provide for separation of uses in a few areas, but repeated 

violations by the snowmobilers of areas closed to motorized use have displaced some skiers and 

negatively affected the opportunities and experiences of others. 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

This section discusses effects on recreation from the following activities: Recreation, Road and 

Access Management, Vegetation and Fuels Management, Livestock Grazing, Inventoried 

Roadless Area Management, Wildlife Management, Soil,Water, Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic 

Species Resources Management, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Management, 

Special Management Areas, and Oil and Gas Activities. Also discussed are environmental 

consequences for ski areas that include effects from Roadless Area Management, Fire/Vegetation 

Management, Scenery Management, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, and Watershed and 

Soil Management. 

Many of the issues raised through public comment involve conflicts between recreation users. 

These issues are addressed in the section titled Effects on Recreation from Recreation which is 

divided into major topic areas: General Effects, Summer Recreation, Winter Recreation, Ski 

Area Expansion, and Heli-skiing. 

Many comments have been received regarding conflicts between users on travel ways, 

particularly trails. Examples of the conflicts are hikers who do not like the sight, sounds, uneven 

tread surfaces, smells of horses, bicyclists, and motorized users; horseback riders who are 

concerned with personal and stock safety when approaching hikers and motorized users; and 

bicyclists who are concerned with safety from meeting other users on a trail. Although these are 

important issues they are not addressed in this FEIS because the issues are more appropriately 

addressed for specific trails or travel ways during travel mangement planning. Under all 

alternatives, the Forest Plan recognizes this issue by providing Goals and Objectives aimed at 

working with users to reduce or resolve these types of conflicts. 

One of the issues identified through public comment is what levels of user densities we should 

manage for in the future and where. User densities are not established in this analysis, however, 

the issue is addressed through the summer ROS by identifying ranges of user densities for some 

opportunity classes. These density ranges are thresholds which when reached will trigger a 

public process for deciding on a site by site basis whether and how to limit recreation user 

densities. 

Effects on Recreation from Recreation 

General Effects 

Given population growth and advances in technology, the trend is for recreational uses of the 

Forest to occur on an ever-increasing portion of the WCNF. These uses generally have some 

level of impact to the natural environment. Impacts are quite varied and may depend on timing 

of the use, sensitivity of the location, use intensity and specific behaviors of recreationists. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 254 

Management decisions to allocate different parts of the WCNF to different management 

prescriptions will affect recreation uses to some degree in all alternatives. Effects to recreation 

opportunities are generally related to allowed activities that could result in changes in the natural 

setting and/or in the levels and types of access. 

The differences between alternatives and the relationship of these to current recreation 

opportunities for summer are displayed as acres of the various ROS summer settings in Table 

REC-11 and Figure REC-11. Appendix D-2 contains full descriptions of each of the seven 

Recreation Opportunity Classes. 

Table REC-11. Acres of Summer Recreation Opportunity Classes: 

Existing Conditions and Alternatives 

ROS Category Alternative and Existing Condition (EC) 

 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

 

1 Wilderness (MPC 1.1). 

2 Wilderness Semi Primitive Non-Motorized. 

3

 Semi-Primitive Non Motorized 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 255 

Figure REC-3. Acres of Summer ROS: Existing Condition (EC) and Alternatives 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Acres

1 2 3 4/1985 5 6 7 EC

Alternatives

Wilderness/Primitive

Wilderness/SPNM

SPNM

SPM

RN(Roaded Natural)

Rural

Urban

NA

Note: Existing condition is not shown in graph. See Table Rec-12 for existing condition acres. 

Recreation use (type and density of users) has an impact on the social and biophysical setting 

that can affect recreation opportunities and experiences. Under all alternatives recreation use and 

demand are expected to continue to increase. This increase, and changing demographics, may be 

accompanied by demand for a greater diversity in outdoor nature-based recreation opportunities. 

Emerging technologies will continue to create new uses with often new or unknown impacts. 

Effects of recreation use on the natural setting depend on facilities, site mitigations, user 

behaviors, user densities, site capability, design and many other factors. Based on the any one of 

these factors impacts to the natural setting can vary significantly. 

Conflicts among users may increase as available space becomes more crowded, where 

incompatible uses are not separated, or where desired opportunities are not available. However, 

new technology, such as quieter, cleaner running motors, might be used in the future to actually 

reduce conflicts between users. Also user behavior could be modified to reduce some types of 

conflicts. Because desired uses vary considerably, each alternative has advantages for certain 

groups of users while being less desirable for other groups. Conflicts between uses and natural 

resources protected by existing legislation (e.g., ESA, Clean Water Act, Federal Cave Resources 

Act of 1988) must be managed in accordance and through consultation with the appropriate 

entity such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives vary in the potential for these 

conflicts depending on which activities are allowed and where. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 256 

Finally, whichever alternative is selected, management actions must be developed to fit within 

the mapped ROS category, management prescriptions, and to move toward the Desired Future 

Conditions for a given management area. 

Because of the diverse desires for outdoor recreation activities, recreational experiences may be 

affected by behavior or mode of travel by other recreational users in the same area. Examples of 

these effects are: mountain bikes and hikers, equestrian, biking and hiking, ATVs and hiking, fly 

fishing and water craft, alpine skiing and snowboarders, to name a few. Non-motorized 

recreationists seeking solitude from the noise of motorized activities or people desiring group or 

family associations may conflict with individuals seeking solitude or testing their independence 

and backwoods skills. 

Because of the need to maintain existing recreation facilities, developed recreation capital 

investments are most likely to be applied to reconstruction of existing facilities rather than 

construction of new recreation sites. This is true for all alternatives even though Alternatives 4 

and 5 allow for new facility development on more total acres than the other alternatives. All 

alternatives provide sufficient acres for new development to meet increasing demand except 

Alternative 1, which allows no new recreation development. With the high use levels currently 

at existing sites, further deterioration is likely. The most popular sites are already at design 

capacity and well exceed operational capacity on weekends and holidays (Table REC-5), while 

vacancies remain during other times. Development of new sites could help meet demand from 

the growing population, but may not reduce the over utilization of popular sites. Without an 

increase in developed settings visitors may be displaced during peak use periods. Typically these 

displaced visitors seek their preferred experience in an undeveloped site in the immediate 

vicinity of the developed site. This increases the potential for resource damage in the 

surrounding area and the impacts to other visitors. 

Funding sources, in addition to appropriated dollars, are being used to improve or maintain to 

standard, developed recreation sites. Concessionaires, through special use permits, currently 

manage 97 percent of the developed recreation sites of the WCNF. This provides service to 

visitors and returns a portion of the fees collected in the form of heavy maintenance on facilities. 

Fee demonstration areas such as the Mirror Lake Scenic Byway and partnerships like Mill Creek 

Canyon also help the USFS improve developed recreation sites’ quality by charging user fees 

and returning the money collected to protect the resources impacted by the uses. These funding 

sources are expected to continue and would be common to all alternatives. 

Undeveloped recreation includes activities that occur outside of developed recreation areas in 

concentrated use areas where the objective is to protect and stabilize natural resources. It 

includes activities such as driving for pleasure, camping, hiking, viewing scenery, hunting, 

fishing, skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, mountain biking, ATV riding and rock climbing 

to name a few. These uses will continue to increase in intensity and resource impacts in all 

alternatives because of population growth. 

Historically there has been a fairly clear distinction between “developed” and “undeveloped” 

recreation. However as user numbers continue to increase without concurrent increases in 

traditional developed facilities (such as campgrounds and picnic areas), the need for some kind 

of site development to protect resources in heavily used undeveloped camping and play areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 257 

arises. Some increased use from undeveloped camping is due to overflow from developed 

campsites, but most is the preferred experience of the visitor. As visitors are displaced by other 

users competing for the same space, they may move to undisturbed areas expanding impacts to 

vegetation, watershed, and wildlife resources. Conflicts with resources result when preferred 

activities impact sensitive plants, animals, or watersheds. Site development could include such 

actions as hardening and designating existing undeveloped campsites to reduce impacts to soil 

and vegetation resources or installing toilets to address sanitation issues. More of this type of 

action is expected in the future with all alternatives except Alternative 1. Where these actions 

would occur varies by alternative mapping of prescriptions, in particular Prescriptions 4.4, 4.3, 

and 4.2. These actions may further displace some visitors who prefer little or no evidence of 

management. However if design of sites involves frequent forest users, we can reduce the 

displacement potential. Alternative 1 would have the greatest effect on undeveloped campers 

and other undeveloped activities because when impacts become excessive the site or area would 

be closed and rehabilitated. 

Trails are important to undeveloped recreation use. They are critical for access to desired areas 

and often provide linkages to local communities. Maintenance levels affect speed or safety of 

travel while directional or informational signing affect visitor convenience, security, and 

dependence on self-reliance. New access points increase recreation use long term and increase 

impacts to previously undisturbed areas. There is no difference between alternatives with regard 

to total miles of trail open to foot and horse travel, however alternatives do differ in the miles of 

designated open routes for summer travel by vehicles, both motorized and mechanized. The 

primary difference is related to the amount and location by alternative of lands recommended for 

Wilderness and mapped as prescription 1.5. Trails within these areas that are currently open to 

mountain bikes, motorcycles, and/or ATVs would be closed to these uses but continue to be open 

for foot and horse travel. Table REC- 13A later in this section under the heading “Effects on 

Recreation from Inventoried Roadless Area Management,” displays the mileage affected in each 

alternative. This change could put additional pressure to allow or continue motorized or 

mechanical uses on other public or private lands. A reduction in available trail miles could also 

increase the density of those uses on trails remaining open to them, and may also increase user 

conflicts and management needs. 

Trails can impact other resources by increasing sediment and pollutant delivery, affecting water 

and aquatic habitat quality. They also can fragment terrestrial habitat impacting some terrestrial 

species. Trails are also known vectors of dispersal for noxious and invasive weeds. 

Recreation activities provided under special use permits occur in both developed and 

undeveloped recreation settings and involve both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. 

These uses do not vary by alternative with the exception of heli-skiing, which is discussed later 

in this section. 

There is no difference between alternatives with regard to effects on the 351 currently permitted 

recreation residences. Management of these areas under permit must be consistent with direction 

contained in the Revised Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 258 

Summer Recreation 

One of the main issues in recreation is the conflict between the experience of the non-motorized 

users when motorized use occurs nearby and when motorized users are in areas where they are 

not allowed. Non-motorized users do not like noise or the presence of motorized vehicles when 

they are experiencing outdoor activities and they do not like to see tracks, damage to the land, or 

hear the sound of motorized vehicles in areas where they are not allowed. The issue with 

motorized users is generally that they can cover significant distances relatively quickly and they 

do not want any reduction in the open-to-motorized routes. They often would like to see more 

trails available and more opportunities on loop travel ways. All Alternatives provide for motor 

vehicles allowed only on designated-open roads and trails. 

The amount of trails and roads reduced in the alternatives is because of Recommended 

Wilderness. Alternative 1 would close 2 miles of roads available for motorized use. Of the 306 

miles of trails that currently are open to motorized vehicles, 76 miles under Alternative 1 would 

be closed while Alternative 2 would close 7 miles. 

The majority of non-motorized and motorized use occurs on roads and/or trails. Therefore acres 

of a particular recreation setting are not a good measure of differences between alternatives. 

Rather, miles of motorized and non-motorized routes (roads/trails) are a better way to compare 

differences between alternatives. 

ROS provides guidance on how roads could be maintained and the resulting type of use for travel 

planning in the future. The ROS classification encourages a particular maintenance level for a 

road and a distinction is made in travel ways, by the design and ability to allow passenger car 

travel. In the State of Utah licensed vehicles can drive on all roadways that allow travel, whereas 

unlicensed vehicles are only allowed on primitive roadways that are not designed or maintained 

for passenger car travel. In all of the alternatives SPM denotes travel ways that are not 

maintained for passenger car use (primitive) and the area of SPM changes by alternative. 

Currently there are approximately 1,050 miles of primitive road (unlicensed vehicle are allowed) 

and approximately 500 miles of better than primitive roads that are design and managed for 

passenger car use under Forest Service jurisdiction on the Forest. Alternative 1 reduces 

primitive roads by two miles and in all of the other Alternatives the total miles of roads are not 

reduced, all though, the ROS category may be different. The key thing to understand is that the 

existing road and trail system is not affected by ROS except the guidance of how a road could be 

maintained as primitive or better than primitive. Trying to evaluate the Alternatives by the 

number of acres of ROS category can be somewhat misleading because the acres do not reflect 

the number of travel ways or tell you the entire characteristic of the travel way that lies in a ROS 

category area. The best way to compare the amount of change between the alternatives for ROS 

is by a visual evaluation of the ROS maps by Alternative compared to the existing condition. 

In a visual comparison Alternative 7 manages the entire Forest the same as the existing condition 

except for the Ski Resorts where management changes from Roaded Natural to Rural because of 

anticipated higher day use such as mountain biking and hiking. For W/P and W/SPNM the 

Forest is being managed the same in all Alternatives except Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan 

where the entire Wilderness was managed in W/P. For Urban and Rural ROS categories the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 259 

Forest would be managed the same in Alternatives 1-3 and 5-7 except on the slopes of ski areas 

in Alternative 7 as noted above and Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan. There are no Urban areas in 

Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan and part of the Rural areas coincide with the existing condition 

around Pineview and at the ski resorts. Other Rural areas are found in Ogden Canyon, Logan 

Canyon around the campgrounds, Mantua area, South Fork of Ogden Canyon, Causey Reservoir 

and the Soapstone area on the Kamas Ranger District in Alternative 4/1985 Plan. The effects of 

Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan would be a higher level of facility development and social and 

managerial interaction in these areas. In the other Alternatives, the Rural areas outside of 

Pineview and the ski resorts are managed as Roaded Natural which has a lower level of facility 

development, etc. 

The changes in Alternatives are marked by how roads, trails or areas could be managed by ROS 

categories. Alternative 1 has the greatest amount of SPNM because of lands recommended for 

Wilderness. See in this section “Effect on Recreation from Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management ” for information on trails and roads closed by Alternative. The effect of the 

Recommended Wilderness in Alternative 1 would be the increased probability of recreationists 

not being able to hear the sounds of motorized travel. 

In the Eastern and Western Uintas Management Areas, Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 are similar 

because management in the North Slope, Kamas Front Range, Upper Setting and Cedar Hollow 

areas changes from SPM in the existing condition to RN. This change implies that roads in these 

areas would be managed at a higher maintenance level- for passenger cars as opposed to high 

clearance vehicles. Alternative 5 would make the changes mentioned previously and alsowould 

change the SPNM along the northern edge of the High Uintas Wilderness to SPM. Under 

Alternative 5 future project proposals could see an effect if new primitive roads are built. New 

roads would further expand the primitive road network resulting in acres of Wilderness 

potentially managed as W/SPNM. Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan manages most of Eastern and 

Western Uintas Management Areas as RN except for Wilderness and the heart of the Lakes 

roadless area. The effect of Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan is the potential reduction of primitive 

roads to comply with the RN characteristic of passenger car travel. The 1985 Plan envisioned 

many areas currently mapped as semi-primitive as being converted to Roaded Natural as a result 

of road construction associated with a large timber program. Alternative 1 changes the SPM of 

motorized trails to SPNM in MPC 1.5 recommended Wilderness areas. 

The Stansbury Management Area’s east face is now SPM with some cherry stems of RN and is 

similar in the existing condition and for Alternatives 2-7 with some minor changes. Alternative 

1 manages the area outside the Wilderness as SPNM except for some cherry stems of existing 

roads. 

The existing condition and Alternative 7 manage the bench along the Wasatch Front from Ogden 

to Bountiful as SPM. In Alternatives 2,3, 5 and 6, these areas are managed as RN, which could 

reduce the amount of primitive roads on National Forest System lands. Alternative 4/1985 

Forest Plan managed the bench as SPNM. If Alternative4/1985 Plan is selected, managers would 

need to determine if the existing Forest roads that are in SPNM would continue to be managed as 

SPNM or change to SPM. The Monte Cristo area of the NorthWasatch/Ogden Valley existing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 260 

road system is managed as SPM. In Alternatives 1,2,4,5, and 6 some these road systems would 

be managed as RN. Alternative 3 would manage the same area as SPNM. 

Social Setting and User Densities 

A more subtle difference between Alternatives, but important in light of ever-increasing numbers 

of users, is the implication of ROS mapping for social settings and future user densities. Within 

the ROS there are Recreation Opportunity Classes that are defined as implying some type of 

limits on numbers of users (See Appendix D-2). These are Wilderness/Primitive, 

Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. The Setting 

component “Social” for these Classes discusses various degrees of probability of solitude and 

evidence of other people. The Wilderness/Primitive Class only occurs within the High Uintas 

Wilderness and therefore is the same for all Alternative except Alternative 4, in which all 

Wilderness were mapped Primitive. The relative amount and location of the Semi-Primitive 

Classes varies by Alternative (see ROS Maps). 

Given population growth and demand it is expected that many areas now meeting criteria for 

semi-primitive, without some type of management or restriction, would eventually exceed 

defined user densities. Opportunities for this type of experience would decrease over time. This 

situation is primarily true of areas accessible by road or trail and more so for roads or trails 

located close to population centers. It does not apply to inaccessible acreages well away from 

population centers or existing roads and trails. 

The delineation of the Semi-Primitive Recreation Opportunity Classes puts in place a framework 

for future monitoring and management of user density levels. First, a baseline of actual user 

densities needs to be established for these areas. This is included in the Revised Plan Monitoring 

requirements. Then these findings need to be compared with the ranges for thresholds identified 

in the ROS Table in Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4a6. The actual thresholds for user densities 

that would trigger some kind of management action need to be tailored to the specific area. For 

example thresholds might be set higher for Semi-Primitive areas nearer population centers to 

accommodate the use patterns there and relatively lower for less accessible areas. The intent is 

to provide a conscious decision point on allowable user densities for some areas, rather than 

allowing user densities to grow unchecked everywhere as population grows. A number of 

options could be considered upon reaching identified thresholds. Education of users to modify 

behavior, initiation of permit systems, separation of uses in time (odd day/even day, etc.) and/or 

the option of amending the Forest Plan to change the ROS Class could be considered. A public 

process including users should be used to take these steps. 

Winter Recreation 

In winter, differences between alternatives and relationship to existing conditions are analyzed 

and displayed by available acres for Heli-skiing, Motorized, Non-Motorized, and Wilderness 

Non-Motorized uses (Table REC-12 and Figure REC-12). Alternatives reflect considerations 

including current District Travel Plan Maps, public comments on winter recreation conflicts, 

mapping of management prescriptions for each alternative, critical big game winter ranges, and 

mapping of existing winter motorized use. Recommended Wilderness acres (MPC 1.5) were 

mapped as non-motorized in winter in all Alternatives except Alternative 7. In this Alternative, 

MPC 1.5 areas currently open to winter-motorized use would remain open as interim 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 261 

management and are mapped as winter motorized. The remaining MPC 1.5 areas in Alternative 

7 are mapped as non-motorized. 

Table REC 12. 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 

Figure REC-4. Acres of Winter Recreation: 

Heli-skiing, Motorized, Non-Motorized, 

Wilderness by Alternative 

For winter recreation, conflicts occur primarily between motorized and non-motorized uses. 

Factors affecting these two groups of users include access to plowed parking, distance that can 

be traveled, steepness of terrain and nature of vegetation, and availability and depth of snow.

Conflicts between winter users are most pronounced at shared trailheads where access is limited 

by snowplowing. With the large size of the newer snowmobile trailers, available parking spots 

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

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Acres

1 2 3 4/1985 5 6 7

Alternatives

Heli-skiing

Motorized

Non Motorized

Wilderness
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 262 

fill up quickly on weekends and holidays. Parking is discussed under “Effects on Recreation 

From Roads and Access Management”. Snowmobilers can inherently cover very long distances 

not accessible to average non-motorized winter users. Therefore terrain closer to plowed 

parking, while required for both types of users, is especially important to non-motorized users. 

Both groups do not equally perceive the winter use conflict. Some (though not all) nonmotorized users are seeking a winter experience away from noise and emission of motorized 

equipment, while the non-motorized use itself generally does not interfere with the experience of 

the motorized user. Because of this, motorized users have expressed the desire to share terrain 

and avoid separation of these uses. They are concerned that closure of areas to separate uses will 

result in higher densities of motorized users in the remaining open areas. Given the rapid growth 

trend in winter motorized use, it is expected that motorized densities will be increasing even 

without any change in available acreage. In some instances, such as the Monte Cristo area of the 

Ogden Ranger District, motorized user densities are already a concern among users because of 

crowding and safety. 

Non-motorized users have expressed the desire to have accessible terrain closed to motorized use 

so they can avoid the effects of motorized use (sound, smell, tracking of powder). Because of 

technology changes, terrain is no longer a major limitation for at least the most modern 

motorized equipment. Both groups are often seeking the same terrain, especially for untracked 

powder. Once an area is tracked by a snowmobile, the slope may be deemed un-ski able or at 

least undesirable by some backcountry skiers because of inconsistency between packed and 

powder snow making it difficult to ski. 

In addition to winter motorized closures to provide separate non-motorized recreation 

opportunities, critical big game winter ranges are also closed to varying degrees by Alternative. 

See discussion under the section titled “Effects on Recreation from Wildlife Management” for a 

discussion of the relative proportion of total acres closed for this reason by alternative. 

Effects on winter use are compared by the acres open and closed to snowmobiling and they vary 

by alternative (Table REC-12). 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 

winter motorized access by about 4% over existing. 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. Alternative 6 and 7 

provide for some separation of uses to reduce conflicts reducing 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 

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.. 

Winter Recreation Maps (see Map Packet) show opportunities, by alternative, for specific 

locations. As described above, Alternative 1 provides the least motorized opportunities. No 

snowmobiling would be allowed in Roadless Areas or Recommended Wilderness areas (MPC 

1.5). This would result in the greatest decrease in acres available for snowmobiling, while 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 263 

providing the greatest potential acres for non-motorized winter recreation. Alternative 2 

provides slightly more winter-motorized opportunities and similar potential to Alternative 1 for 

non-motorized. In this Alternative snowmobiling is allowed on designated routes in Roadless 

Areas, making it very restricted in these areas. These two alternatives would have the greatest 

impact on motorized users. There would be an increase in density of motorized users (especially 

considering the growth trend in this use) within the available area, increasing conflicts among 

users competing for the same terrain. These Alternatives would increase the area available for 

non-motorized winter, however given the distance most non-motorized users can travel (5-10 

miles round trip generally is a maximum for people of moderate fitness) much of the area would 

not actually be accessible or used. 

Alternative 6 and 7 maintain the majority of existing motorized opportunities and allow 

snowmobiling in Roadless Areas. Motorized use is not allowed in Recommended Wilderness 

(MPC 1.5) in Alternative 6 but is in Alternative 7, and both Alternatives close selected areas to 

reduce conflicts between motorized and non-motorized user groups. This change may result in 

some minor increases in density of motorized users 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. Alternative 7 would not allow wintermotorized use in a specific area between the Bunchgrass and Steep Hollow drainages within the 

Mount Naomi roadless area on the Logan Ranger District. This would decrease wintermotorized opportunities in this area which is valued by both groups of users. However in the 

event of an emergency, snowmobilers will be allowed to traverse a route from the higher 

elevation open areas to the bottom through the closed area and out to the highway. Alternative 7 

closes several areas in the Eastern Uintas Management Area and an area between the East Fork 

Bear and Stillwater Fork in the Western Uintas Management Area that are open now but not used 

by snowmobilers. 

Alternative 3 provides for a small increase in motorized recreation but would not reduce conflicts 

with non-motorized users through separation. Alternatives 4 and 5 provide the most motorized 

winter use. They do not close any Roadless Areas and open some existing big game winter 

range closure areas. However, the same acreage along the Wasatch Front, Ogden Ranger District 

is included as open and because of steepness, it is not actually expected to be used. These 

alternatives provide the least separation of uses to reduce conflicts so non-motorized users would 

continue to have a less satisfying experience than if there was some separation. 

Alternative 7 winter motorized mapping (developed after public comment on the other six 

Alternatives) was specifically responsive to conflicts and concerns in the Logan Ranger District. 

In addition to the area discussed above, it includes several delineations of non-motorized 

designed to provide for separation of uses while continuing to provide motorized access to higher 

elevation areas where snow is available to motorized users for a longer time period each year. 

Ski area expansion

A main issue with ski areas is whether to allow or not to allow ski area expansion on Forest 

System land. Those that support ski area expansion would like to have it considered on a caseby-case basis instead of having a Forest Plan amendment to change the boundaries. Those that 

oppose ski area expansion are concerned with decreased visual quality, decreased aesthetic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 264 

qualities, loss of natural qualities, degrading watershed and wildlife conditions, and increased 

development that may accompany expansion of ski areas on Forest System lands. 

Method of analysis for ski area expansion involves comparing alternatives if ski area expansion 

is allowed or not. 

The allocation of additional lands for ski area expansion is provided in Alternative 5. All other 

alternatives provide continuation of permits with existing acreages. Generally, then, for 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, effects to ski areas are very similar with no opportunity for 

expansion on National Forest System lands beyond existing permit boundaries. Ski areas might 

propose additional development within existing boundaries, but these are site-specific decisions 

(not Forest Plan decisions) addressed in Master Development Plans. Determination of 

consistency with Forest Plan direction is a requirement of all site-specific analyses. 

Heli-skiing

The issue is the conflict in the experience between winter backcountry users and heli-skiers. 

Those that support heli-skiing believe that it allows for a diverse and balanced use of the land. 

Supporters feel that it does not harm the environment; noise is of minimal impact, is a safe 

means of providing backcountry ski experience and supports the local economy. Those who 

oppose heli-skiing say there are impact to wildlife, is enough opportunity for heli-skiing on 

private land, and it degrades the experience of winter backcountry users, particularly in the TriCanyon area. Method of analysis is to compare alternatives by the amount of areas where heliskiing is allowed. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 do not allow heli-skiing, due to locations of Recommended Wilderness. For 

all alternatives that allowed heli-skiing impacts from heli-skiing operations include noise levels 

affecting feeling of solitude and the amount of self-reliance necessary to access backcountry ski 

areas. Heli-skiing does provide an opportunity for skiers to enter the backcountry who might 

otherwise not be able to enjoy the benefits of the fresh powder slopes. In Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 

and 7, Heli-skiing is allowed as defined in the existing special use permit. Alternative 3 closes

some areas and opens others, but has a reduction in acres as compared to the existing permit 

acres by opening Big Cottonwood Canyon in areas that are currently closed north of Butler Fork, 

and closes the Gobbler’s Knob area. 

Effects on Recreation from Roads and Access Management 

Roads and access management play a major part in both developed and undeveloped recreation 

opportunities by affecting the type of experience a recreationist may desire. Existing District 

Travel Management Plans, road maintenance levels, non-motorized and motorized trails and 

public comments were used to map summer ROS categories by alternative. There is a direct 

correlation in the types of roads or trail administer by the WCNF and the ROS category. Roads 

with a maintenance level 2 are classified as primitive (i.e., the high clearance vehicles, rugged 

routes, allow non-license ATV use) and fit into the SPM category. Roads with higher 

maintenance levels are classified as better than primitive (i.e. surfaced, smooth, maintenance 

levels 3, 4, 5, designed and used by standard passenger cars.) and fit into RN – Urban categories. 

Therefore ROS provides guidance on how roads could be maintained and the resulting type of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 265 

use for travel planning in the present and future. In the State of Utah licensed vehicles can drive 

on all roadways that allow travel, whereas un-licensed vehicles are only allowed on primitive 

roadways that are not designed or maintained for passenger car travel. Changing the 

maintenance level of a road could have a negative effect on non-licensed recreation vehicle users 

and the routes that are available to them. Maintenance level also affects the type of experience 

described in an ROS category by changing the skill level requirement, speed, lack of loop and 

connecting routes and other sought after benefits. Trails on the other hand are either open to 

motorized travel or closed. All motorized trails are being managed as SPM and non-motorized 

trails are managed SPNM. In the following discussion a comparison of alternatives is made in 

how the changes in motorized routes would affect a recreationist and their desired setting and 

experience. 

Summer Recreation

There are two differences between alternatives with regard to roads and access management’s 

effects on summer recreation use they are, new road construction, and road and motorized trail 

closers. 

First new road construction from timber harvest, and oil and gas exploration, and development 

would provide additional miles of road available for recreational access. Alternative 5 provides 

the most mileage with a projected 63 miles of new road construction. Alternatives 3 and 4 each 

provide 49 additional miles while Alternatives 6 and 7 provide 16 and 18 miles respectively. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the least new roads with a projection of 3 and 9 miles respectively. 

The effects to recreation are the possible addition of more motorized travel ways and the increase 

of the sights and sounds of motorized use to those desiring a W/P, W/SPNM, and SPNM setting. 

Alternative 5 could increase the number of miles of road in timber harvest areas mainly in the 

North Slope of the Eastern Uintas Management Area and in the Cache-Box Elder and North 

Wasatch-Ogden Valley Management Areas around Monte-Cristo and Hardware Ranch. With the 

potential increase of miles of motorized routes SPNM and W/P and W/SPNM is affected in the 

North Slope and High Uintas Wilderness. By moving motorized routes in closer to the W/P 

boundary it could expand the area of W/SPNM during project level analysis. Road construction 

would affect Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 in the North Slope areas. Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan

would affect the North Slope, Cache-Box Elder and Wasatch-Ogden Valley Management Areas 

with the potential new construct of roads. 

The second difference between alternatives for roads and access effects on recreation is the 

closure of roads as a result of Wilderness recommendation. Alternative 1 would close 2 miles of 

Roads available to motorized use. Of the 306 miles of trails that are currently open to motorized 

vehicles, 76 miles under Alternative 1 and 7 miles under Alternative 2 would be closed. There 

are no trail or road closer from Recommended Wilderness in the other alternatives. The effects 

of these trail and road closers would be the increase of SPNM area thus potentially expanding the 

opportunity of solitude from the sites and sounds of motorized travel in Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Winter Recreation 

The primary effect of roads and access management on winter recreation is the plowing of roads 

and parking for both motorized and non-motorized winter activities. Snow plowing of roads and 

parking is generally a jointly funded effort with the State of Utah Parks and Recreation and/or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 266 

the Utah Department of Transportation. The Forest Planning process highlighted the need for 

improved coordination and increases in the availability of plowed areas to provide for separation 

between motorized and non-motorized uses in some areas. Depending on the site-specific 

details, this may require further environmental analysis. Decisions about this site-specific need 

are not appropriate within the Forest Plan process. Therefore road and access management 

effects in winter do not vary by alternative. 

Effects on Recreation Management from Vegetation and Fuels Management 

Effects may be short or long term depending on the activity and could include increased noise 

and smoke levels, conflicts with logging trucks and visitors using the same roads in summer or 

winter, displacement of wildlife affecting viewing opportunities, and area restrictions or closures 

during operations. Hunting opportunities may be impacted short term due to closures, but may 

benefit long term from successful habitat treatments. 

Longer term effects relate mostly to changes to the natural setting due to vegetation removal and 

road construction. Vegetation removal could have impacts to the scenic integrity visitors expect. 

It also may increase motorized trespass where undergrowth is removed or temporary roads are 

constructed. These roads may also benefit recreation if opened to travel. 

Management prescription areas that emphasize recreation (4.1-4.5) do not have planned timber 

harvests, however some harvest may be allowed in prescriptions 4.3 and 4.4 only in Alternatives 

3, 4, and 5. Vegetation treatments are allowed in all alternatives except Alternative1, but would 

need to meet recreation and scenery management objectives. Harvests may occur in prescription 

categories 5.1, 5.2, and 3.2 where recreation is also allowed. Effects from these activities would 

be greatest in Alternative 5; less in 2; and least and similar in Alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 7. 

Fuels management effects on recreation are similar to the preceding effects. Alternative 1 may 

have the greatest effect due to the lack of active fuels management. This may cause an increase 

in fire intensity and extent, creating a more visible and long lasting change to the setting. The 

degree of these effects is difficult to determine. Prescribed fire has some level of predictability 

for time, location, and intensity that may decrease the short-term impacts to visitors. 

Occurrences of wildland fires are not predictable under any alternative. These effects are also 

complicated by the fact that some visitors may accept impacts from wildland fire, but not 

prescribed fire. 

Effects on Recreation From Livestock Grazing 

Effects on recreation from livestock grazing generally include visual impacts (removal of 

vegetation tops and remaining stubble, trampled vegetation and streambanks, manure, fences and 

other range improvements), auditory impacts (sounds of domestic livestock, especially sheep), 

and olfactory impacts (smells of animals and animal wastes). These are more pronounced where 

recreation use in livestock allotments is focused on a less human influenced or “pristine” setting 

expectation, such as within the High Uintas Wilderness area. Decisions for livestock grazing 

made in Forest Planning generally will have little effect on recreation given that changes to 

livestock grazing management that would affect recreation are implemented through allotment 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 267 

management planning and permit actions. There will be little difference in effects on recreation 

from grazing by alternative with the exception of Alternative 2. This is because while 

alternatives 1, 3, and 6 identify differing amounts of suitable range, they do not close the unsuitable areas because they are scattered throughout active allotments. In Alternative 2, 26,000 

acres of contiguous watersheds are closed to livestock grazing so any existing impacts to 

recreation use in these watersheds would be eliminated. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7 close vacant allotments to varying degrees, but because livestock do 

not currently use these allotments, no effects would be noted for recreationists. Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 6 have potential for future reduced livestock/recreation conflicts since these alternatives 

allow for the closure of Gilbert Peak, Henry's Fork-Hessie Lake, and Red Castle allotments 

should permits be voluntarily waived without preference. Alternative 7 would allow for these, as 

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

allotments to be closed, again only if permits are waived without preference. Should these 

allotments be closed at some point in the future, there would be consequent reduction in 

recreation user - livestock interactions in the Uinta Mountains and High Uintas Wilderness area. 

Effects on Recreation from Inventoried Roadless Area Management 

 

Currently large portions of Roadless Areas provide recreation opportunities in undeveloped areas 

where the setting is largely unmodified (i.e., semi-primitive). The exception to this is where 

roads are cherry-stemmed into these areas (see Appendix C-2). The majority of roadless acres 

provide recreation opportunities with relatively high levels of solitude and self-reliance, and less 

opportunities with visitor comforts, feelings of security, and social interaction. Access may be 

limited to trails in Roadless Areas and this limitation increases the sense of remoteness and 

decreases the opportunities for social interactions. Recreation developments are generally 

limited and most visitor management is at trailheads. The physical setting is best described as 

naturally evolving. There are little or no recognizable impacts from past timber harvest and 

vegetation treatments. 

Summer Recreation 

Where Roadless Areas are mapped with prescription 1.5, Recommended Wilderness, the ROS 

Class is Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM). These areas would not allow either motorized 

or mechanized travel in summer. The amount of currently open motorized roads and trails that 

would be closed to motorized and mechanized (mountain bikes) uses varies by alternative. 

Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would require road closure with 1.9 miles in the Lakes 

Roadless Area and 0.4 miles in the Stansbury Mountains for a total of 2.3 miles. Table REC-13a 

displays by alternative the miles of motorized trails in Roadless Areas that would be closed to 

motorized and mechanized uses. 

Table REC-13a. Motorized Trails within Recommended Wilderness that 

would be closed to motorized and mechanized use by Alternative 

Motorized Trails Closed by Recommended Wilderness (Miles by Alternative) 

Roadless Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 

High Uintas 15.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lakes 11.12 4.56 0 0 0 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 268 

Motorized Trails Closed by Recommended Wilderness (Miles by Alternative) 

Roadless Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 

Stansbury Mtns. 24.93 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Twin Peaks 2.74 2.74 0 0 0 0 0 

Lewis Peak 16.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Willard 6.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 76.4 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 

1 Broadhead, Deadhorse ATV, Little Deer Creek, Lost Lake, Slate Gorge, Trail Creek, Wolverine ATV 

2 Box Canyon, Hoyts, Silks Basin, Slader Basin, Swifts Canyon ATV, White Pine Creek Trail 

3 Abbots Fork, Stansbury Front, Davenport Canyon, East Hickman Canyon, Martin Fork and West Canyon 

4 Mineral Fork Trail 

5 Wasatch Crest Trail 6 Box Canyon, Hoyts, White Pine Creek Trail 

There is an increasing demand for motorized recreation including camping and trail use. Closure 

of trails to motorized use in Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in displacement of those motorized 

trail users and especially in Alternative 1 could result in increased densities of motorized users 

on the remaining open trail system. 

Wilderness or Recommended Wilderness would affect mountain bike use in several alternatives. 

Table REC-13b for mountain bike trail mileage is an estimate. Some trails are open to mountain 

bikes such as in the Upper South Fork roadless area (because all Ogden Ranger District trails 

allow mountain bikes), but receive relatively low mountain bike use. Therefore the actual effect 

on users would be less than the total stated miles. 

Table REC-13b. System Trail Mileage Allowing Mountain Bike 

Use Affected by Recommended Wilderness 

Trails Closed to Mountain Biking from Prescription 1.5 

Roadless Area 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 269 

Mountain bike use is not allowed in Wilderness or Recommended Wilderness. Therefore 

Recommended Wilderness that includes trails currently open to mechanized equipment would 

require closure of those miles to that use. Alternative 1 has the most (167 miles) followed by 

Alternatives 2, 6, 7 and 3. Alternatives 4 and 5 have no Recommended Wilderness and would 

not effect mountain biking. 

Winter Recreation 

Where Roadless Areas are mapped with prescription 1.5, Recommended Wilderness, the Winter 

Recreation opportunity is non-motorized with one exception. In Alternative 7, winter motorized 

use is allowed on currently open areas within prescription 1.5 located within the Lakes and High 

Uintas roadless areas. In Alternatives 1 and 2, which have the most acreage of Recommended 

Wilderness, snowmobiling use within recommended Wilderness 1.5 MPC is prohibited and 

would displace current users and increase winter-motorized use in other areas. Alternative 1 also 

prohibits snowmobiling in other roadless areas (not recommended for wilderness) and 

Alternative 2 limits snowmobiling to cherrystemmed roads within roadless areas. These 

alternatives offer the most non-motorized winter opportunity in roadless areas. Alternatives 4 

and 5 have no Recommended Wilderness and do not affect snowmobiling in those areas. Table 

REC-12 displays acres of winter recreation opportunities by alternative. 

Wilderness additions in the Tri-Canyon area in Alternatives 1 and 2 would eliminate heli-skiing 

opportunities. Alternative 3 would eliminate the Gobbler’s Knob area from heli-skiing because 

of Wilderness recommendation there, but would substitute an area in Big Cottonwood Canyon 

for this acreage, allowing heli-skiing to continue in the Tri-Canyon area. 

Effects on Recreation from Soil and Water Resources and Aquatic and SemiAquatic Species 

Soil and Water Resources, Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Species Management can directly affect 

recreation opportunities and quality of experience. These may include fish and watershed 

management actions that restrict access, development and selected activities. Management 

prescription categories with an aquatic and semi-aquatic species as their focus include 3.1, 3.1a, 

and 3.1w. Alternatives 7, 6 and 2 provide the highest amount of acres in aquatic and watershed 

emphasis area (MPC 3.1, or 3.1a and 3.1w) and Alternative 5 has the lowest amount of acres. 

Levels of recreation development would still remain low and would be proposed to meet 

management objectives related to watershed and aquatic habitat protection or improvements. 

Alternative 1 has the potential for the greatest impacts to recreation, because Alternative 1 

emphasizes natural processes with minimal human intervention. This may result in either 

eliminating or reducing human activity where impacts on watershed and aquatic habitat are 

occurring. Because a high percentage of developed and undeveloped sites are located within 

floodplains of most drainages this may result in a number of these facilities being closed and 

removed from operation. This would reduce the recreational opportunities on the Forest and 

limit the campsites accessible to the public. Visitors are drawn to water and impact riparian 

vegetation and aquatic habitat and in some cases this causes a loss of watershed function. 

Impacts to riparian areas and aquatic resources are a particular concern. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 270 

An example of the effect is shown by campsite surveys on the Logan Ranger District where over 

50 percent of the identified undeveloped recreation camps as well as some trails would be closed. 

This would be consistent throughout the entire forest because of difficulty in managing people 

who want to recreate adjacent to water and shade, resulting in impacts to water resources. 

Alternative would require a very active law enforcement program. All of the other alternatives 

rely on an array of active management tools and not closures to general forest areas as the 

primary means to resolve impact to Soil and Water Resources, Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic 

Species Management from recreation activities. 

In Alternative 7 new developed recreation sites will be affect in MPC 3.1a and 3.1w. For 3.1a 

and 3.1w, new recreation development is not allowed. Though the locations for a majority of the 

WCNF existing sites are located in 3.1a and 3.1w areas, new sites would need to be built in other 

MPC areas that allow construction. This may cause these upland sites to be used less as people 

generally seek sites next to water where water recreational activities can take place. These 

upland sites would probably be less expensive to develop and maintain with less concern for 

flooding and riparian damage. 

Effects on Recreation from Wildlife Management 

Except for site-specific effects not addressed in this Plan revision such as seasonal road closures 

in cooperation with State wildlife managers, wildlife management has little effect on recreation 

in summer. In winter however, needs for protecting critical big game winter ranges from 

disturbance by motorized uses can directly affect winter recreation opportunities. Closures to 

winter motorized uses on big game winter ranges vary by Alternative. In some cases the closed 

areas are steep, south facing with limited snow cover and may not be ideal for snowmobiling. 

However in other cases, especially with elk winter range which tends to extend higher in 

elevation than deer, these areas are desirable for snowmobiling. Table Rec-14 shows by 

alternative, how winter recreation is managed in big game winter ranges and the percent of total 

non-motorized area closed specifically for big game winter range reasons. 

Table Rec-14 Winter Recreation in Big Game Winter Range 

 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 EC 

Total NonMotorized Acreage 988,000 938,800 571,900 470,900 541,600 686,800 694,800 600,700

Non-Motorized 

Acreage within 

Winter Range 

222,800 222,100 136,700 88,300 129,500 166,700 190,700 149,100

Motorized Acreage 

within Winter Range 22,400 22,600 108,600 141,700 115,700 78,600 54,500 96,100 

% of Total Closure 

for Winter Range 

23% 24% 24% 19% 24% 24% 27% 25% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 271 

Compared to the existing condition, Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the greatest effect on winter 

motorized recreation in conjunction with closures for big game winter range. The proportion of 

these areas actually desirable for snowmobiling is not known. However, the closures for winter 

range are relatively small compared to closures for other reasons such as wilderness 

recommendation and roadless area maintenance that would result in higher user densities in the 

remaining open areas with increased crowding, conflicts and safety concerns. Alternative 6 or 7 

would have the next greatest effect but since the total area closed is significantly less than 

Alternatives 1 and 2, increased user densities would not be expected to be as significant. 

Alternative 7 designates several “through routes” for snowmobiliers to move through big game 

winter range to higher areas desirable for that use. Alternatives 3 and 5 close less areas to 

motorized use in big game winter range than other Alternatives except 4. Given the relatively 

large amounts of area open to this use noticeable increases in user densities specifically because 

of closures for big game winter range would not be expected in these Alternatives. 

For non-motorized winter recreation opportunities closures to motorized use within big game 

winter range would create more areas with separation of use with directly proportional to the 

acreages shown as non-motorized in Table REC-14. However, the areas vary in their desirability 

for winter recreation activities for the same reasons described above- steep often south facing 

slopes with variable snow conditions. 

Effects on Recreation from Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

Management 

Effects to recreation would be consistent in all alternatives due to the Endangered Species Act, 

Forest Service direction, and policy which require listed and sensitive species be protected. 

Impacts from management of these species may include seasonal road restrictions to total 

closures, vegetation manipulations to improve habitat, or structural improvements. Recreation 

activities likely to be affected can include: closure of rock climbing areas to protect sensitive 

plants, removing camping where it impacts Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout, cave 

closures to protect cave resources, and allowing no net increase of groomed trails or snow 

packing from winter recreation activities to protect lynx habitat. Such impacts could 

significantly increase if species currently not listed or listed as Forest Service Sensitive were 

elevated to Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened or Endangered classifications. 

Effects on Recreation from Special Management Areas

These areas are managed to maintain the setting characteristics for which they were established. 

They are represented by MPC 2.4 through 2.7. Acres within this category decrease opportunities 

for new recreation developments and access while increasing opportunities for self-reliance, 

viewing scenery, and educational opportunities. ROS opportunities will range from the SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized category to Rural settings. Motorized use will be restricted to existing 

routes. High levels of visitor management may be required to protect the resource of concern 

and interpret the resource values. Alternative 1 provides the most acres in these categories. 

About half as many acres are in Alternative 2 as Alternative 1. Similarly there are about half as 

many acres in Alternative 6 as in 2. Alternative 3 has slightly fewer acres than Alternative 6, 

while Alternative 5 has about one third of the acres of Alternative 3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 272 

Effects on Recreation from Oil and Gas Activities 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal Settlement 

Zone” as described in Topic 9 – Oil and Gas. It is estimated to be about 68,300 acres. 

The degree to which oil and gas activities such as exploratory drilling, oil and gas field 

development and other activities involving the construction of roads, well sites and other 

facilities would affect forest visitors depends on the type of opportunity, experience and setting 

present. The impacts associated with the drilling of a single exploratory well could adversely 

affect the setting associated with the backcountry and non-motorized opportunities. These 

impacts would be of relatively limited area, short duration, and once drilling and reclamation is 

completed the impacts would not be significant. However, some evidence of human activities 

would be present for a long period. These impacts may be of relatively high intensity and long 

duration if they are associated with oil and gas field development and the subsequent production 

of oil and gas. The impacts associated with a producing oil and gas field could last 20-30 years. 

For recreation opportunities and settings associated with roads and vehicular use, the impacts 

will likely be less significant. In many cases oil and gas activities can be shielded from areas 

popular for recreation use so development is less evident to visitors. New or improved roads 

constructed for oil and gas activities could enhance motorized recreation activities, if after sitespecific analysis they remain in place and open. In the case of a non-productive exploratory well, 

the road and well pad may be decommissioned and reclaimed or the road could be managed as 

open for new access. A producing oil and gas field would have a system of well-developed roads 

such as those present in the oil fields on the Mountain View Ranger District. In that case, visitors 

would experience some oil and gas-related traffic. In all of the alternatives but Alternative 4, the 

majority of the Appeal Settlement Zone is mapped as semi primitive non motorized for summer 

recreation opportunities. Site-specific analysis would be required to determine the future 

disposition of roads, unless already specified by management prescription 

Short-term noises of drilling and the potential long-term noise from pumping and odors of gas 

production could negatively affect users near an oil production site. 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases not existing ones. In all 

alternatives (except Alt 4) an area of existing leases, the Table Top Unit, could be explored and 

result in effects to recreation opportunities and settings. The degree to which the Table Top 

Unit is explored is affected by whether or not new leases could be issued and under what 

stipulations. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development of 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect the primitive recreation experience. The 

primitive recreation setting could be affected on an estimated 20 acres because of oil and gas 

exploration activities. Once existing leases expire, the area would be unavailable for leasing 

since 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 the 

undeveloped recreation setting on about 20 acres. Once existing leases expire, leasing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 273 

availability in areas recommended for Wilderness is precluded. On remaining available acres, 

new leases could be issued, but surface occupancy would not be allowed. No surface occupancy 

would maintain the undeveloped recreation setting. 

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. The semi-primitive nonmotorized setting would be maintained 

within the majority of the area. Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed 

above with stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,400 acres are 

available under Standard Lease Terms. Oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 75 

acres. Some of the effects to recreation opportunities could last 20-30 years because of field 

development. Some development is predicted within the Table Top Unit. If the development 

occurs within semi-primitive nonmotorized settings, these areas could be significantly affected. 

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 to the recreation setting are expected. 

 

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 areas managed as semi-primitive or for backcountry recreation values such 

as sights and silence associated with solitude would be significantly affected. Motorized 

recreation could benefit from additional access, if new roads are managed as open. Some of the 

effects to recreation opportunities could last 20-30 years because of field development. 

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 renewed in areas managed for motorized undeveloped recreation values and terrestrial 

habitat. Within this area because of the Controlled Surface Use stipulation applied to areas with 

high or moderate scenic integrity level, activities would be shielded to visitors, which would 

lessen the effects to recreation. In the remainder of the area the effects to recreation would be 

minimal because of no surface occupancy. 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for Wilderness. On the 

remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 27,000 

acres. Of this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 85 acres. Some of the 

effects to recreation opportunities could last 20-30 years because of field development. Some 

development (included in the 85 acre estimate) is predicted within the Table Top Unit because of 

existing leases and new leases being offered with surface occupancy. 

Most critical to the recreational experience are those acres managed for a backcountry or nonmotorized experience (Management Prescriptions 4.1 and 4.2). The majority of area managed 

for these values is protected by a no surface occupancy stipulation. On the remaining portion oil 

and gas leasing would be allowed with a controlled surface use stipulation that would be strictly 

applied to locate or shield oil and gas activities from visitors. Temporary road construction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 274 

would be allowed for operator’s access and for the life of the well. Though only administrative 

use would be allowed, new roads may temporarily affect the recreation experience of nonmotorized users. Restoration activities would return to area to a non motorized setting. 

Environmental Consequences for Ski Areas 

Effects on ski areas from Roadless Areas management 

Alternative 1 recommends considerable additional Wilderness or non-motorized roadless 

prescriptions adjacent to or near all ski areas. Future expansion would not be possible for ski 

areas if Wilderness protections were put in place in adjacent areas. In Alternative 2 additional 

Wilderness is recommended in White Pine limiting future expansion for Snowbird. Roadless 

prescriptions near Brighton, Alta, Solitude, and Snowbasin would not allow new road 

construction and would limit motorized access to only administrative use for ski areas’ 

maintenance or internal development. In Alternatives 3, 4, 6 and 7 Roadless Areas adjacent to 

all ski areas are protected for watershed, wildlife, or backcountry non-motorized recreation 

purposes, which would limit motorized access into the ski areas for work. 

Effects on ski areas from fire/vegetation management 

Wildland fire use is not allowed in ski areas in any alternative. While prescribed fire could be 

allowed, high property value and potential control issues make it unlikely that this method for 

treating vegetation would be selected. Mechanical treatments would be preferred to reach 

desired scenery or vegetation objectives. 

In areas adjacent to ski areas vegetation management through the use of prescribed fire is 

potentially applicable for all alternatives, although mechanical treatment would be more likely. 

Wildland fire use adjacent to a ski area is allowable, though unlikely. Any threats to high 

property value would be mitigated rather than suppressed. While Alternative 1 stresses reliance 

on natural processes for meeting vegetation management and most ecosystem needs, if fire starts 

were near a ski area, they would be carefully monitored, and threats to life and property would 

be suppressed. 

Effects on ski areas from scenery management

Within ski area permit boundaries, the ski area will be consistently managed in a Resort Natural 

Setting Landscape Character Theme (LCT) and a High Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) for 

Alternatives 1-3 and 5-7. Under Resort Natural Setting LCT the management of the landscape 

will change from current management, which is defined as acceptable degrees of deviation from 

a natural landscape to management for positive human alterations to the landscape. To maintain 

a High SIO structures would be thematic in context within the resort boundaries and harmonize 

with the form, line, color and texture of the natural setting. Vegetation and landscape islands 

would be incorporated into future parking designs and reconfigurations to minimize the expanse 

of the parking lots. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 275 

Alternative 4/1985 will manage the landscape in a “Natural” LCT using degrees of acceptable 

change. Management of the base of the ski would be in a Low SIO and the slopes of the permit 

would be managed as Moderate SIO which would continue scenery management as it is 

currently, except with a change in terminology. See Appendix D-4 allocation framework 

Scenery Management System for more details for LCT and SIO descriptions. Alternative 5 

expands the LCT of Resort Natural Appearing to match the proposed permit area expansion. 

Even though the LCT of adjacent landscapes to the ski areas change by alternative, there would 

be no effect to scenery because of the sensitivity of watershed. 

Effects on ski areas from wildlife and fisheries management 

No difference across the alternatives in the effect to ski areas from fish and wildlife management. 

Ski areas would need to meet the intent of conservation agreements, in-stream flows, and other 

standards, guidelines, and laws that provide protection for fish and wildlife species and to 

mitigate effects of any project proposal. Costs for future development at ski areas would be an 

effect to the ski areas. 

Effects of ski areas from watershed and soil management 

Any development or modification proposal for ski areas would need to meet soil and watershed 

conservation practices, within existing boundaries as in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, or with 

expanded boundaries as in Alternative 5. Mitigation of effects to soil and watershed would need 

to be applied, which will incur costs to the ski areas for implementation of projects. 

Cumulative Effects 

The method of analysis is to described the cumulative effect issues, describe the cumulative 

effect area and the time frame for analysis, identify past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. 

Issues 

The main issue identified under recreation involves increasing conflicts between and among 

users of motorized/mechanized vehicles (ATV’s, snowmobiles, helicopters for skiing, ski area 

permit expansion to adjacent areas, and mountain bikes) and non-motorized recreation. 

Cumulative Effects Area and Time Frame 

The cumulative effect area in within approximately 2 hours of the main population centers of 

Salt Lake City, Ogden, Logan, Tooele and Park City that provides the majority of the recreation 

users on the Forest. The time frame is from the previous planning period through the next 

planning period or approximately 10 to 15 years before and after the present time. 

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

The environmental consequence section describes effects to recreation from various topic areas. 

Of these topic areas, the primary topics that could cumulatively affect recreation management are 

from other recreation uses; Roads and Access; Vegetation and Fuels Management; Livestock 

Grazing; Inventoried Roadless Areas; Soil, Water, Aquatic, and Semi-Aquatic Species; Wildlife 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 276 

Management; Threatened and Endangered Species; Special Management Areas; and Oil and Gas 

Activities. 

Cumulative Effects from Recreation on the National Forest 

Population Growth along the Wasatch Front has increased dramatically during the last two 

decades. The Greater Wasatch Area (GWA) Stretches from Nephi to Brigham City and from 

Kamas to Grantsville. The GWA is currently home to 1.7 million residents, which make up 80 

percent of the State’s population, making Utah the sixth most urbanized state in the nation. The 

population of Utah is expected to increase to 3.3 million in 2020 with 2.5 million living in Davis, 

Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber Counties. The youth population will continue to be the largest age 

group in the state (Utah, State of. 2002b). The cumulative effect of increased population is high 

demand for outdoor recreation opportunities provided in an alpine setting, which the WCNF 

provides for with easy access from major population centers. This growth has pushed urban 

development closer and closer and in many cases directly adjacent to public land boundaries. 

These public lands provide the growing population a place to go to recreate and enjoy a relative 

pristine mountain setting. This population growth, coupled with new technologies, is having a 

profound effect on the surrounding Public Lands. As the population increases, the niche that the 

WCNF provides in the recreation opportunity spectrum is being increasingly burdened. 

Increased use has required the Forest Service to reconstruct and harden a significant number of 

picnic and campsites in addition to making them all more accessible to all members of the 

public. These modifications in additions to many other factors have helped to change the desired 

experience for many recreationists. Other public agencies and local communities including 

private individuals have developed campgrounds, parks, picnic sites and recreation facilities, but 

these are typically at lower elevations and primarily see use during the spring and fall. These 

facilities meet many people’s recreation needs but do not always fill the desired alpine recreation 

experience. As temperatures increase during the summer, most of these people flock to the 

Forests for the alpine experience and the subsequent relief from the heat. 

Technology is continually making improvements to All Terrain Vehicles (ATV), Snowmobiles 

and Mountain Bikes, which changes the mechanism and its ability to traverse National Forest 

System Lands. In 2000, the number of off-highway motorcycles, ATV’s, snowmobiles and 

recreational 4X4s in Utah is estimated at almost 163,000 (Fisher et al. 2001). Technology is 

continually making improvements to ATV, snowmobiles and mountain bikes. ATV’s are more 

powerful, have better suspensions and have better traction than they have ever had before. The 

cumulative effect of the increase in technology is that snowmobiles have been improved to the 

point where there is almost no areas on the Forest where they cannot travel in the deepest snow 

conditions. ATVs allow a wide range of users a comfortable and affordable mode of 

transportation that can traverse rugged roads, trails and open areas of the forest with a minimal 

skill level. This has created a trend toward increased numbers of user created trails and ATV 

operation on roads with mixed traffic. With lighter frames, better gearing and suspensions, 

mountain bikers are continually pushing the limits of what and where people can ride. In 

addition, new types of technology like land toboggans, mountain skateboards etc. continue to 

change how the forests is used. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 277 

There has been a dramatic increase in the use of these technology driven recreational pastimes. 

The number of snowmobiles and ATV’s registered in Utah has climbed from about 26,000 in 

1980 (Thompson, H. 2001) to about 116,000 in 2002 (State of Utah Tax Commission). The sale 

of Mountain Bikes has increased dramatically during the last 10 years. Mountain Bikers have 

created a number of conflicts between riders and hikers as each compete for the same trail. 

Similar conflicts exist between motorized and non-motorized users both during summer and 

winter as they recreate in similar areas and trails. The popularity of these sports has increased 

dramatically in the past ten years and is projected to continue to increase at a similar rate. The 

cumulative effect of the increase numbers of motorized recreation vehicles is the desire to have 

more opportunities for discovery and testing of skills on limited travel ways and land mass, 

which push user densities towards undesirable levels for many recreationists and have the 

potential to cause more user conflicts. 

 

In addition to an increase in mechanical forms of recreation, as the population grows there will 

likely be additional increases in more traditional forms of recreation such as hiking, climbing in 

the summer and cross country skiing, ski touring and snow shoeing in the winter. 

Other recreation providers in Northern Utah public land are National Forests adjacent to the 

WCNF such as the Caribou National Forest to the north, the Ashley National Forest to the east, 

and the Uinta National Forest to the south. Bureau of Land Management lands are located to the 

east from south of Bear Lake to Woodruff. Wildlife management areas near the WCNF include; 

Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Harold S. Crane 

Waterfowl Management Area, and the Ogden Bay Waterfowl Management Area. These areas 

provide developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities similar to those available on the 

WCNF. As recreation use continues to grow, some visitors may be displaced to other locations. 

Conflict between users may also escalate, increasing the need for management actions to manage 

the conflict. While other opportunities are available, they generally do not include the high 

elevation or large areas needed for some activities, particularly snowmobiling and backcountry 

skiing. Conflict between these users is currently high and is expected to increase. 

Beaver Mountain Ski Area, Powder Mountain Ski Area, The Canyons, Park City, Deer Valley, 

and Sundance Ski Resort are in constant competition with the five ski areas on WCNF in order to 

keep their part of the market. Total skier visits in Utah are forecasted to grow from around 3 

million currently, to over 4 million by 2007. (USDA Forest Service. 1999d). “Approximately 49 

percent of (3.1 million) Utah ski resort visitors were non-residents from other U.S. states. 

Roughly 3 percent were international visitors while the remaining 48 percent of resort visitors 

were residents of Utah.” (Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants. 2000) With this trend a 

change in the market could have cumulative effect on the five ski areas on Forest Service System 

lands administered by the WCNF either for the positive or negative. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas may displace users from Uinta, Caribou, and Ashley NF and cause 

increase use on the WCNF. 

The marketing of tourism in the State of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming inform people of areas where 

they can recreate. With the invention of better electronic communications, marketing is less and 

less controlled and provides information to the user that may be incomplete. It is much like the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 278 

gold rush of the 1800’s where people sought riches of the west based on tale’s that you could 

pick the gold off the ground as you walked along. This may have been true for a few people, but 

when you put thousands of people in the same place the chances of finding gold became mute. 

Thus it is with information technology tourism marketing when a company of web sites tells 

people of the wonderful recreation experience they can have by going to this location of the 

Forest. The land becomes overburden and can no longer provide the experience described and 

causes conflicts of desires and with other users. 

Rapid urban expansion is expected in the next 20 years and as open space diminishes pressure to 

build on the foothills will increase (Utah, State of. 2002b). Private land development is 

occurring adjacent to the WCNF boundary with high density housing along the foothills and in 

some more mountainous areas such as canyons east of Salt Lake City from Emigration Canyon 

to Little Cottonwood, upper Weber drainage, Woodland, north side of the South Fork Ogden 

River, Little Bear drainage, west of Bear Lake, near Bear River Service, and Meeks Cabin 

Reservoir. This continued expansion necessitates communities planning for the future by 

identifying access points and trails systems that will provide recreation opportunities for the 

nearby residents. Because National Forest System lands are or will be the boundary for this

development, the cumulative effect will be ever increasing recreation pressure on these adjacent 

lands. 

When vegetation and/or fuels management occurs on adjacent public lands the recreation users 

are displaced to another location that provide an alpine recreation experience. This could happen 

because of specific management activities, human caused events or acts of God all of which have 

a cascading effect of moving recreationists from one location to another and creating undesirable 

conflicts as user density increases and users find that their personal special Forest location has 

been taken over by another individual. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 279 

Topic 4 – Recreation/Scenery Management 

Scenery Management 

Introduction 

The scenery visible to people visiting or living by the WCNF constitutes the scenic resource. 

Scenery is described as the general appearance of a place or landscape, or the features of a 

landscape. The character of the landscape varies by location and is dependent on natural features 

such as geology, vegetation, water features, landforms, natural disturbances and human 

alterations 

The WCNF is the scenic backdrop and playground to the populace of the Wasatch Front, Cache 

Valley and other basin communities in Utah and Wyoming. People view these scenic resources 

from their residences, special places and travel ways that meander through the Forest. 

 

“The majority of the recreation-oriented people who visit the National Forests have an 

image of what they expect to see. Such an image or mental picture is generated by available 

information concerning a particular area and the person’s experience with that or similar 

areas. The image produced represents the knowledgability, expectedness, romanticism, and 

emotionalism associated with features within an area. Obviously, several images may exist 

simultaneously, even within a single individual, and yet a particular geographic region tends 

to have an identifiable image.” (AH 701. 1995) 

 

The WCNF scenic image has been recognized nationally for its landscapes seen from its Scenic 

Byways, travel ways, Wilderness backcountry, recreation facilities, overlooks and canyon 

resorts. Viewing Scenery is one of the highest recreation activities in the nation and on the 

Forest. 

Background 

Forest management activities have the potential for directly, indirectly and cumulatively 

affecting the scenic resources through vegetation management, facility construction, road 

building, fire, and any other human interactions with the forest. These activities are related to 

many of the Need for Change topics, and could be implemented under any of the alternatives. 

Therefore, potential effects on the scenic resource are analyzed in this section. 

Laws, Policy and Direction 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 (note)). This Act authorizes and 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and administer the renewable surface resources 

of the National Forests” with “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources 

... with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not 

necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

output.” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 280 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131). This Act directs the United States to retain the 

“primeval character and influence” of Wilderness areas and to protect and manage a Wilderness 

area “so as to preserve its natural conditions which generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” 

One of the six primary public purposes of a Wilderness area is scenery. 

National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1241). This Act authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to administer and manage national scenic trails “for the conservation and enjoyment 

of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through 

which such trails may pass.” 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271). This Act directs the United States, in its 

administration of components of the national wild and scenic rivers system, to give primary 

emphasis to protecting “its aesthetic, [and] scenic . . . features.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). This Act directs the Federal 

Government to “(2) assure for all Americans . . . healthful, productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 

without degradation, [or] risk to health; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural 

aspects” of our environment. It further directs agencies to “insure the integrated use of the 

natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making 

which may have an impact on man’s environment.” This Act directs agencies to develop 

methods and procedures “which will insure that [scenery and other] unquantified environmental 

amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with 

economic and technical considerations.” 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1601). This 

Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare land management plans, which provide for 

outdoor recreation and to develop and keep current a comprehensive inventory of all National 

Forest System, as well as state and private, lands and resources. This Act requires an assessment 

of potential aesthetic impacts during the interdisciplinary review of proposed timber sale areas, 

which would include clear cutting and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of 

timber. It also specifies treatment of other cut blocks and protection of aesthetic resources. It 

directs that multiple use and sustainable yield guidelines be used with private lands involved 

with government programs. 

The Visual Management System 1974. This publication is U.S. Forest Service Agriculture 

Handbook No, 462. It provided direction under which landscape management for the 1985 

Forest Plan was developed. This direction was widely implemented during the “first round” of 

forest plans from the 1980’s and 1990’s. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 (note)). This Act states 

that it is the policy of the United States to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the 

quality of scenic, ecological, and environmental values. It further directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to prepare, maintain and keep current an inventory of “outdoor recreation and scenic 

values” on all public lands. This authority is delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture to allow 

Forest Service management of some Bureau of Land Management lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 281 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 (note)). This Act requires that the 

removal of trees, portions of trees, or forest products “be compatible with multiple use resource 

management objectives in the affected area.” 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201). This Act authorizes 

the Secretary of Agriculture to permit surface coal mining operations if there are no significant 

recreational or other values, which may be incompatible. 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978) declares “unsatisfactory conditions on public 

rangelands reduce the value of such lands for recreational and aesthetic purposes.” 

RPA Statement of Policy Act of December 12, 1980 (P.L. 96-514, 96 Stat. 2957). This Act 

states that it is the policy of the United States that the “Nation’s forested land, except such public 

land that is determined by law or policy to be maintained in its existing or natural state, should 

be managed at levels that realize its capabilities to satisfy the Nation’s need for . . . recreation 

and aesthetic values.” 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401(note), 4401-4413, 16 

U.S.C. 669b (note)). This Act recognizes the aesthetic values of fish, shellfish, and other 

wildlife; it further recognizes that wetland ecosystems provide aquatic areas, which are important 

for recreational and aesthetic purposes. It directs the head of each Federal agency, to the extent 

consistent with their mission and statutory authorities, to cooperate to restore, protect, and 

enhance the wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds, fish, and wildlife. 

Tourism Policy and Export Promotion Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-372, 106 Stat. 1170; 22 U.S.C. 

2121 note, 22 U.S.C. 2124c). This Act created the Rural Tourism Development Foundation to 

assist in growth and “promotion of rural tourism [to] contribute to the economic development of 

rural America and further the conservation and promotion of natural, scenic, . . . and recreational 

resources....” 

Scenic Byways (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) (23 U.S.C. 

101(note)). This Act directs establishment of a national scenic byway program with designation 

criteria to include consideration of scenic beauty. It further recommends that designated travel 

ways have operation and maintenance standards which include “strategies for . . . protecting and 

enhancing the landscape and view corridors surrounding such a highway.” 

Landscape Aesthetics Handbook, Agriculture Handbook, No. 701, 1995 This handbook 

replaced The Visual Management System, Agriculture Handbook No. 462. The Scenery 

Management System (SMS) presents a vocabulary for managing scenery and a systematic 

approach for determining the relative value and importance of scenery on National Forest lands. 

Affected Environment

The affected areas for direct and indirect effects to scenic resources are the lands administered by 

the National Forest. These areas represent the National Forest System lands where the scenic 

resources exist, and the lands where those resources could receive both management activities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 282 

and disturbance events. The affected area for cumulative effects includes the lands administered 

by the National Forest, and the lands of other ownership both within and adjacent to the National 

Forest boundaries. Cumulative effects to resources on the other land ownerships are addressed 

to lend a broader perspective to the importance of scenic resources on the Forest and to 

acknowledge the inter-relationship with those lands. 

The present landscape is a result of the interactions of existing vegetation and landforms on line, 

form, color, and texture of the viewed scenery. The existing landscape character varies by 

location and are dependent on such influences as geology, water, vegetation, landforms, and 

human developments and activities. The scenic landscape is a dynamic medium and is 

continuously modified by both human and natural causes. 

Geologic events, wildland fire, human developments and activities and wildland fire exclusion 

have altered much of the landscape that comprises the WCNF. Some of these altered landscapes 

are not obvious to casual viewers because they still present a natural appearance, or cultural 

modifications appear to be part of the valued image people are expecting in a landscape. This is 

especially true when looking at some of the vegetation conditions that have resulted from fire 

exclusion. 

For planning purposes, the Forest is divided into five Landscape Character Types (LCT), which 

have varying degrees of human alteration. They range from the subtle changes found in Natural 

Evolving LCT (25 percent of the Forest) to the highly modified Landscape Character Theme of 

Water Recreation Rural Appearing (0.3 percent of the Forest) found in Ogden Valley’s, 

Pineview Reservoir, located in a rural culture setting of farms, tree lined fields and patch work of 

fenced pastures. A majority of the Forest’s LCT is Natural Appearing (72 percent) where the 

altered landscape appears natural to the casual visitor where valued amenities such as trailheads, 

campgrounds and historic uses are evident. 

Adjacent to the scenic byways on the Forest are landscapes that have moderate to high densities 

of developed forest facilities in a natural setting and is described as Developed Natural 

Appearing (2 percent). Five ski areas comprise the remainder of the Forest where mountain 

villages, base facilities, ski runs and trails mimic or abstract characteristics of color and forms

found in the surrounding landscape and is described as Resort Natural Appearing (0.5 percent) 

(See Appendix D-4 Allocation Framework Scenery Management System for more detail 

description of Landscape Character Themes). 

For the Wasatch-Cache providing pleasing landscapes with appropriate protection for supporting 

resource elements has always been a major consideration in larger allocation decisions and at the 

project level. A new program for scenery management is proposed in this FEIS. 

Visual Management System, Visual Quality Objectives (VQO), and the 

proposed Scenery Management System (SMS) 

The biggest difference proposed for scenery management is the new Forest Service program 

management direction for scenery. Existing Forest Plan direction for scenery was created under 

the Visual Management System (Forest Service Handbook, No. 462, April 1974), which 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 283 

developed Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) for the forest. The base line that VQOs are 

compared against is the perceived natural landscape; any deviation from this base line would be 

considered negative and an effect on the landscape character. Proposed Forest Plan direction, 

under any alternative except the No-Action Alternative 4/1985, is formulated under the new 

direction found in Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, (USDA Forest 

Service. 1995b). 

In the early 1990’s the Forest Service determined that a new landscape management 

methodology was desirable. The new system has basic differences from the old system, although 

it still incorporates some of the original inventory element of the old version. SMS has a new 

vocabulary of terms, encourages public participation in development of desired future 

conditions, and does not necessarily judge human developments (buildings, roads, structures) or 

natural disturbances as detraction from a landscape’s character. 

In a general sense, over half of the Forest is now being managed as “Moderate to Low” Scenic 

Integrity Objective if we translate the existing VQO system into SMS terms. Because cultural 

features are considered negative, providing direction to move to a higher Scenic Integrity 

Objective is difficult and likely will not occur. Vegetation will continue to be managed to appear 

as natural as possible within the application of the existing plan’s management practices. 

 

Complete general description of SMS methods are provided in (USDA Forest Service. 1995b.) 

Appendices to this FEIS are provided to show specifics about how SMS has been interpreted for 

application on the WCNF. Appendix D on Scenic Resources presents SMS as one of three basic 

allocation mapping frameworks used in this planning process, the other two being Management 

Prescription Categories (MPC) and Recreation Opportunities Spectrum (ROS). Almost all SMS 

Landscape Character Themes (LCT) and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) correlate directly to 

specific Management Prescription Categories, and as such vary by alternative as MPCs do for 

the same areas. Two minor exceptions (in terms of overall acreage on the Forest) are Resort 

Natural Settings LCT (essentially ski areas) and Water Recreation Rural Appearing LCT 

(Pineview Reservoir); these are distinct categories with an indirect MPC correlation. The 

direction in Appendix B that is particular to this forest includes: a Conversion Table of 

Management Prescription Categories to Landscape Character Themes and Scenic Integrity 

Objectives; and a Definition Table for Landscape Character Theme and Scenic Integrity 

Objective. In addition to the general Glossary in the FEIS, the Scenic Resources section of 

Appendix B also includes a glossary of terms specific to SMS. 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

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

of people’s experience. 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 vegetation and the landscape appearances. The relative amount of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 284 

these activities and uses vary by alternative. However, they are likely to be present to some 

extent in all alternatives. 

In any given year or decade, only a small percentage of a forest is or may be treated (timber 

harvests, prescribed fire, construction, etc.). Prior to implementing any site-specific project, an 

analysis shall be completed which will disclose potential impacts and require specific mitigation 

measures to ensure compliance with adopted objectives for Scenery. The objectives are 

minimum guidelines to be met and it is understood that project implementation will always strive 

to minimize adverse effects to the scenic resources of the Forest. 

Table SMS 1 shows how the acreage of the several Landscape Character Themes and Scenic 

Integrity Objectives varies by alternative when looked at across the WCNF. Note that 

management under Alternative 4 is depicted in terminology from the old VMS system, and no 

direct translation is possible between the two systems to compare current environment with the 

action alternatives. 

For Alternatives 1-3 and 5-7 the Forest would be managed under five LCT’s. For all 

Alternatives except Alternative 1 and 4, the management of the largest percentage of the Forest 

would be in a Natural Appearing LCT. In Alternative 1 over half of the Forest would be 

managed in a Natural Evolving LCT and Alternative 4 would manage the entire Forest in a 

Natural LCT. See Appendix D-4 for detailed descriptions of Landscape Character Types (LCT), 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) and see Conversion Table D4-1 for the correlation of MPC to 

LCTs and SIOs. 

Natural Appearing LCT is divided into three Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO: High, Moderate 

and Low. For the High SIO, Alternative 7 would have the greatest amount where nearly half of 

the LCT would be managed in a High SIO. Alternative 2 would have the next highest and 

Alternatives 3, 5 and 6 would be moderate while Alternative 1 would have the lowest at about 

one third of the LCT. 

The MPC for Terrestrial Habitat, Forested Vegetation Multiple Resource Objectives, 

Communication Sites and Mineral Development emphasis would be managed in Moderate SIO

within Alternatives 3 and 6 managing over a quarter of the LCT. About an eighth of LCT in 

Alternatives 2 and 7 would be Moderate and Alternative 1 would have the lowest amount of the 

Moderate SIO. 

Low SIO would include MPC 5.2 Forest vegetation timber growth and yield, and also includes 

Utility Corridors, but the acres are not shown because only the transmission lines activities 

would be managed as a Low SIO all other activities would be managed as defined by SIOs for 

each alternative. There are no Forest vegetation timber growth and yield activities in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 have less than 4 percent of the LCT managed as 

Low SIO and Alternative 5 would have 30 percent of the LCT in a Low SIO. 

Natural Evolving would represent the scenery LCT for the Wilderness and Recommended 

Wilderness on the Forest in each Alternative except 4/1985. The SIO for this LCT would be 

Very High. In Alternative 1 the Very High SIO includes over half of the Forest. For 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 285 

Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7 about a third of the Forest would be Very High and Alternative 5 

would be about a quarter of the Forest. 

Natural LCT makes up all of the Forest in Alternative 4 and is divided into four SIOs:, Very 

High, High, Moderate and Low. This represents the 1985 plan and was created by making a 

cross-walk in terms from VQOs to SIOs. See Appendix D for definitions. There is no 

correlation for these SIOs to the MPCs for Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan. 

Landscape Character Types (LCTs) such as: 

• Developed Natural Appearing include Scenic Byways and Developed Recreation Areas 

along the byways. 

• Resort Natural Setting includes Developed Recreation Areas such as Ski areas. 

• Water Recreation Rural Appearing includes Pineview Reservoir. 

These LCTs make up a very small percentage of the managed Scenery on the Forest for all 

alternatives except Alternative 4/1985. The specific activities and development associated with 

these LCTs would allow human alteration to harmonize with the surrounding Landscape 

Character. The LCT would be managed in a High SIO, would be implemented on future 

projects, and may initiate projects to bring areas where they do not meet the SIO within these 

LCTs. 

Table SMS-1. Landscape Character Theme and 

Scenic Integrity Objective by Alternative 

Effects on scenic resources from timber management 

Effects on scenic resources from timber management can vary depending upon the quantity and 

type of trees removed, logging methods, and the physical character of the landscape. Generally, 

timber removal—and any associated roads, skid trails and slash treatments—results in adverse 

effects to the scenic environment arising from vegetation change or removal and ground 

disturbance. Impacts from timber harvest are often most dramatic in areas where no change in 

landscape character has previously occurred. Adverse effects are usually less where disturbances 

Sum of %

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER SCENIC_INT_OBJ ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT4/1985 ALT 5 ALT 6 ALT 7

natural evolving very high 56.3% 36.7% 29.1% N.A. 24.9% 30.5% 29.9%

natural appearing 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%

low 0.0% 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%

Natural* VQO Preservation very high* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Natural* VQO Retention High* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Natural* VQO Partial Retention Moderate* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Natural* VQO Modification Low* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

*Translation from the Visual Management System terminolgy to Scenery Management System terms. Alternative 4 represents the 1985

Forest Plan direction for Scenic Resources.

ALT
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 286 

are already prevalent across the landscape. Thinnings, partial cuts, and selection cuts usually 

have lower impacts and are evident for a shorter duration than overstory removals, seed tree cuts, 

and clearcuts. Helicopter logging does not create skid trails or yarding corridors that contribute 

to the visual impacts of ground-based and cable logging systems. Timber management may also 

be used to improve scenic quality, particularly where there are opportunities to enhance scenic 

views, to provide a landscape associated with people’s expectations, and to achieve timber stand 

characteristics that are more visually appealing. 

No suited timber production lands would be allowed in Alternatives 1 and 2, making potential 

effects from it non-existent. Alternative 5 has the most suited timber production lands proposed, 

and consequently would have the most effect on scenery from this activity because of the total 

amount of acres available. Alternative 4/1985 Forest Plan is the next highest. Alternatives 3, 6 

and 7 have low amounts of suited timberlands. Depending on the type of timber harvest method 

selected there would be change in the vegetation density, and/or pattern changing the character 

of the stand and view. Regardless of the alternative selected, all timber harvest will go through 

site-specific analysis to ensure consistency with adopted objectives for scenery and mitigation 

measures would be applied to minimize adverse effects. 

Effects on scenic resources from fire, insect and disease 

For this discussion, it is important to note the overall biological health of the Forest is poor 

because of fire exclusion and other activities. However, this is from a scientific standpoint, as 

seen by the casual visitor if the image of the forest is green and forms and patterns appear intact, 

the casual visitor may consider the Forest to be in good health. 

Though processes related to fire, insects, and disease are natural, the casual visitor may perceive 

the image of one or more of the stages of the ecological cycle as negative. Until the undesirable 

characteristic (black snags, red canopies in conifer, etc.) is replaced by the next stage of the 

natural process, the image of the forest could appear damaged or unhealthy to the casual visitor. 

In areas where disturbance events dominate the landscape, the potential for dramatic visual 

effects is likely to substantially increase over the long term. It is difficult to predict how or 

where or when these changes might occur due to influential variables such as vegetation patterns, 

disturbance regimes, climate, and topography. 

For Alternative 1, because of its strong emphasis on allowing nature to take its course, and 

minimizing human interference with natural processes the image or character of the landscape 

may have little change within the management time of the proposed forest plan (the short term). 

However, in the longer-term as the Forest health degrades, effects in vegetation appearance (bug 

kill, decadence, fire) could occur in Forest landscapes. Such effects could be on large areas with 

uncharacteristic fires and conversion of aspen types to conifer and back again as cycles occur 

over time. Should management of the Forest continue with the same emphasis for the duration 

of time nature takes its course, (amount of time will vary based on vegetation type) positive 

characteristics could occur as the vegetation types reach their properly functioning condition and 

become the dominant character of the landscape. As part of this alternative it would be 

anticipated that because the forest is in a number of different ecosystems that the properly 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 287 

functioning condition would vary from landscape to landscape and would not all appear positive 

at the same time. 

With Alternative 2 the Forest Service actively initiates prescribed fires and other actions to 

change vegetation mosaics and increase age class diversity with the intent of trending toward 

properly functioning conditions. In areas where natural appearing scenery was desired, this 

alternative would have positive effects on scenery producing a more diverse landscape with 

greater variety in color, texture and composition. 

For Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 a moderate program of prescribed fire and wildland fire treatment 

could allow a trend toward improving scenery over time. 

In Alternative 4, the WCNF does not allow wildland fire use or such extensive use of prescribed 

fire. In this case, vegetation might continue its trend toward an abundance of over aged stands 

and decreasing diversity, with insect and disease more prevalent. These are not conditions that 

favor scenery in the long term. 

For Alternative 5, emphasis on fire use, while still available, would not affect as many acres. 

Short term fire evidence from these treatments would not be as prevalent in Alternative 5 as 

compared to Alternatives 2, 3, 6 or 7. 

Effects on scenic resources from livestock grazing 

Historical grazing has caused an estimated reduction in the amount of wildflower (Tall Forb) 

plant communities by nearly one half (USDA 1998b). While the loss of these wildflower 

meadows did not occur within the lifetime of current observers, this has affected a change in the 

visual qualities of these areas (most prominent in the Cache-Box Elder and North WasatchOgden Valley Management Areas). Currently the landscape appearance may include differences 

in the type and amount of vegetation on the land, vegetation trampling, and range improvement 

structures. Effects from grazing depend largely on the intensity and timing of forage utilization. 

 

Normally, allotment management plans require permittees to move their livestock so that they do 

not concentrate in sensitive areas, like meadows and riparian areas. Although there could be 

effects from seasonal trampling and heavy utilization of the forage, the potential for change to 

the perceived landscape character is relatively slight by the casual visitor. Structural 

improvements, such as fences, may be visually evident and can detract from the landscape 

character of an area. Mitigation may include relocating or redesigning fences where possible, or 

removing them where they are no longer needed. Generally, improvements are small and 

localized, and have a minor effect on the Scenic Integrity Objective of the surrounding area. If 

range allotments were maintained to standard, there would be minimal effect between 

alternatives. 

Effects on scenic resources from recreation management 

Effects on scenic resources from recreation activities can result in impacts depending on 

recreation activity levels, and soil and vegetation types. Off-road and off-trail travel and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 288 

undeveloped camping can cause erosion, ground disturbance, or de-vegetation. Although all 

forms of travel have the potential to cause these types of impacts, effects associated with most 

forms of motorized travel are usually the most pronounced due to the combination of vehicle 

weights, widths, and their creation of continuous track lines. In snow-covered landscapes, high 

numbers of snowmobile or ski tracks across a scenic view can also result in a temporary visual 

impact. 

In addition to the visible effects of activities, recreation developments can contribute to the loss 

of natural appearance by introducing numerous vehicles, groups of buildings, and conspicuous 

structures. As with other structures and facilities, the effects range from short to long term in 

duration and can vary depending on the scale and nature of the development, as well as the 

desired landscape character. 

For Developed Recreation few changes are proposed across the six action alternatives. There 

ought to be no discernable difference between the alternatives as no developed facilities are 

selected for closure. While new recreation development is allowable in Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6,

and 7 (in areas where MPCs allow it) changes will be minor from the middleground and 

background view the change in character by adding the recreation facilities would be seen in 

foreground view. 

 

Undeveloped recreation use can cause a variety of impacts that affect scenic resources. The 

effects are typically more pronounced with motorized use due to the weight and size of vehicles 

and the imprints left on the landscape. Since there is no off-route vehicle travel permitted on the 

Forest, these impacts are contained, except when accessing undeveloped camping sites within 

150 feet of a travel corridor. Non-motorized areas (ROS classes SPNM and P) typically have 

narrower travel ways that are less visible on the landscape. Visual impacts can also result at high 

use undeveloped campsites, occurring in both motorized and non-motorized settings. Impacts 

include: erosion, trampled or complete elimination of vegetation, fire pits, etc. Alternatives 1 

and 2, because of emphasis on non-motorized recreation opportunities, will likely have fewer 

impacts to the scenic resources than the other alternatives. 

Regardless of which alternative is implemented, it will be critical to improve education and 

information programs such as Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly. Travel Plan enforcement will 

also be key to minimizing impacts from undeveloped use. 

Effects on scenic resources from ski resorts 

Most of the ski areas on the WCNF are remnants of previous human activities, such as mining or 

timber harvest, resulting in the vegetation mosaic that lent itself to the open slopes needed for 

skiing. As the ski industry has progressed more ski runs and other amenities have been added, 

increasing and opening more slopes to the sport and providing easier access to the open bowls 

above timberlines. The forms, lines, colors and textures of human altered features have become 

dominant activity islands within a natural appearing landscape. Many of the communities 

changed as industry changed and began to support both local and out of town visitors using the 

canyon bottoms as collecting points by providing restaurants, shops, overnight accommodations, 

parking lots, roads and support communities for the industry. This built environment repeated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 289 

many of the colors and forms found in the surrounding landscape. Recognizing these, human 

altered landscapes have a long-term effect. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 manage the ski resorts within a Resort Natural Setting LCT and 

High SIO. This LCT manages for positive cultural elements in the base area, ski trails and 

amenities that borrow from the form, line and color found on the mountain slopes within the 

permit area of the resort. Alternative 4/1985’s LCT for the entire Forest would be Natural and 

manages the SIO for the base area in Low and Moderate on the mountain slopes. The effects of 

ski area management to scenery would be the change in the over story of vegetation and how 

openings and thinning occurs in the permit area in Alternative 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

In Alternative 5 ski resorts would be able to expand their permit boundaries, which would 

change the expansion acres from Natural Appearing LCT to Resort Natural Setting LCT in some 

ski areas. For ski slopes, this can change landscape character creating obvious runs where natural 

features were present and add other amenities to allow skiers to access the new expanded areas. 

Effects on scenic resources from travel management 

Effects on scenic resources from travel management construction, reconstruction, and 

decommissioning can all affect the landscape character of an area. Road construction and 

reconstruction are usually associated with timber harvest, facility development, utility corridors, 

telecommunications sites, mineral and energy development, and recreation activities. Roads and 

trails create a long-term visual impression on the landscape from associated vegetation clearing 

and ground disturbance activities. These effects are usually magnified by the linear nature of the 

pattern of disturbance, especially in forested landscapes. The extent of the impact depends upon 

topography, service type, soils, geology, and the nature of surrounding vegetation. The visual 

impact from trails is less due to their smaller width, which reduces the level of ground 

disturbance and makes impacts easier to mitigate in most cases. Road and trail decommissioning 

includes a variety of management actions ranging from simple closures to complete obliteration. 

Obliteration can often eliminate the visual impacts of a road or trail over the long term as 

vegetation matures in former road or trail locations; however, temporary or short-term effects of 

ground disturbance are often greater than closures. 

No new roads or new trails would be built in Alternative 1, creating the least effect on scenic 

resources of any alternative. In Alternative 2, which emphasizes active restoration, low amount 

of new roads would be constructed (a few miles for timber harvest). Alternative 3 and 4 would 

be second highest in the number of miles of road construction, Alternative 3 would have greater 

impact because of the level of road construction needed for Oil and Gas development. 

Alternative 5 would have the highest miles of roads and the greatest effect to scenery because of 

the size of the road prism needed for Oil and Gas development and also road constructed for 

timber management. Alternatives 6 and 7 would have a low amount of road construction. 

Effects on scenic resources from soil and water management 

Under all action alternatives, given the forestwide goal for watersheds, effects to scenic 

resources should be positive, as systems trend toward properly functioning condition. There will 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 290 

be a short-term effect during any construction or rehabilitation work, but as vegetation is reestablished the changes should appear natural and will have no effect on the landscape character 

of an area. For Alternative 1, enhancement to the existing landscape character would occur over 

the long term as natural systems act on watershed and soils. Unfortunately, in some known 

problem areas, deterioration would occur before natural stabilization takes place. 

In Alternative 2, watershed and soil problems that contributed to scenic problems would be 

corrected more quickly in problem areas than in Alternative 1 through a more active 

management program. As this alternative is a relatively aggressive restoration for vegetation 

through prescribed burning, with some associated watershed disturbance, some short-term 

detraction to scenery is anticipated before longer-term restored landscape character(s) are 

enhanced (See Topic 1.) 

Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 are similar in the acres of disturbance to watershed through activities. 

These alternatives would have less short-term effect than Alternative 2. Alternatives 4 and 5 are 

approximately equal, but have greater effects than Alternatives 3, 6 and 7, based on acres of 

disturbance of watershed through a variety of activities. (See Topic 1). 

Effects on scenic resources from oil and gas leasing 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal Settlement 

Zone” as described in Topic 9 – Oil and Gas. It is estimated to be about 68,300 acres. 

Exploratory drilling typically results in some significant visual impacts, particularly in areas that 

have seen no development in the past. Impacts from exploration activities are usually short-term 

because of the sight and presence of exploratory equipment. During the exploratory phase the 

sight of equipment above the overstory of vegetatation would potentially be noticeable for nine 

to twelve months. If no discovery were made the equipment would be removed and the area 

reclaimed. Oil and gas activities in the development and production phases typically result in 

long term impacts, but are less significant than the exploratory phases. Visual impacts from all 

phases of oil and gas activity are usually mitigated when reclamation of the site is complete. 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases not existing ones. In all 

alternatives (except Alt 4) an area of existing leases, the Table Top Unit, could be explored and 

result in effects to scenic resources. The degree to which the Table Top Unit is explored is 

affected by whether or not new leases could be issued and under what stipulations. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development of 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect scenic integrity of an undisturbed 

landscape. The scenic integrity of the area could be affected on an estimated 20 acres because of 

oil and gas exploration activities. Mitigation applied to existing leases could reduce effects by 

screening with vegetation or topography. Sensitive viewpoints could be affected until 

reclamation is effective. Alternative 2 is very similar. Again, development of existing leases 

within the Table Top Unit could affect the scenic integrity on about 20 acres. Once the existing 

leases expire, new leases could be issued, but surface occupancy would not be allowed. Nearby 

directional drilling from outside the area could affect some sensitive viewpoints. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 291 

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. Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed 

above with stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,400 acres are 

available under Standard Lease Terms. Oil and gas exploration and development are estimated to 

disturb about 75 acres. Some of the effects to scenery could last 20-30 years because of field 

development. Some of this development is predicted on existing leases within the Table Top 

Unit. In new leases a Controlled Surface Use stipulation would be applied to areas with high or 

moderate scenic integrity level to maintain the valued scenic integrity of an area. 

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 to scenery are 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. Because the landscape is relatively undisturbed, scenic resources would be 

significantly affected. Some of the effects could last 20-30 years because of field development. 

Mitigation in the form of road rehabilitation, and the use of noncontrasting colors on structures, 

would help to minimize or avoid the impacts. Other mitigation measures that could be required 

would include moving the site up to 200 meters (656 feet) if the site could be better screened by 

vegetation or topography, delaying activities for up to 60 days to avoid periods of high use by 

forest visitors, and painting of facilities to help blend them into the surrounding environment. 

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 renewed in areas managed for motorized undeveloped recreation values and terrestrial 

habitat. Within this area a Controlled Surface Use stipulation would be applied to areas with high 

or moderate scenic integrity level to maintain the valued scenic integrity of an area. In the 

remainder of the area the effects to scenic resources would be minimal because of no surface 

occupancy. 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for Wilderness. On the 

remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 27,000 

acres. Of this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 85 acres. Some 

development (included in the 85 acre estimate) is predicted within the Table Top Unit because of 

existing leases and new leases being offered with surface occupancy. Because the landscape is 

relatively undisturbed, effects to scenic resources could be dramatic. Some of the effects could 

last 20-30 years because of field development. Within the area that allows suface occupancy a 

Controlled Surface Use stipulation would be applied to areas with high or moderate scenic 

integrity level to mitigate effects and maintain the valued scenic integrity of an area. To the 

extent possible, effects to sensitive viewpoints would be reduced by screening oil and gas 

activities with vegetation or topography until reclamation is effective. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 292 

Impacts to the visual resources could occur as a result of the development of private minerals. 

Oil and gas activities on lands with private minerals are not required to meet Forest Plan 

guidelines for scenic resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

The method of analysis is to describe the cumulative effect issues describe the cumulative effect 

area and the time frame for analysis; identify past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions; 

and present the cumulative effects among the alternatives. 

Issues 

The main issue identified under scenery management is updating from the Visual Management 

System to the Scenery Management System and providing new direction and desired future 

conditions for WCNF National Forest System Lands. 

Cumulative Effects Area and Time Frame 

The cumulative effect area is within approximately two hours of the main population centers of 

Salt Lake City, Ogden, Logan, Tooele and Park City that provides scenery and scenic backdrop 

for these communities. The time frame is from the previous planning period through the next 

planning period or approximately 10 to 15 years before and after the present time. 

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

The environmental consequence section describes effects to scenery from various topic areas. Of 

these topic areas, the primary topics that could cumulatively affect scenery management are from 

timber management; fire, insect and disease; livestock grazing; recreation management; ski 

resorts; travel management; soil, water and management; and oil and gas leasing. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Forest Service has provided a new system for evaluating and managing scenic resources. 

This system is a reflection of the recognition by the agency that landscape amenity values are 

very important to people. While this recognition is true and federal land managers can and 

should be relatively sensitive to effects on scenery, the same is not always true beyond public 

lands. 

The visual landscape beyond the forest boundary is changing quickly. Urbanization continues 

along the Wasatch Front and in valleys on the east side of the range. Rural agricultural and 

residential expansion push toward the North Slope of the Uintas. Towns and communities are 

growing together, and subdivisions and recreation homes encroach on public lands. It is 

expected that this will continue as our population grows and transportation and other 

infrastructure and commercial systems expand. (See Social and Economic section). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 293 

Topic 5 – Wilderness Characteristics, Roadless Area Values, 

and Wilderness Management 

The organization and content under this topic has been changed considerably since the 

publication of the DEIS.

The first section of Topic 5 presents general information on inventoried roadless areas on the 

Wasatch-Cache. After that Topic 5 is separated into three sections: 

• Effects on wilderness characteristics. 

• Effects on roadless area values. 

• Wilderness Management 

Additions and changes to the analysis in the FEIS for roadless areas 

In the DEIS for the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan (May, 2001) the analysis of roadless areas 

focused mostly on their capability, availability and need as potential designated Wilderness, (See 

Appendix C, DEIS). The Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the protection of roadless areas 

from timber harvest and road building was applied to Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 in the DEIS. For 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 different allocations were used for roadless areas that would allow some 

of these uses and other uses that could negatively affect roadless values. Little definition or 

recognition of the different values of the areas was presented, except for their potential as 

recommended Wilderness. 

After public comments received on the DEIS, with the changing of policy from the Clinton to the 

Bush administrations, and with the injunction of the U. S. District Court in Idaho on 

implementation of the rule (May 12, 2001), a different strategy for allocations related to roadless 

areas was appropriate. The Intermountain Region and the Wasatch-Cache determined that 

additional scrutiny and consideration of individual roadless area values was needed, so that 

Forest Plan decisions might be made with a fuller awareness of the undeveloped values of each 

area, as well as its potential for a variety of uses. 

A new appendix to the FEIS, Appendix C-2, is added which inventories roadless area 

characteristics and values originally described in the Roadless Area Conservation DEIS (May, 

2000). Effects to these values by alternatives for each roadless area are also presented in that 

appendix. 

Appendix C to the DEIS which evaluates individual roadless area capability, availability and 

need for recommendation as Wilderness is now called Appendix C-1. Most changes to 

Appendix C-1 from Appendix C of the DEIS are minor, moving some analysis data to Appendix 

C-2, or adding additional explanation of planning considerations regarding the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 294 

Introduction

“Roadless Areas” refer to areas that are without constructed and maintained roads, and that are 

substantially natural. Some types of improvements and past activities are acceptable to be 

included in roadless areas. 

In the past, roadless areas were only looked at for their potential for wilderness recommendation. 

It is now recognized that roadless areas have significant ecological, as well as social values. The 

values of roadless are of both local and national significance. Roadless areas are often aquatic 

strongholds for fish; provide critical habitat and migration routes for many wildlife species 

especially those requiring large home ranges and key watershed areas for communities and 

wildlife. The recognition of the values of roadless areas is increasing, as the population continues 

to grow and as the demand for outdoor recreation and other uses of the forests increases. These 

unroaded and undeveloped areas provide the Forest with opportunities for potential wilderness 

areas, non-motorized and limited motorized recreation, and other commodity and amenity uses. 

This section describes and evaluates the effects to wilderness characteristics within inventoried 

roadless areas, makes considered different recommendations for Wilderness across the 

alternatives, and the effects to roadless area values and characteristics defined in Appendix A, 

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation DEIS (May, 2000). 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• The Code of Federal Regulations at (36 CFR 219.17(a)): States that roadless areas shall 

be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness during the forest 

planning process. 

• The Forest Service Handbook (1909.12.7.1): Directs to identify and inventory all roadless 

areas and details the means by which the capability, availability, and need for potential 

wilderness areas is assessed. 

• The Intermountain Draft Roadless Inventory and Evaluation Guide (dated 06/30/98):

expands upon the Forest Service Handbook on the inventory and evaluation phases of 

roadless area analysis. 

• The Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule (RACR) and Record of Decision (36 CFR 

Part 294): 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. This Rule is currently being reviewed by the Bush 

administration, and was enjoined from implementation by a Federal Court in 2001. 

• Forest Service Manual Interim Directives 1920-2001-1, 2400-2001-3, and 7710-2001-2,3: 

These directives implement the Chief of the Forest Service’s direction on interim protection 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 295 

of inventoried roadless areas while court and administrative proceedings regarding the 

RACR are completed. 

Affected Environment 

There are 34 roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, totaling approximately 

606,400 acres. This represents almost half of Wasatch–Cache National Forest. The Mount 

Naomi, Swan Creek and Gibson roadless areas are shared with the Caribou National Forest. 

Nobletts and White Pine roadless areas are shared with the Uinta National Forest. Widdop 

Mountain roadless is shared with the Ashley National Forest. The High Uintas roadless is shared 

with both the Ashley and Uinta National Forests. The Stansbury roadless area is contiguous with 

the North Stansbury and Big Hollow BLM Wilderness study areas. Most roadless acreage on the 

Forest is within Utah, except for 652 acres of the High Uintas roadless area is in Wyoming. 

The previous roadless inventory was completed in 1983 and identified 22 roadless areas totaling 

746,431 acres. (Table C-1-1 and Appendix C-1 account for changes to roadless areas and their 

acreages between the 1983 inventory and the publication of this FEIS.) In 1984, the Utah 

Wilderness Act was enacted and designated several roadless areas as wilderness, including six on 

the Forest (High Uintas, Mount Naomi, Wellsville Mountains, Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks and 

Deseret Peak). The seventh wilderness area on the Forest, Lone Peak was designated wilderness 

in the 1978 Endangered American Wilderness Act. When this forest plan revision effort was 

begun a new and updated inventory was needed to address ongoing roadless area management 

issues and to meet the requirements of the NFMA regulations and the Utah Wilderness Act of 

1984. Each undeveloped area on the Forest identified during the inventory contains 5,000 acres 

or more or was adjacent to an existing wilderness area. 

Because different criteria were used for the 1999 inventory than those used in 1983, ten 

additional areas were identified as roadless, and other areas were combined or split apart. 

New roadless areas identified were Temple Peak, Right Hand Fork, Mahogany Range, Boulder 

Mountain on the Logan District, Sugar Pine, Lamb Canyon, Public Grove Hollow and Rock 

Creek – Green Fork on the Ogden District and Hogsback and the Lone Peak additions on the Salt 

Lake District. 

The Mt. Logan roadless area defined in the 1983 inventory is now split into new three roadless 

areas: Mt. Logan-North, Mt. Logan-South, and Mt. Logan-West. Each is more than 5,000 acres. 

Three additional roadless areas were added to the inventory as a result of comments received on 

the DEIS and through internal Forest Service review. These are: 

• Elk Valley 

• Mueller Park 

• Red Butte 

 

Also, between the DEIS and FEIS the Francis roadless area was redefined because of further 

examination by the interdisciplinary team (See Appendix C for rationale.) It now includes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 296 

acreage that had been called North Francis, Middle Francis, and South Francis roadless areas. 

Previously the Middle and South Francis areas had been dropped from consideration as roadless 

as being too small. The Francis roadless area is greater than 5,000 acres. 

Finally, three roadless areas which were originally identified during the inventory process and 

were tracked in the DEIS have been dropped from consideration as Wilderness or for their values 

associated with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001) in this FEIS as they do not meet 

minimum size criteria. These areas were shown on alternative maps presented with the DEIS, 

but have been removed from maps relating to the FEIS. Table C1-1, in Appendix C-1 to this 

FEIS provides some additional information on these areas and their status. These are: 

• Public Grove Hollow - This was a new area identified on Ogden District in 1999. Further 

examination showed it was too small to meet minimum size criteria. 

• Lamb Canyon – This was a new area identified on Ogden District in 1999. It is too small 

to meet minimum size criteria. 

• Little West Forks Black - This was a roadless area that was identified in the 1983 

inventory and carried into the 1999 inventory. Further examination of the area indicates 

that shows that it is two separate smaller two areas separated by a road. Neither of the 

smaller areas meets minimum size criteria. 

Table RA-1 displays each roadless area by management area, acreage for each area and the 

Ranger District that manages the area. 

Table RA-1 Roadless Area Inventory by Management Area 

District and Forest Roadless Area Name 

By Management Area 

Acres * 

Logan and Ogden 

Cache – Box Elder (12 areas) 

Gibson 

Mount Naomi 

Temple Peak 

Right Hand Fork Logan 

Mount Logan North 

Mount Logan South 

Mount Logan West 

Boulder Mountain 

Elk Valley 

Mahogany Range 

Mollens Hollow 

Wellsville Mountains

Total:

5,300

45,100

23,400

15,000

19,200

17,000

5,300

8,800

8,200

11,400

17,700

1,800

178,200

Logan and Ogden 

Bear (3 areas) 

Swan Creek 

Rock Creek - Green Fork

Sugar Pine

Total:

9,400

5,600

5,600

20,600
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 297 

District and Forest Roadless Area Name 

By Management Area 

Acres * 

Ogden and Salt Lake 

North Wasatch – Ogden Valley 

(8 areas) 

Upper South Fork 

Willard 

Lewis Peak 

Burch Creek 

Francis 

Farmington 

Hogsback 

Mueller Park 

Total:

17,300

19,100

12,100

6,900

14,800

10,900

7,900

7,700

96,700

Salt Lake 

Central Wasatch (6 areas) 

Red Butte 

Mount Aire 

Twin Peaks 

Mount Olympus 

White Pine 

Lone Peak (Additions) 

 

Total:

6,200

9,700

6,200

10,000

1,900

 900

 

 35,000

Rock Creek - Green Fork 

Salt Lake 

Stansbury (1 area) 

Stansbury Mountains 39,700

Kamas and Evanston 

Western Uintas (3 areas) 

Nobletts 

Lakes 

High Uintas (part of) 

 Total:

3,100

122,000

46,100

171,200

Evanston – Mountain View 

Eastern Uintas (2 areas)

High Uintas (part of) 

 Widdop Mountain 

Total:

57,000

8,000

65,000

Wasatch-Cache National Forest All Roadless Areas Total: 606,400

*Since the DEIS acreage figures for roadless areas have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres 

Information about state and private inholdings, unconstructed roads, motorized trails and 

mechanized trails provides perspective about potential tradeoffs should a roadless area be 

recommended for Wilderness. 

Private and State Inholdings 

Private and state land was excluded wherever possible from the inventoried roadless areas. There 

are a few isolated parcels of Utah State and private land that were included, because they were 

surrounded by large acreages of National Forest roadless land. Table RA-2 lists state and private 

land inholdings that are completely within an Inventoried Roadless Area. Table RA-2 does not 

display private and state lands that are either adjacent to roadless areas or excluded by a cherry-
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 298 

stem (surrounded on 3 sides by roadless). Determining land ownership for non-federal and state 

lands can be complicated and accuracy depends on when land sales or exchanges have occurred 

and when that information is recorded with the state and county governments. 

Table RA-2 Private and State Inholdings within Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Roadless 

Area Owner Number of Parcels Acres 

Mount Naomi Private 1 158 

Elk Valley Utah State 1 629 

Rock Creek – 

Green Fork Private 1 40 

Willard Private 5 752 

Willard State of Utah 3 138 

Burch Creek State of Utah 1 586 

Francis Private 1 40 

Mueller Park Private 1 79 

Mount 

Olympus Private 1 57 

Twin Peaks Private 5 148 

Twin Peaks Salt Lake City 2 128 

White Pine Private 1 117 

Lakes Private 1 80 

Lakes State of Utah 1 80 

Unconstructed Roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Constructed roads were excluded from the inventoried roadless areas; however, unconstructed 

roads were included. Table RA-3 displays the few unconstructed roads that are designated open 

on District travel plans within inventoried roadless areas. 

Table RA-3 Unconstructed District Travel Plan Roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Roadless Area Road Name/Number (miles) 

Mount Logan North Welches Flat 4x4 20152 (3.6), Logan Peak 20042 (0.9), Pine Spring 20167 

(0.3) 

Mount Logan South South Fork Millville 4x4 20023 (2.5), Breaks 4x4 20053 (.8) 

Elk Valley Elk Valley Road 039 (2) 

Willard Grizzly Peak 20091 (.6) 

Mueller Park Rudy’s Flat 4X4 80285 (1.0) 

Red Butte Upper Red Butte 80235b (5.0 - not open for use) 

Parleys Fork 4X4 80224 (1.0 - not open for use) 

Stansbury Mountains Box Elder Canyon 80584 (0.4) 

Lakes Norway OB 83137 (0.4), Pole Sale 80496 (1.2), Kathy’s Spur 0.2), South Fork 

Weber 80031 (.1) 

Little West Fork Blacks Upper Little West Fork Blacks 80804 (1.5), Stateline 80393 (4.2), Hewinta 

Junction 80433 (0.2) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 299 

Motorized Trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas

Motorized trails were included in the inventoried roadless areas. Some trails are only partly 

included within a roadless area with the rest of the trail outside the roadless area. Only system 

trails in approved travel plans are included. The Evanston/Mountain View travel plan is currently 

being revised. Table RA-4 displays motorized trails open within inventoried roadless areas. 

Table RA4 

Motorized System Trails 

in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

Number of Motorized Trails Approximate 

Mileage in 

Roadless 

Temple Peak 4 trails 10.3 

Right Hand Fork 

Logan 

4 trails 6.4 

Mount Logan North 2 trails 4.0 

Mount Logan South 3 trails 10.2 

Elk Valley 2 trails 5.7 

Mollens Hollow 7 trails 7.5 

Willard 4 trails 8.0 

Lewis Peak 6 trails 16.5 

Hogsback 3 trails 2.0 

Mueller Park 2 trails 5.9 

Twin Peaks 1 trail 2.8 

Mount Olympus 1 trail .2 

Stansbury 4 trails 16.8 

Lakes 10 trails 13.2 

High Uintas 14 trails 16.4 

 Sources: District Travel Plans and GIS mapping. 

In addition, almost all roadless areas on the Forest have some trails used by mountain bikers. 

Topic 4 – Recreation includes further information about trails open to mechanized (mountain 

bike) use and the effects to users of those trails from inventoried roadless area management. 

Inventoried Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendation

Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System are a long-term commitment made 

only by Congressional designation. During the forest planning process, national forests are 

required to inventory their roadless areas, evaluate the wilderness values of these areas, and 

recommend to Congress those areas that meet the capability, availability and need criteria for 

wilderness designation. For a detailed description and map of each roadless area being 

considered in the wilderness evaluation process and rationale on capability, availability, and need 

for each roadless area, see Appendix C-1 of the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 300 

Environmental Consequences for Wilderness Characteristics 

General Effects

In this section effects on inventoried roadless areas are considered with regard to effects on 

Wilderness character. Wilderness characteristics include solitude, the naturalness of the 

environment, opportunities for primitive recreation and challenging experiences and other 

special values. Appendix C-1 describes the wilderness characteristics of each inventoried 

roadless area. This evaluation assumes areas assigned the 1.5, 2.4 and 2.6 management 

prescriptions will maintain the wilderness characteristics described in Appendix C-1. 

Appendix C-1 of this document contains detailed information about each individual inventoried 

roadless area with respect to its potential Wilderness character, the process used to evaluate the 

areas, the acreage of specific areas that were recommended for wilderness in each alternative and 

location maps. Tables are also included in Appendix C-1 that list by alternative the amount of 

wilderness acres recommended, acres protecting roadless values, and miles of motorized travel 

plan trails and roads open. 

In this analysis, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) has been applied in Alternatives 

1, 2, and 6. Effects on inventoried roadless area management have been evaluated with the 

consideration that under the RACR, road construction and reconstruction are not allowed in 

inventoried roadless areas nor is cutting, sale, or removal of timber except: for the cutting, sale 

or removal of generally small diameter trees which maintains or improves roadless 

characteristics and: 1) to improve habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species, or 2) to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure, such as reducing the 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. 

Protection of Wilderness character can be evaluated by prescription and by the intent expressed 

in the alternative theme. Table RA-5 shows the total inventoried roadless acres recommended 

for wilderness, and total acres of wilderness characteristics protected (prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 

2.6.). The acreage managed under management prescription 2.4 (Research Natural Areas) does 

not vary substantially across alternatives when it is considered in the context of the overall size 

of the roadless/Wilderness protection issue and the effects of differences between alternatives 

with respect to Wilderness character. 

Alternative 1 has the largest Wilderness recommendation (64% or roadless acreage) and a large 

amount of acreage managed under management prescription 2.6; it also applies the protections 

the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule to all inventoried roadless areas. Because of 

these factors it is the alternative that is most protective of Wilderness character. 

Alternative 2 also provides the second largest Wilderness recommendation (24% of roadless 

acreage) and applies the 2.6 prescription to more acres than in any other alternative. 

Alternative 3 provides for the smallest Wilderness recommendation (8% of roadless acreage) and 

protection of Wilderness character of any alternative that recommends Wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 301 

Alternatives 4 and 5 are not intended to manage roadless areas to protect Wilderness character. 

 

Alternatives 6 and 7 are similar in the acreage recommended for Wilderness (11 and 12 % of 

roadless acreage respectively). Looking more closely, two primary differences are that 1) in 

Alternative 6 a portion of the Mt. Naomi roadless area adjacent to the south end of Mt. Naomi 

Wilderness is recommended for wilderness that is not recommended in Alternative 7, and 2) in 

Alternative 7 the Lakes recommended wilderness is larger than in Alternative 6. Alternative 7 

also refined mapping done in Alternative 6 to provide a more manageable boundary for the 

proposed High Uintas Wilderness and to provide for more active management treatment in some 

roadless areas of the High Uintas that were not recommended for Wilderness. 

Table RA-5 

Recommended Wilderness and 

Wilderness Character Protected by Alternative* 

Alternative 

Prescription 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

1.5 Recommended 

Wilderness (acres) 387,000 145,500 51,100 0 0 69,000 73,300 

2.4 RNAs and 

2.6 Undeveloped Areas 

(acres) 

157,900 164,500 89,000 6,140 5,300 93,000 116,100 

Total 544,900 310,000 140,100 6,140 5,300 162,000 189,400 

*Acres in this table may vary slightly from acreages presented in other tables on roadless due to differences in 

rounding. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Road Construction 

Road construction can permanently affect Wilderness character, altering a natural appearing 

landscape. No road construction is allowed in Alternative 1, 2, or 6 in roadless areas, as covered 

by the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule. In Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 a few miles of road 

construction are allowed in roadless areas. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Timber Management 

Timber management could affect wilderness characteristics in inventoried roadless areas by 

detracting from a sense of solitude during timber harvest activities and for the longer term by 

altering the natural environment with tree removal and road construction. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 

would have the least effects on wilderness characteristics from timber removal because the 

National Roadless Area Conservation Rule was applied in their development and generally 

prohibits road construction and the cutting, sale and removal of timber, except for removal of 

generally small diameter trees which maintains or improves roadless characteristics, TES species 

habitat, and maintains or restores ecosystem composition and structure. Wilderness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 302 

characteristics in inventoried roadless areas have the greatest potential to be altered in 

Alternatives 4 and 5, which allow timber harvest on 155,000 and 158,000 acres of tentatively 

suited inventoried roadless areas respectively. Alternative 3 allows timber harvest on about 

61,000 of these acres. In Alternative 7, timber harvest is allowed on 64,000 acres. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Vegetation/Fuels Treatment 

Wilderness characteristics could be affected by mechanical vegetation and fuels treatments. 

Estimates of the acres of these treatments by alternative are quite small compared to total 

inventoried roadless acreage. As oakbrush treatment is most likely in fire prone areas in urban 

interface (non-roadless areas), it is unlikely that any wilderness characteristics within inventoried 

roadless will be affected by these potential treatments. Of the 7 alternatives, Alternative 7 has 

the largest acreage proposed for oakbrush mechanical treatments. Similarly, mechanical 

vegetative treatments in aspen/conifer would most likely occur in roaded areas far more often 

than in areas where not roads are present. Alternatives 2 and 4 proposed the most aspen/conifer 

treatment. (See Table 2-2.) 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Fire Management 

Fire management includes wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and fire suppression. Wilderness 

characteristics of solitude, primitive recreation experiences and natural landscapes (untrammeled 

by human activities), are not likely to be affected by the allowance of wildand fire use and 

prescribed fire in inventoried roadless areas. Wildland fire use that is allowed in all alternatives, 

is a natural occurring event, is thus entirely compatible with wilderness character. Prescribed 

fire is allowed in all inventoried roadless in all alternatives except Alternative 1. In Alternatives 

2-7 prescribed fire could change the appearance and functioning of vegetation, watershed, soils 

and other elements in natural systems that are integral to the wilderness setting and experience. 

However, modifying these effects might be to a landscape, they are not outside the capacity of 

natural systems to produce such effects, and thus are not likely to affect overall wilderness 

character. The landscape is not necessarily any less natural, and primitive recreation experience 

or availability of solitude are not necessarily lessened. Fire suppression activities are possible in 

any in inventoried roadless (even recommended wilderness) depending on potential risks to life 

and if risks to values outside a roadless (read recommended wilderness) are ascertained. Choices 

for suppression techniques would require consideration of effects on roadless values and 

wilderness characteristics, and employ minimum tool philosophies in alternatives where 

wilderness had been recommended: Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Recreation Management 

Recreation management could allow user densities to increase so that wilderness characteristics 

of solitude are impaired or the natural environment is altered by human recreation use. By 

recommending large amounts as wilderness in Alternative 1, solitude and remoteness are more 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 303 

likely to be maintained because motorized and mechanized access would not be allowed. The 

risk of effects to the naturalness of the environment caused by improper off road use by vehicles 

is lessened. Effects on wilderness characteristics from Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7 could be 

somewhat greater than in Alternative 1, because less area is recommended as wilderness. 

Recreation as practiced in Alternatives 4 and 5 poses the greatest risks to wilderness 

characteristics in inventoried roadless areas, as no acres are recommended as wilderness and user 

densities and use types are likely the least compatible with wilderness characteristics. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Recreation Use 

Alternatives that provide for the highest percentage of primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation in inventoried roadless areas are those that are most protective of wilderness 

characteristics. As such, Alternative 1 best protects Wilderness Characteristics, followed in 

descending order of protection of Wilderness characteristics by Alternatives 2, 7 and the Existing 

Condition, 6, 3, and 5. The 1985 Forest Plan as mapped provided only 209,800 acres of semiprimitive non-motorized. (See Table RA-11 in the section that follows this on Effects on 

Roadless Area Values for acreages of ROS within inventoried roadless areas.)

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from 

Winter Motorized Recreation Use 

The Wilderness characteristics of solitude and a primitive recreation can be adversely affected by 

the use of snowmobiles. In Alternatives 1-6 snowmobiling is not allowed in any recommended 

Wilderness, so there would be no effects to wilderness characteristics from snowmobiling in 

these alternatives in those roadless areas protected by a wilderness recommendation. In roadless 

areas not recommended for wilderness in Alternatives 1-6, snowmobiling will detract from a 

primitive winter recreation experience. In Alternative 7, snowmobiling is allowed in 

recommended wilderness where current use exists. Snowmobile use (noise, fumes, tracking of 

snow conditions, possible effects on wintering wildlife) will affect wilderness character in these 

areas during the periods in which the use occurs. In Alternative 7, areas in which wilderness 

characteristics may be affected by snowmobiling are 38,000 acres in the Lakes recommended 

wilderness, 2125 acres the High Uintas recommended wilderness, and 48 acres in Upper South 

Fork recommended wilderness. 

Like snowmobiling, in all alternatives where heliski operations are allowed (Alternatives 3-7), 

heliski operations can be expected to negatively affect primitive winter recreation and solitude. 

This detracts from wilderness character. Heliski operations, however, are not allowed in any 

recommended Wilderness in any alternative, therefore cannot effect wilderness characteristics in 

those roadless areas where wilderness has been recommended. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics in Inventoried Roadless Areas from Oil 

and Gas Activities 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal Settlement 

Zone” as described in Topic 9. It is estimated to be about 68,300 acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 304 

Oil and gas activities such as exploratory drilling, oil and gas field development and other 

activities that involve the construction of roads, wellsites and other facilities would 

adversely affect the naturalness, remoteness/solitude, integrity, and other wilderness 

characteristics. The impacts associated with the drilling of a single exploratory well would 

adversely affect the characteristics associated with the roadless areas. These impacts would be 

of relatively limited area and of short duration and once drilling and reclamation is completed the 

impacts to the roadless characteristics would not be significant. However, some evidence of 

human activities would be present for a long period. These impacts may be of relatively high 

intensity and long duration if they are associated with oil and gas field development and the 

subsequent production of oil and gas. The impacts associated with a producing oil and gas field 

would be long term and significant. Vehicular traffic and human activities associated with a 

developed oil field would directly affect the sense of remoteness and solitude. The presents of 

roads, wellsites, pipelines and other facilities would be incompatible with the natural integrity. If 

oil and gas were discovered and production undertaken, there would be a direct loss of roadless 

acres for the life of development and for some time after while reclamation returns the area to a 

more natural setting. 

The decision being made in the Forest Plan affects new leases not existing ones. In all 

alternatives (except Alternative 4), an area of existing leases, the Table Top Unit, could be 

explored and result in effects to wilderness characteristics. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development of 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect the wilderness characteristics within the 

inventoried roadless area. These characteristics could be affected on an estimated 20 acres 

because of oil and gas exploration activities. Once existing leases expire, Alternative 1 provides 

the greatest protection to wilderness characteristics. Alternative 2 is very similar. Again, 

development of existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect the wilderness 

characteristics on about 20 acres. Once existing leases expire, leasing availability in areas 

recommended for wilderness is precluded. On remaining available acres, new leases could be 

issued but surface occupancy would not be allowed. No direct impacts to the wilderness 

characteristics within the inventoried roadless areas would occur but there may be some indirect 

affects to solitude and remoteness if directional drilling occurred from adjacent lands since an 

access road would likely be constructed to the drill site and the sounds associated with 

construction and drilling may be heard within the inventoried roadless area. 

Alternative 3 precludes new leases in areas recommended for wilderness and does not allow 

surface occupancy in areas managed for undeveloped, backcountry recreation values areas of 

terrestrial habitat. Additional new leases could be issued outside the areas listed above with 

stipulations applied to protect sensitive resources. Oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb 

the natural appearance on about 75 acres. Some of the development predicted from existing 

leases within the Table Top Unit could be within areas high in wilderness characteristics. 

Solitude and remoteness could be affected on a much larger scale. Some of the effects to 

wilderness characteristics could last 20-30 years because of field development. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 305 

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. 

Alternative 5 would provide for leasing with standard lease terms, and therefore provide the 

greatest opportunity for full field development. Wilderness characteristics could be significantly 

affected. Oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb the natural appearance on about 105 

acres. The solitude and remoteness could be affected to a greater degree because of the sights 

and sounds of development beyond the actual disturbed area. Some of the effects to wilderness 

characteristics could last 20-30 years because of field development. 

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 renewed in areas managed for motorized recreation values and terrestrial habitat in the 

lower part of the Hayden Fork, Stillwater Fork and East Fork of the Bear River drainages. The 

wilderness characteristics present in these areas would continue to be affected. Within this area 

the degree of effects from Alternative 6 is less than Alternative 3. In the remainder of the area 

the effects to wilderness characteristics would be minimal because of no surface occupancy. 

 

Alternative 7 would not allow leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for wilderness. About 

20,900 acres would be leased with no surface occupancy. Under these two situations, wilderness 

characteristics would be maintained. Surface occupancy would be allowed on the remaining 

27,000 acres. Of this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb the natural 

appearance on about 85 acres. The solitude and remoteness could be affected to a greater degree 

because of the sights and sounds of development beyond the actual disturbed area. Some of the 

effects to wilderness characteristics could be affected 20-30 years should a field be discovered. 

Some development (included in the 85 acre estimate) is predicted within the Table Top Unit 

because of existing leases and new leases being offered with surface occupancy. 

Effects on Wilderness Characteristics from Mineral and Land Ownership 

Several inventoried roadless areas have privately owned minerals. Since the federal government 

has no authority to deny development of those minerals, they pose a risk to wilderness 

characteristics in inventoried roadless areas should they ever be developed. Privately owned 

minerals pose the greatest risk to wilderness characteristics in recommended wilderness. 

Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 6, 3, and 7 have the most acres in recommended 

wilderness with private minerals. Alternative 2 has only a few acres of private minerals. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 have none, because there is no recommended acreage. Roadless areas with 

wilderness recommendations that have a high percentage of their acreage with private mineral 

rights are Upper South Fork, Burch Creek, Twin Peaks (Deaf Smith and Little Cottonwood 

portion), and Lone Peak. The High Uintas roadless area has 6,500 acres of private minerals, 

although this is only about 6% of its total acreage. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 306 

Table RA-6 

Mineral Ownership in Recommended Wilderness 

Alternative

Federal 

Surface and 

Minerals 

Federal 

Surface and 

Private or 

State Minerals 

1 344,531 44,193

2 145,778 155

3 42,590 8,873

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 61,017 8,944

7 65,065 8,416

Surface land ownership can also pose a risk to wilderness characteristics in inventoried roadless 

areas should they ever be developed. 

There is one private inholding remaining in the Mount Olympus Wilderness and two private 

inholdings remaining in the Twin Peaks Wilderness. The other four wilderness areas on the 

Forest have no private inholdings. Alternative 1 includes the most amounts of private and state 

inholdings within recommended wilderness, Alternative 2 has some, and other alternatives have 

none. Alternatives also vary by the amount of recommended wilderness adjacent to private land. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 have the greatest amount of miles of private land next to recommended 

wilderness, which may affect access and increase the potential for motorized trespass. The Upper 

South Fork roadless area (recommended for wilderness in Alternatives 1, 3, 6, and 7) is almost 

completely surrounded by private land. 

Table RA-7 

Adjacent Private Land 

Miles Next to Recommended Wilderness 

Alternative 

Miles of Adjacent Private 

Land next to Recommended 

Wilderness 

1 169 

2 15 

3 28 

4 0 

5 0 

6 30 

7 26 

Cumulative Effects 

Other Forests in the state of Utah are completing forest plans or scheduled to complete them. 

The Uinta and Caribou National Forests are planning concurrently with the Wasatch–Cache. 

The Ashley National Forest is scheduled to begin Forest Plan revision in the near future. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 307 

Alternatives presented in these forest plan revisions have some recommended wilderness 

adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache. 

Generally, much of the roadless areas recommended for wilderness in all alternatives are typical 

of wilderness that has already been designated both nationally and within the state of Utah and 

will not significantly add to the diversity of lands in the Wilderness Preservation System. An 

exception to this is the Upper South Fork roadless area, which is somewhat different than much 

of the current higher elevation wilderness areas. Currently, large tracts of lands administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management in the state of Utah are being evaluated for wilderness 

proposals. Additions of these lands to the system could generally add more land type diversity 

than much of the additional National Forest roadless lands. The BLM does have adjacent 

Wilderness Study Areas on the north and south ends of the Stansbury roadless area. 

Some of the best snowmobiling opportunities in the nation and state are on roadless areas of the 

Wasatch-Cache. Alternatives with high amounts of recommended wilderness could significantly 

affect winter motorized recreation use on the Forest, except in Alternative 7, which 

accommodates some use by allowing use in recommended Wilderness where there is existing 

snowmobile use. There are also significant summer motorized travel plan trail opportunities in 

several roadless areas. Motorized recreation users could be displaced to other lands in 

alternatives with large Wilderness recommendations (Alternatives 1, and 2.) If other national 

forests and public land management agencies were to adopt similar alternatives, snowmobiling, 

motorized recreation, and undeveloped motorized camping could be reduced in the surrounding 

public lands. 

Ultimately, in all alternatives, with projected population growth, demand for high quality 

wilderness recreation opportunities on the forest will be exceeded by user numbers, especially in 

smaller Wilderness adjacent to population centers. Under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, it is expected 

that growth in demand for motorized recreation and non-motorized might be met for a longer 

period of time by allowing more of these uses on the Wasatch-Cache. 

Environmental Consequences for Roadless Area Values 

General Effects 

This is a new section in the FEIS. It describes general effects to roadless area values from 

the Wasatch-Cache forest plan alternatives. Appendix C-2 is also new, and closely related 

to this general effects section. Appendix C-2 provides detailed information on the methods 

used to assess roadless area values, the values of each roadless area on the Wasatch-Cache, 

and effects on each area from alternatives. 

Introduction - Values of Roadless Areas 

Roadless areas possess social and ecological values and characteristics that are becoming scarce 

in an increasingly developed landscape. They provide unique opportunities for non-motorized 

and motorized 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 308 

diversity of habitats for native plants and animal species, conserve biological diversity and 

provide opportunities for study and education. The roadless areas in the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest provide these values to differing degrees. Some areas have very large, pristine, 

undisturbed environments, while others are less diverse and have areas that reveal past or current 

development and in some cases, resource damage. 

High, Medium, and Low Value Roadless Areas 

The 34 roadless areas identified on the forest were evaluated individually in Appendix C-2. An 

interdisciplinary team exercise was conducted to summarize this information on each roadless 

area, and sort the 34 areas into three sets, those of high value, medium value or low value with 

respect to their overall need for protection of their roadless values. Every roadless areas had at 

least one highly rated roadless value, however, a few areas had a preponderance of higher rated 

values, more moderate values or lower values. In the interdisciplinary team’s judgment, the 

following division was made. 

Roadless areas of High value (5): (326,800 acres)

 High Uintas 

 Mt. Naomi 

 Upper South Fork 

 Stansbury 

 Lakes 

Roadless areas of Medium value (21): (230,000 acres)

 Gibson 

 Temple Peak 

 Right Hand Fork Logan 

 Mt. Logan North 

 Mt. Logan South 

 Mt. Logan West 

 Boulder Mountain 

 Mahogany Range 

 Mollens Hollow 

 Swan Creek 

 Sugar Pine 

 Willard 

 Lewis Peak 

 Francis 

 Farmington 

 Red Butte 

 Mount Aire 

 Twin Peaks 

 Mount Olympus 

 White Pine 

 Lone Peak 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 309 

Roadless areas of Low value (8): (49,200 acres)

 Elk Valley 

 Wellsville 

 Rock Creek/Green Fork 

 Burch Creek 

 Hogsback 

 Mueller Park 

 Nobletts 

 Widdop Mountain 

Management Prescriptions and effects on roadless values 

Management prescriptions that are applied to a roadless area are principal management direction 

for what practices are intended for the area. This analysis uses management prescriptions as 

indicators for potential effects to the roadless values identified in Appendix C. The analysis is 

considered from a forestwide perspective in this Chapter, and itemized for individual roadless 

areas in Appendix C-2. 

 

The details of what is allowed by management prescription by alternative are presented in 

Chapter 2. The activity allowances considered for each prescription are: Timber Harvest, 

Vegetation/Fuel Treatment, Prescribed Fire, Road Building, Grazing, Wildland Fire Use, New 

Recreation Development, and New Trail Construction. Whether or not these activities are 

allowed under each management prescriptions varies based on the intent of the alternative. 

Allowed activities also may vary based on whether the prescription is applied in or outside an 

inventoried roadless area in some alternatives. 

For this analysis management prescriptions are placed in one of three categories that identify 

different potential effects to roadless area values. These three categories are defined as: 

1. Maintains Roadless Values – Management prescriptions that do not allow any 

development that might affect base physical values dependent on roadlessness (soils, 

watershed, vegetation). These do not allow any timber harvest, road building, 

mechanical fuel treatments, new trail construction, or new recreation development. 

2. Mostly Maintains Roadless Values – Management prescriptions that allow types of 

development (such as new trail construction, mechanical fuels treatment, and 

backcountry or recreation non-motorized recreation developments) which may have short 

term or relatively minor effects on physical values dependent on roadlessness. 

3. Allows Development – Management prescriptions that allow noticeable and substantial 

long-term changes to the physical values in roadless areas (especially soils, watershed, 

and appearance of vegetation). Activities in this category include timber harvest, road 

building, and substantial recreation developments (new campgrounds, campground 

expansion, major trailhead or day-use site construction). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 310 

Underlying Assumptions 

Existing designated Wilderness acres (management prescriptions 1.1-1.4) are not included in this 

analysis of effects on roadless areas. Management prescription 8.1 is also not included in this 

analysis, as it is never applied in a roadless area. 

Timber harvest and road building -Timber harvest and/or road building can affect roadless 

character. These activities can fundamentally change a roadless area because of the changes in 

vegetation over broad areas, and the construction process and width of roads. In Alternatives 

applying the Roadless Rule (1, 2, and 6) timber harvest and road building are not allowed. 

However, other activities such as trail construction and recreation development were not 

prohibited by the Rule and are allowed in various prescriptions in these alternatives that do not 

allow harvest and road building. 

Wildland fire use, prescribed fire, grazing – These activities do not affect the basic physical 

values or character dependent on roadlessness. While vegetation composition, structure, and 

pattern may be changed from these activities, the changes are similar to those that would be 

expected under the dominant influence of natural processes. Substantially recognizable changes 

to the physical character of the roadless area are not expected from these activities. 

Vegetation/fuel treatments – These activities may be viewed by some as having an affect on 

roadless character because of the nature of results of mechanical treatment, at least over the short 

term. However, these effects are expected to be much shorter term and of less magnitude than 

most timber harvest and/or road construction operations. Therefore, prescriptions that allow 

vegetation/fuel treatment but not timber harvest or road construction are placed in the “mostly 

maintains roadless values” category. 

New trail construction - New trail construction can affect roadless character, but to a lesser 

extent than timber harvest or road building given the limited vegetation clearing, construction 

process and narrower width of trails. Prescriptions that allow new trail construction were placed 

in the mostly maintains roadless values category. 

New recreation development - New recreation development varies somewhat in its potential 

effects on roadless values depending on the nature of the management prescription. Although 

Management Prescriptions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 allow new recreation development, these are not 

expected to have a substantial affect on roadless character. Any recreation development under 

these prescriptions would be tied to the intent of the prescription and relatively light on the 

landscape because of the lower recreation densities associated with backcountry recreation in 4.1 

and 4.3 and the non-motorized aspect of 4.2. Therefore, these prescriptions were categorized as 

mostly maintains roadless values. Management prescriptions 4.4 and 4.5 however allow new 

recreation development to provide for higher user densities and motorized or developed 

activities. These activities are expected to have a substantial effect on roadless area values and 

are categorized as “allows development”. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 311 

Given these assumptions and using the management prescriptions allowed activities tables in 

Chapter 2 of this FEIS, Table RA-8 summarizes potential effects to roadless area values from the 

forest plan alternatives. 

Table RA-8. Groupings of Management Prescriptions (MPCs) by Alternatives and Categories of 

Effects to Roadless Values 

Alternative MPCS that Maintain 

Roadless Values 

MPCs that Mostly Maintain 

Roadless Values 

MPCs that Allow 

Development 

Alt 1 All MPC's No MPC's No MPC's 

Alt 2 All other MPC's 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 4.4, 4.5 

Alt 3 1.5, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2 2.7, 4.1, 4.2 2.5, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 

6.1, 6.2, 5.1/6.1 

Alt 4 No MPC's 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 4.1, 4.2 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 

5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2 

Alt 5 2.4, 2.6 2.7, 

4.1, 4.2 

2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 

5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 5.2/6.2 

Alt 6 1.5, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 

5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 5.1/6.1 4.4, 4.5 

Alt 7 1.5, 2.4, 2.6 2.7, 3.1A, 3.1W, 3.2U, 

4.1, 4.2 

2.5, 3.2D, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 

5.1, 5,2, 6.1, 6.2, 5.1/6.1 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 312 

Table RA-9 shows the acres of high, medium and low value roadless areas whose roadless values 

are maintained, mostly maintained or allow development based on the prior categorization. 

Table RA-9. Categories of Allowed Activities and Potential Effects on Roadless Areas 

Alternatives and Areas of 

high, medium, and low value 

Maintains 

Roadless 

Values 

(acres) 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

(acres) 

Allows 

Development

(acres) 

Total 

(acres) 

ALT 1 high value 326,800 0 0 326,800

 medium value 230,000 0 0 230,000

 low value 49,200 0 0 49,200

ALT 1 Total 606,000 0 0 606,000

 

ALT 2 high value 276,100 35,900 14,800 326,800

 medium value 224,500 2,600 2,900 230,000

 low value 45,600 700 2,900 49,200

ALT 2 Total 546,200 39,200 20,600 606,000

 

ALT 3 high value 200,800 38,100 87,900 326,800

 medium value 141,800 19,500 68,600 230,000

 low value 24,300 500 24,400 49,200

ALT 3 Total 366,900 58,100 180,900 605,900

 

ALT 4 high value 0 106,100 220,600 326,700

 medium value 0 25,800 204,200 230,000

 low value 0 0 49,200 49,200

ALT 4 Total 0 131,900 474,000 605,900

 

ALT 5 high value 2,000 83,400 241,300 326,800

 medium value 5,300 19,000 205,700 230,000

 low value 0 7,400 41,800 49,200

ALT 5 Total 7,200 109,900 488,800 605,900

 

ALT 6 high value 165,000 143,800 18,000 326,800

 medium value 25,700 199,800 4,400 230,000

 low value 500 45,800 2,900 49,200

ALT 6 Total 191,200 389,400 25,300 605,900

 

ALT 7 high value 162,000 68,900 95,900 326,800

 medium value 27,300 171,100 31,600 230,000

 low value 0 26,600 22,500 49,200

ALT 7 Total 188,700 267,400 149,900 605,900
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 313 

Figure RA-1 shows the same information as Table RA-9 in a chart. 

Acres Effects on Roadless Areas by Alternative

600

580

560

540

520

500

480

460

440

420

400

380

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

M MM A M MM A M MM A M MM A M MM A M MM A M MM A

M= Maintains Roadless Values

MM= Mostly Maintains Roadless Values

A= Allows Development

Low Value Area

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Med. Value Area High Value Areas

Alternatives

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Roadless area values that could be affected from the following activities listed below are those 

that are defined in Appendix C-2. Differing effects to the listed values will be dependent on the 

values that are present in particular area, and the nature of the activity. The following are 

generalized forestwide considerations, which lack site specificity, but that may help summarize 

the relationships between various potential actions and roadless area values. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Road Construction 

For the 15-year period of the Forest Plan, some new road construction into roadless areas is 

allowed in Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 that do not apply the prohibition on road construction and 

reconstruction as prescribed by the National Roadless Conservation Rule. No road construction 

and reconstruction is allowed in roadless areas in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6; the one exception is 

from existing oil and gas leases in the High Uintas and Lakes Roadless Areas. Road 

construction in any roadless area under any alternative is expected to be limited during this 

planning period. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 314 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Timber Management 

Roadless area values that could be affected from timber management include potential effects 

from harvest and associated roads on the roadless area values defined in Appendix C-2. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 have the least potential timber management effects on inventoried 

roadless area values, because the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule generally prohibits 

road construction or reconstruction and the cutting, sale and removal of timber, except for 

removal of some generally small diameter trees which would maintain or improve roadless 

characteristics, TES species habitat, and maintain or restore ecosystem composition and 

structure. Undisturbed landscapes found in inventoried roadless areas could be altered in 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 to differing degrees. Within inventoried roadless areas timber harvest 

could be allowed (based on prescription) on an estimated 61,000 acres in Alternative 3, 155,000 

acres in Alternative 4, 158,000 acres in Alternative 5, and 63,500 acres in Alternative 7. Timber 

harvest activities also increase the risk to impairing water quality and affect habitat for some 

species. Specific guidance in the proposed forest plan however, provides protection for water 

resources during timber harvest operations. Effects on these inventoried roadless area values are 

further discussed in the watershed and biodiversity topics. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Vegetation/Fuels 

Treatment 

It is unlikely that many mechanical vegetation and fuels treatments would be undertaken in 

inventoried roadless areas, as other roaded parts of the forest (wildland-urban interface 

especially) would almost always have higher priority for the limited funding available. However, 

within inventoried roadless areas allowances for vegetation and fuels treatments do vary by 

alternative. Alternative 1 does not allow vegetation and fuels treatments in inventoried roadless. 

In Alternative 2, vegetation and fuels treatments are allowed 460,000 acres of inventoried 

roadless areas (all areas not recommended for Wilderness). In Alternative 3, vegetation and 

fuels treatments are allowed 554,900 acres of inventoried roadless areas (all areas not 

recommended for Wilderness). Alternatives 4 and 5 allow vegetation and fuels treatments on all 

inventoried roadless. Alternative 6 allows vegetation and fuels treatments on 537,000 acres of 

inventoried roadless areas (all areas not recommended for Wilderness). Alternative 7 allows 

vegetation and fuels treatments on 423,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (all areas not 

recommended for Wilderness and in MPC 2.6). 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Fire Management 

The fire management category includes prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and fire suppression. 

All three fire management activities are allowed in inventoried roadless areas, with the exception 

of Alternative 1, in which prescribed fire is not allowed. Prescribed fire and wildland fire use 

ought to have no effect in any alternative to inventoried roadless values. Planning for these 

activities would need to take into account the nature of the values in any particular area. The use 

of some fire suppression actions could be limited by the roadless nature of these areas. If fire 

suppression actions required ground-disturbing activities to build road or fireline, effects to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 315 

roadless values could occur. Construction of fireline or other ground disturbing activities can 

usually be mitigated in post fire operations. 

 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Recreation Management 

Inventoried roadless area values that could be affected from recreation management include 

semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized settings for undeveloped recreation 

activities, clean drinking water, and wildlife habitat. 

Recreation management could affect roadless areas if new facilities and new roads are built and 

left open for recreation access in roadless areas. Recreation management could also affect 

roadless area characteristics if recreation use was managed to such densities that semi-primitive 

character was lost, or if recreation was improperly managed to the degree water quality was 

impaired. 

In Alternative 1 with motorized and mechanized recreation restricted in about 360,000 acres that 

are recommended as wilderness, user densities could increase in the remaining inventoried 

roadless areas; however, it is unlikely that user densities would increase to the degree that semiprimitive settings are compromised. Effects from recreation management in Alternatives 2,3,6, 

and 7 would be similar to that described for Alternative 1, in that displacement from 

recommended wilderness could occur to areas where more motorized uses are allowed. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 allow some new recreation facilities or road construction in inventoried 

roadless areas that may affect their semi-primitive character, however, it is unlikely that forest 

budgets would be sufficient to allow much development, particularly in inventoried roadless. 

Standards and guidelines that are common to all alternatives for water quality and properly 

managed recreation will reduce the risk of impaired water quality. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Recreation Use 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – The following discussion refers to Table RA-10 that shows 

the forestwide allocations to ROS categories in inventoried roadless areas. The 1985 Forest Plan 

mapped ROS and winter recreation for the Wasatch-Cache; these mappings were never fully 

implemented as management direction. Acreage totals for current on the ground recreation 

settings and experiences in roadless areas are shown in the Existing Conditions column in Table 

RA-10. This is presented so the reader can make a comparison to the current setting, which is 

managed under current Travel Management Plans. In the ROS table below only non-snow 

conditions are accounted for; considerations for winter recreation are presented later. Across the 

range of alternatives inventoried roadless areas include allocations to all Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum categories except Urban. 

Allocations of acreage to non-motorized recreation (only the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

category) are highest in Alternative 1, and next highest in Alternative 2. Alternative 5 provides 

the least acreage to this category. Alternatives 6, 7, and the Existing Condition are about equal. 

Alternative 3 falls between the extremes of the other alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 316 

The existing condition in roadless areas for motorized recreation provides 239,100 acres within 

motorized recreation ROS categories (the sum of Rural, Roaded-Natural, and Semi-Primitive 

Motorized); Alternative 7 provides the same amount. Alternative 5 has the most acreage in 

motorized ROS categories for inventoried roadless areas – 325,400, and Alternative 1 has the 

least – 112,900. Alternative 2 has 221,800 acres; Alternative 3 has 254,900 acres; Alternative has 

364,900 acres; and Alternative 6 has 241,100 acres. 

Summer motorized use is restricted to designated Forest system roads and motorized trails. 

While the acreage allocations shown in the ROS tables might seem to indicate that large areas 

are for available motorized use, in fact the area actually available for use is considerably smaller 

and limited to appropriate routes. ROS for motorized categories shows areas where the influence 

(sights, sounds) of motorized use may be expected by a forest visitor. 

Table RA–10. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum allocation in Roadless Areas 

Recreation 

Opportunity 

Spectrum 

1 2 3 

4/1985 

Forest 

Plan

5 6 7 EC 

NA* 0 0 0 31,220 0 0 0 0

Urban** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rural 6,500 6,400 8,400 2,200 10,400 6,800 0 0

Roaded 

Natural 50,800 106,70

0 

113,10

0

294,10

0

135,00

0

114,30

0

96,200 96,200

SemiPrimitive 

Motorized 

55,600 108,70

0 

133,40

0

68,600 180,00

0

120,00

0

142,90

0 

142,90

0

Semi 

Primitive 

NonMotorized 

492,90

0 

384,00

0 

350,90

0

209,80

0

280,20

0

365,50

0

366,80

0 

366,80

0

EC = Existing Condition - On the ground, current situation as managed by current Travel Plans. 

*NA – This acreage represents newly acquired lands since 1985 for which there was not management direction in 

the 1985 Forest Plan. 

** Less than 100 acres of Urban category ROS were mapped forestwide. 

Winter Recreation - Motorized winter recreation use may negatively affect roadless values and 

recreation experiences for non-motorized winter users by introducing the sounds and presence of 

snowmobiles into a roadless area. Conversely, snowmobile enthusiasts often feel that their 

opportunities and experiences are constrained when acreage available for snowmobile use is 

reduced. Table RA-11 shows the acres and percentage of inventoried roadless areas available to 

snowmobiling (and by interpretation, those that are not available). Aside from the Winter 

Recreation setting mapped in the 1985 Forest Plan, Alternative 5 provides the most acreage in 

inventoried roadless for snowmobile use; Alternative 1 provides the fewest acres open to 

snowmobiling. The other alternatives fall in between these extremes. 

One aspect of winter motorized recreation use, heliski operations, can affect non-motorized 

winter backcountry users in Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These users would be affected to the 

same extent in Alternatives 4-7, and on different and fewer acres in Alternative 3 (See Winter 

Recreation maps for where the helicopter allocations occur within inventoried roadless areas on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 317 

the Wasatch Front.) Detailed information about where heliski operations are allowed within 

individual inventoried roadless areas can be found in Appendix C-2. Alternatives 1 and 2 that do 

not allow heliski opportunities would not affect these users. Heliski users and operators would 

be affected depending on whether an alternative allowed or did not allow the heliski opportunity 

on the Forest. 

Table RA-11. Acres in Inventoried Roadless Areas Open to Snowmobiling and Heliskiing 

1 2 3 

4/1985 

Forest 

Plan

5 6 7 EC 

Acres Open to 

Snowmobiling 

20,000 63,000 372,000 442,000 437,000 310,000 305,100 396,100

Percent 

Open to 

Snowmobiling 

3% 10% 61% 73% 72% 51% 50% 65%

Acres of Open to 

Heliski 

0 0 12,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000

EC = Existing Condition - On the ground, current situation as managed by current Travel Plans. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Oil and Gas Activities 

The following description of effects refers only to the area identified as the “Appeal Settlement 

Zone” as described in Topic 9 – Oil and Gas. It is estimated to be 68,300 acres. 

 

Since the Appeal Settlement Zone is coincident with much of the High Uintas Roadless Area, 

any development predicted in the ASZ would affect roadless values as stated below. Oil and gas 

activities and associated roads have potential impacts to roadless values. Oil and gas leasing 

varies by alternative. Refer to the description below for the differences in leasing by alternative. 

In areas that allow surface occupancy, roads would be constructed to access well pads. If the 

roads were made available to public travel, opportunities for motorized recreation would 

increase. Depending on the location of the development, some parts of the inventoried roadless 

area could be fragmented and isolated, reducing their ability to offer privacy and seclusion. 

Within the context of the appeal settlement zone, biological diversity would only be affected on a 

site specific scale. The risk of affecting water sources from oil and gas activities depends on the 

acres potentially disturbed and stipulations applied. The risk is more thoroughly described in 

Topic 1 – Watershed Health. 

Though Alternative 1 does not allow new leasing in the Appeal Settlement Zone, development of 

existing leases within the Table Top Unit could affect roadless values on an estimated 20 acres. 

In areas outside of the Table Top Unit that are not currently leased there would be no effects. 

Alternative 2 is very similar to Alternative 1. Again, development of existing leases within the 

Table Top Unit could affect roadless values on about 20 acres. Once existing leases expire, 

leasing availability in areas recommended for wilderness is precluded. On remaining available 

acres, new leases could be issued but surface occupancy would not be allowed. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 offer the greatest protection of roadless values. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 318 

Alternative 3 precludes leasing on 18,200 acres recommended for wilderness and does not allow 

new leases with surface occupancy on 37,200 acres primarily managed for undeveloped 

(Prescription 2.6) and backcountry recreation (Prescription 4.1 and 4.2) values and terrestrial 

habitat (Prescription 3.2). New leases could be issued on about 2,500 acres with stipulations 

applied to protect sensitive resources. An estimated 10,400 acres are available under Standard 

Lease Terms. Of the 12,900 acres that allow surface occupancy, oil and gas activities are 

estimated to disturb about 75 acres. Some of this development is predicted on existing leases 

within the Table Top Unit. Roadless values most likely to be affected include non motorized 

recreation and the privacy and seclusion offered by an undisturbed landscape. These roadless 

values could be affected for 20-30 years because of field development. 

 

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 to roadless values are 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 affect 

about 105 acres. Some of the effects could last 20-30 years because of field development. 

Mitigation measures could be required as conditions of approval to protect individual values. 

In Alternative 6, leasing availability is precluded on 20,000 acres recommended for wilderness. 

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 

renewed on the 3,600 acres managed for motorized recreation values and terrestrial habitat. Of 

this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 75 acres. Some of this 

development is predicted on existing leases within the Table Top Unit. Roadless values could be 

affected for 20-30 years should a field be discovered. In the remainder of the area the effects to 

roadless values would be minimal because of no surface occupancy. Because of the low 

percentage of lands that allow surface occupancy, large undisturbed landscapes are more likely 

to remain intact. 

Alternative 7 would preclude leasing on 20,400 acres recommended for wilderness. On the 

remaining 47,900 acres available for leasing, surface occupancy would be allowed on 27,000 

acres. Of this acreage, oil and gas activities are estimated to disturb about 85 acres. Roadless 

values could be affected 20-30 years should a field be discovered. Some development (included 

in the 85 acre estimate) is predicted within the Table Top Unit because of existing leases and 

new leases being offered with surface occupancy. 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Area Values from Mineral and Land 

Ownership 

Under any alternative, in roadless areas where there is non-federal mineral or land ownership, the 

ability to explore, make claims, and occupy lands for minerals (provided under the 1872 Mining 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 319 

Act) and rights of access to private lands could compromise the values which have been 

identified for roadless areas (See Appendix C-2). 

In roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache private ownership of minerals occurs on 66,811 acres 

where there is federal surface ownership (Table RA-12). Most of these private mineral 

ownership situations occur along the Wasatch Front where few of the areas are recommended for 

Wilderness, except in Alternative 1. There is also substantial private minerals ownership in 

Upper South Fork and High Uintas roadless areas whose roadless values could be affected if 

development occurred under any alternative. Application of the non-development MPC 2.6 could 

create conflicts with management intent in Alternatives 1, 2, or 7 where that allocation is 

relatively common in the areas listed below. 

Table RA-12. Non-federal ownership of minerals in roadless areas 

Roadless Area Acres 

Mt. Logan North 1046

Mt. Logan South 252

Mollens Hollow 761

Wellsville 15

Sugar Pine 61

Upper South Fork 8400

Willard 11759

Lewis Peak 8647

Burch Creek 4404

Francis 10052

Farmington 6059

Hogsback 3877

Mueller Park 3511

Mt. Olympus 374

Twin Peaks 344

Lone Peak Additions 319

Nobletts 106

Lakes 460

High Uintas 6364

TOTAL 66811

The current status for non-federal land ownership is provided in Table RA-2. Private and State 

Inholdings within Inventoried Roadless Areas. The table shows that most inventoried roadless 

areas along the Wasatch Front have from 40 to a few hundred acres in non-federal ownership to 

which developed access by owners might be desirable, and which could be affected at any time. 

In Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 where the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule has been applied, 

roadless areas are to be protected from road construction, but access to private inholdings is an 

exception to that direction. Placing these roadless areas into management prescriptions where 

new road or other construction is not intended (1.5, 2.4, 2.6) might create administrative 

processes in Alternatives where that is the case, adding to management costs and possible 

controversy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 320 

Topic 5 – Wilderness Characteristics, Roadless Area Values, 

and Wilderness Management 

Wilderness Management 

Introduction 

There are seven existing wilderness areas on the Wasatch – Cache National Forest totaling 

309,079 acres. This represents approximately 25 percent of Wasatch – Cache National Forest 

Service acreage and 38 percent of all the current wilderness areas in Utah State. The wilderness 

areas on the Forest are Lone Peak, Twin Peaks, Mount Olympus, Deseret Peak, Wellsville 

Mountains, Mount Naomi, and High Uintas. Lone Peak is shared with the Uinta National Forest 

and the High Uintas is shared with the Ashley National Forest. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• The Wilderness Act (1964) - Established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be 

administered in such a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and 

enjoyment as wilderness. 

• The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) - Directs the Secretary of 

Agriculture to provide adequate access to non-federal land within the boundaries of the 

National Forest System including congressionally designated areas. 

• Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Sec. 108, PL 96-560, H.R. Report 96-617 dated 

11/14/79) - Clarify the Congressional intent that livestock grazing will be permitted to 

continue in national forest wilderness areas, when such grazing was established prior to 

classification of an area as Wilderness. This policy is reiterated in FSM 2323.22. 

• Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978 (PL 95-237): Includes the designation of 

Lone Peak as a wilderness area and some watershed protection requirements for that area. 

• Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 (PL 98-428): Includes the designation of High Uintas, Mount 

Naomi, Wellsville Mountains, Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks and Deseret Peak as wilderness 

areas and some requirements for grazing in wilderness, state water allocation authority, 

prohibition on buffer zones, and mineral resources. 

Affected Environment 

Lone Peak became a Wilderness in 1978 with the Endangered American Wilderness Act and the 

other six areas became Wilderness in 1984 with the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 321 

Table WM-1 

Wilderness by District and Acreage 

Name District 

WCNF 

Wilderness 

Acres 

Total 

Wilderness 

Acres 

Twin Peaks Salt Lake 11,495 Same

Mount Olympus Salt Lake 15,300 Same

Lone Peak Salt Lake 9,747 30,578

Deseret Peak Salt Lake 25,215 Same

Mount Naomi Logan 44,523 Same

Wellsville Mountains Logan 22,986 Same

High Uintas Kamas, Evanston, Mt View 179,813 453,664

The long-term goal is to maintain wilderness, where ecosystems are primarily influenced by the 

forces of nature, provide a diversity of opportunities for public use, enjoyment and understanding 

of wilderness, and preserve a high quality wilderness resource for present and future generations. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 emphasizes the protection of pristine areas and recognized 

recreational values of public benefit. Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and for primitive and unconfined recreational experiences. Since the Wilderness Act became law 

in 1964, millions of people have visited designated Wilderness for solitude, recreation, spiritual 

enhancement, and natural appreciation. Recreation is just one way that wilderness resources are 

used and valued. Wilderness is important as a sanctuary for undisturbed ecosystems, for 

maintenance of species diversity, protection of threatened and endangered species, as well as 

non-endangered plants and animals, protection of watersheds and clean water, protection of 

airsheds and clean air, scientific research, and various social values. Wilderness is a benchmark 

for determining our nations environmental and spiritual health. Local communities receive some 

economic benefits from wilderness designation through tourism and recreation. 

The act defines the statutory definition of wilderness as: 

“A Wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

Wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act, an area of undeveloped federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements of human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and 

which: 

1. Generally appear to have been effected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; 

3. Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

4. May also contain ecological, geological, or features of scientific, educational, or historic 

value.” 

Wilderness designation allows uses specified in the 1964 Wilderness Act and the exceptions 

directed by the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 322 

Wilderness acreage varies in the seven management areas on the Forest. The Eastern Uintas 

followed by the Stansbury and Central Wasatch management areas have the highest percentage 

of wilderness acreage, while the North Wasatch – Ogden Valley and Bear management areas 

have the no wilderness acreage. 

Table WM-2 

Existing Wilderness Acreage and Percentage 

Management Area 

Acreage of 

Existing 

Wilderness 

Percent of 

Management Area 

designated 

Wilderness 

Central Wasatch 36,542 37 

North Wasatch – Ogden Valley 0 0 

Stansbury 25,214 37 

Cache – Box Elder 67,509 23 

Bear 0 0 

Western Uintas 42,846 15 

Eastern Uintas 134,966 44 

Wilderness areas on the Forest include: 

Mount Naomi 

Located on the Logan Ranger District and part of the Cache – Box Elder management area 

with elevations up to 9,980 feet on Naomi Peak. Use is a collection of day visitors, 

backpackers and horseback riders, while the winter receives cross-country ski and 

snowshoe users. Key access is off the Logan Canyon Highway, along the Logan front and 

reaching the high country is popular from the Tony Grove Lake area. Included in the area is 

the Mount Naomi Peak National Recreation Trail. Use varies from low to high, depending 

on location and season. The area has important wildlife and ecosystem values. 

Wellsville Mountains

Located on the Logan Ranger District and part of the Cache – Box Elder management area 

with elevations up to 9,372 feet on Box Elder Peak. Almost all of the Wellsville Mountains 

are part of the wilderness, but the trail system and access is limited. The area is known also 

for its raptor migrations. Use varies, but is generally on the lower side. 

High Uintas 

Located on the Kamas, Evanston and Mountain View Districts, but much of it is on the 

Ashley National Forest, who shares in management of the area (Wasatch-Cache has 

179,813 acres of 453,664 total acres). The High Uintas is on both the Western and Eastern 

management areas. It is the largest wilderness area in the state with elevations up to 13,528 

feet on Kings Peak, the highest mountain in the state. Terrain varies from vast lodgepole 

forests, to river canyons to high alpine meadow and rock country. Use varies from low to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 323 

high depending on location and season, but the area is extremely popular and well known 

throughout the state and nation. The High Uintas attracts a high volume of backpackers and 

horseback riders. Hiking is popular from access off of Mirror Lake Highway and the Forest 

Service North Slope road. The area is popular for visits by groups and organizations such 

as Boy Scouts, church groups and hiking clubs. Winter access is somewhat limited, but the 

winter recreation visitation is increasing. The High Uintas is known for its outstanding 

scenery, ecosystem and wildlife values. The High Uintas Wilderness area has a 

management plan for the area completed in 1997. 

Deseret Peak

Located on the Salt Lake District and on the Stansbury management area in the Stansbury 

Mountains near the Tooele area. It is a desert mountain island in the Great Basin with 

elevations up to 11,031 feet on Deseret Peak. Use in the past has been low, but is now 

increasing because of growth in the Tooele area and crowded conditions in the Wasatch 

Front wilderness areas. Use is a combination of day hikers and backpackers with some 

horseback riding. The area is also known for its ecosystem and wildlife values. 

Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak

These three wilderness areas are located on the Salt Lake Ranger District and on the 

Central Wasatch management area adjacent to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. Lone Peak 

is also located on the Uinta National Forest, that shares in its management (Wasatch-Cache 

has 9,747 acres of 30,578 total acres. Use is extremely high all yearlong, including the 

winter. Some solitude can be found in the off-trail and more rugged sections. These 

Wasatch front wilderness areas are somewhat unique as wilderness, in that 90 percent plus 

of their use is from day visitors to the area. Backpacking opportunities are somewhat 

limited. Horseback riding and dogs are limited to the Mill Creek side of Mount Olympus, 

because of important watershed values. Access is very easy with a lot of trailheads and 

access points from Mill Creek Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon, Big Cottonwood 

Canyon and along the Wasatch front. Elevation high points are 10,246 feet Gobblers Knob 

(Mount Olympus), 11,330 foot Twin Peak (Twin Peaks), and 11,326 foot Little Matterhorn 

Peak (Lone Peak). The area offers critical wildlife habitat, because of its adjacency to 

urban development. These areas are critical watershed for the Salt Lake area. 

Biological Diversity of Wilderness 

Air quality – Wilderness areas on the Wasatch-Cache are rated as Class II areas. Visibility in 

long distance views is often a problem in the Wasatch front wilderness areas, because of their 

adjacency next to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. 

Water Quality – Wilderness areas on the Wasatch-Cache are important critical watersheds for 

communities and wildlife needs. Most of the three Wasatch front wilderness areas are watersheds 

for Salt Lake City, while other wilderness areas are important watersheds for other local 

communities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 324 

Vegetation – Much of the wilderness acreage on the Forest is higher elevation, but it can vary 

from around 5,000 feet to over 13,000 feet thus supporting a diversity of vegetation types 

including grass/forbs, brush types, conifer, aspen and alpine. 

Livestock Grazing – There is no grazing in the three Wasatch front wilderness areas (Mount 

Olympus, Twin Peaks and Lone Peak). The other four wilderness areas (Mount Naomi, 

Wellsville Mountains, Deseret Peak, High Uintas) have some cattle and sheep allotments. Some 

of the allotments in the High Uintas Wilderness are vacant or closed. 

Table WA-3 

Grazing Allotments in Wilderness Areas 

Wilderness Number of 

Allotments 

High Uintas 19 

Mount Naomi 3 

Wellsville Mountains 3 

Deseret Peak 5 

Wildlife and Fisheries – The wilderness areas provide relatively undisturbed habitats for 

wildlife including several species at risk. Much of the area is summer range, but the lower slopes 

offer some critical remaining winter range. Big game includes deer, elk, and moose. Mountain 

Goats have been introduced. Bighorn sheep inhabit the Hole-in-Rock/Hoop Lake area near the 

High Uintas. Predators include coyote, bobcat, cougar, and black bear. Many non-game, small 

game and bird species utilize and live in wilderness areas, as well as reptiles and amphibians. 

Hunting and fishing opportunities, as well as wildlife watching are popular in wilderness areas. 

Native trout exist in wilderness. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has historically 

stocked many lakes and streams with trout. Possibly some wilderness areas could offer potential 

habitat for rare species including large predators. 

Fire – Within the wilderness areas in the past, primary management action for fires has been 

suppression, which has led to vegetation conditions that differ from those resulting from natural 

processes. It is now recognized that fire benefits ecological and habitat values. Fuel buildups are 

high in many areas, increasing the potential of severe fires next to developed areas and creating 

suppression needs to protect private property and watershed values. Currently, only the High 

Uintas has a wildland fire use plan. The Wasatch-Cache does not have any fire plans for our 

portion of the Lone Peak Wilderness; prescribed burns are not allowed by the current Forest plan 

on the Wasatch-Cache side. The Uinta National Forest does have a wildland fire use plan on its 

portion of Lone Peak. The goal of wildland fire use in wilderness is to allow natural disturbances 

to play their natural role in the ecosystem cycles within the wilderness. 

Insects and Disease – Snags and stands of dead trees remain from various insects and disease 

epidemic attacks in the past. These have included mountain pine beetles in the lodgepole stands 

in the High Uintas and mistletoe and outbreaks in small stands along the Wasatch Front 

wilderness areas. Because natural processes are allowed to function in wilderness, no 

management actions are underway or planned. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 325 

Undesired Species – Noxious weeds in wilderness areas including Dyers woad, leafy spurge, 

and Canada thistle is an increasing problem and starting to spread to new areas. The Mount 

Naomi Wilderness area especially has had noxious weed invasions. Certified weed-free feed is 

required in national forest to prevent additional infestations from stock feed. 

Recreation Use in Wilderness Areas 

Recreation use in wilderness is increasing and can affect wilderness values and resources, 

naturalness, wildness, and solitude. Without proper management, the quality and values of 

wilderness are jeopardized. 

A primary concern is the growing increased use of wilderness visitors impacting both popular 

sites, as well as pristine areas. One tool to help manage this is the use of opportunity classes 

based on limits of acceptable change. Currently, only the High Uintas Wilderness has approved 

opportunity classes. For the High Uintas Wilderness area approximately 33% of the area is Class 

I, 58% is Class II, and 9% is Class III. Other wilderness areas will have Class I, II, and III areas 

designated in this plan revision. 

Wilderness visitation use is considered high on the Wasatch-Cache, except for perhaps the 

Deseret Peak and Wellsville Mountain areas, that have lower use. Popular trails and destinations 

are often crowded with demand for wilderness often exceeding supply. High use is especially 

occurring in areas such as: 

• Near urban areas, such as the three Wasatch front wilderness areas. 

• Trail corridors convenient for day hikes 

• Lake basins 

• Destination areas and trails to high peaks (example Kings Peak in High Uintas, Highline 

Trail, Mount Naomi Peak National Recreation Trail). 

• Easy access areas – paved or graded gravel roads, trailheads with ample parking. 

Types of recreation use vary by wilderness area, terrain, season and access. The trend is for 

continued increased use, especially in wilderness areas located near urban areas. Day hiking 

dominates the three Wasatch front wilderness areas. The highest backpacking and horse use is in 

the High Uintas Wilderness. Many areas receive high recreation use all year long. Much of the 

current management emphasis is to manage areas of heavy impact, try to confine use to these 

corridors and areas and to protect the more pristine wilderness values. 

Commercial services can be performed within approved wilderness areas to support activities 

essential to realizing the recreational and other values of the area (Wilderness Act of 1964). 

Commercial outfitting and guiding services currently in wilderness are conducted only in the 

High Uintas Wilderness area with one outfitter out of the Mountain View District. 

Currently, none of the wilderness areas have a required visitor use permit system or designated 

camp areas. There are recommended campsites in some areas. Permit systems may eventually be 

a part of future wilderness management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 326 

Motorized equipment can be authorized on a case-by-case basis in wilderness, where there is a 

legitimate emergency involving human health and safety, such as a rescue mission for injured or 

lost people or for critical fire suppression needs. Other exceptions in the Utah Wilderness Act of 

1984 allow access to service sanitation facilities, access to municipal water developments, and 

access to meteorological facilities. 

There are some problems of motorized recreation trespass into the wilderness, such as 

snowmobiles in the High Uintas, Mount Naomi, and Wellsville Mountain areas and OHV 

summer season trespass in Deseret Peak area. Mountain bike use (classified as mechanical use 

not allowed by the 1964 Wilderness Act) is a trespass problem in some wilderness areas. 

Although it is an escalating problem, the trespass in wilderness from motorized and mechanical 

use generally is from a limited number of users. 

Special Designations in Wilderness 

There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Forest, but there are eligible segments of 

rivers in the Wild and Scenic River inventory for the Forest within wilderness. Suitability 

analysis for these segments is not being conducted as a part of Forest plan revision. There are no 

registered National Historic sites within wilderness, but there are some sites that are eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places. The Mount Naomi Wilderness has the Mount Naomi 

Peak National Recreation Trail. 

Future Trends 

There continues to be public interest in adding land to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, either as additions to existing wilderness or as new wilderness areas. If lands are added 

to the system, they will satisfy both a need for preserving natural ecological conditions and for 

public recreation in primitive and pristine environments. 

There is also opposition to adding to the wilderness system, with views that these areas are 

needed for access, motorized recreation needs such as snowmobiling and motorized recreation, 

and for future commodity outputs that benefit local community economies. 

Regardless of the acreage of wilderness, use in these areas will continue to increase as a result of 

population growth, the desire to visit areas with pristine values, and the popularity of outdoor 

recreation. New technologies are continuing to be developed, that may alter the primitive 

recreation experience. For example cellular phones and GPS units are changing the sense of 

challenge, adventure, and solitude. Given the reliance on these devices and urbanization of the 

population, primitive skills of some visitors could diminish. 

The availability of lands outside wilderness that are capable of providing high quality, primitive, 

wild land recreation experiences has decreased over time. If use in the most pristine portions of 

wilderness areas increases, these unique parts of wilderness, that offer outstanding opportunities 

for solitude and are virtually unaffected by use, are at risk. Low use pristine locations are highly 

vulnerable to being adversely impacted by even small increases in use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 327 

Management of wilderness areas is changing. More areas are incorporating permit systems, 

designated sites and use restrictions. Another management tool is that of the minimum tool 

concept, where wilderness managers scrutinize planned actions to determine if they are 

necessary to protect wilderness resources or experiences. If the action is deemed necessary, then 

it must be accomplished with the least impact on wilderness values. 

Finally, we are seeing a shift in the view of wilderness values. For a long time, wildernesses 

were looked at primarily as areas to meet primitive recreation needs, however they are now being 

recognized as critical areas for ecosystem, wildlife and watershed values, as well as for education 

and research. 

In August of 2000, The Forest Service finalized the National Wilderness Agenda known as 

“Thinking Like a Mountain”. The purpose of the Wilderness Agenda is to provide a platform for 

communicating the values of wilderness and to focus energies on effective implementation 

strategies that will maintain and manage these limited resources. The Forest Service vision for 

wilderness areas is that wilderness is protected, nurtured, and sustained by increasingly 

competent and committed managers, supported by expanded scientific knowledge and growing 

political strength from a public that increasingly understands and appreciates wilderness. 

In the Forest Service’s Wilderness Recreation Strategy, two primary problems were identified: 1) 

Many users are critical of use limits based on social standards alone, in high destination areas, 

and 2) When use limits are implemented in high use areas, visitors are displaced to the more 

pristine and sensitive areas that have received low use in the past. Selected courses of actions to 

respond to these problems included: 1) Create and/or market opportunities for high quality 

wildland recreation experiences outside wilderness and off National Forest lands; 2) Make it a 

priority to commit resources and protection to low use wilderness lands to ensure nondegradation of their outstanding opportunities for solitude and near pristine conditions; and 3) 

Manage high use destinations as sources of inspiration and connection with wilderness, develop 

and implement social standards with public input, and implement management actions to ensure 

that impacts to physical and biological resources are contained within standards established in 

the Forest plan. 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

Human use of designated wilderness is governed by the terms in the Wilderness Act. This limits 

management activities within the wilderness. Wilderness is managed to limit human impacts and 

influences to desired levels. Project proposals within these areas are evaluated for compliance 

with wilderness values. Commercial uses of wilderness are controlled by special use permits and 

associated operation plans. Because direction for wilderness is detailed in law, regulation, 

agency policy and in specific management plans, wilderness management for existing wilderness 

will vary little by alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 328 

Effects on wilderness from Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The proposed forest plan provides standards to protect the essentially free-flowing character and 

outstandingly remarkable values of all eligible segments. These standards apply for the length of 

the segment and for .25 miles from the banks on both sides of the segment. Rivers found eligible 

within wilderness areas would be protected as wild rivers. Approximately 81 of the 88 miles of 

eligible wild and scenic river segments in wilderness are in the High Uintas Wilderness. Current 

wilderness areas have the following eligible wild and scenic river segments: 

Table WM-4. Wild and Scenic River Eligible Segments in Wilderness Areas 

Wilderness Area Wild and Scenic River 

Eligible Segments 

Miles 

High Uintas Henrys Fork 8.0 

High Uintas Thompson Creek 3.7 

High Uintas West Fork Beaver 4.6 

High Uintas East Fork Blacks Fork 15.4 

High Uintas East Fork Smiths Fork 11.0 

High Uintas LH & RH Fork Bear River 9.4 

High Uintas Middle Fork Beaver Creek 6.9 

High Uintas Ostler Fork 3.7 

High Uintas Stillwater Fork 6.1 

High Uintas West Fork Blacks Fork 8.1 

High Uintas West Fork Smiths Fork 3.8 

Mount Naomi High Creek 5.7 

Lone Peak Little Cottonwood (boundary) 1.1 

Wild and Scenic River management is compatible with wilderness and would have no effect on 

wilderness. 

Effects on wilderness from vegetation and fire management 

Management activities in wilderness are limited. In fact, the forces of nature (fire, insects, and 

disease) should be allowed to play a natural role in wilderness without intervention, as long as 

they do not threaten resources, public safety, and properties outside the wilderness boundary. 

Present conditions reflect years of fire suppression, but vary depending upon location. One of the 

most significant impacts to wilderness has been the suppression of fire. The exclusion of fire has 

produced vegetative conditions that are outside of the historical range of variability. Two 

vegetation management tools available inside wilderness are wildland fire use and prescribed 

fire. To help improve ecosystem health and meet the intent of the Wilderness Act, the proposed 

Forest Plan provides direction for wildland fire use within designated wilderness. This direction 

would apply to alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Since Alternative 4 is the 1985 Plan as amended, 

use of wildland fire would not be allowed except where fire use plans are in place (High Uintas 

Wilderness). Prescribed fire would be allowed only to meet wilderness objectives in Alternatives 

2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. 

Potential direct effects of wildland fire and prescribed fire could include a temporary loss of 

vegetation, reduction in water quality due to sedimentation, loss of cultural resources, temporary 

loss of grazing opportunities, smoke pollution, and a perceived loss in scenic quality. Indirect 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 329 

effects of fire use may include a temporary loss of wildlife habitat for some species, or additional 

habitat for others. Fires burning in wilderness could change use patterns and cause inconvenience 

for visitors. Wilderness users could expect temporary access restrictions during periods of fire 

use activities. Recreational use of burned-over areas may drop for a period of years, until 

vegetative recovery achieves a more advanced stage. Lethal fire in heavy timber stands could 

increase long-term trail maintenance needs from continued downfall of snags across trails. 

Timber harvest is not permitted within wilderness areas, but logging activities near wilderness 

boundaries have the potential to create short-term noise level increases that change the user’s 

perception of being in a remote area. Vegetation management activities near the wilderness 

boundary have the potential to affect wilderness use levels by creating potential motorized 

trespass entry points and increasing the potential for ecosystem effects such as noxious weed 

introductions. Additional access as a result of vegetation management activities may result in 

increased non-motorized recreation use. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 allow timber harvesting. 

It is possible some timber harvests could be located near wilderness boundaries. Mechanical 

treatments in oakbrush could also have some short-term effects near wilderness boundaries on 

the Wasatch Front. 

Effects on wilderness from roads management 

Construction and reconstruction of roads near wilderness boundaries can potentially affect 

wilderness resources by increasing access. Road building activities near wilderness boundaries 

have the potential, in some types of terrain and vegetative cover, to increase inappropriate 

wilderness use by creating potential motorized entry points. In the short term, increased noise 

levels change the user’s perception of being in a remote area. Improved access could also result 

in increased recreation use. 

 

Due to Roadless Area Conservation Rule being applied in alternatives 1, 2, and 6, the potential 

for effects resulting from road construction would lowest in these alternatives. 

Effects on wilderness from wildlife and fisheries management 

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources through state game management regulations 

accomplishes much of the general management of wildlife including hunting seasons and fish 

stocking of lakes. The Forest Service manual (FSM 2641) provides that the state has the 

responsibility to make determinations about which wildlife and fish species are native or 

indigenous. The Forest Service has the responsibility to prevent damage to resources occurring 

on National Forest system lands. Monitoring of range conditions, management indicators and 

species at risk will help in meeting that responsibility. 

It is recognized that fish stocking can cause human use around lakes and that stocking can 

interfere with historic aquatic natural processes. Holden (et al 1996) recognized that impacts to 

historic aquatic natural processes have occurred due to stocking fish in previously fishless 

waters. Historic aquatic natural processes (prior to human induced change) in currently or 

historically stocked waters, will be difficult, if not impossible, to fully restore. It is likely that if 

stocking is precluded, amphibians will migrate back into lakes, macroinvertebrate communities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 330 

are likely to recolonize, but zooplankton and other invertebrate species may not. However, 

zooplankton and other invertebrates can be reintroduced with human intervention. 

Wilderness fishing recreation use is high in some areas causing increased use and associated 

impacts in popular lake basins. 

Effects on wilderness from recreation management 

Use in existing wilderness is expected to increase regardless of alternative. Corresponding 

increases in recreation-associated impacts to wilderness resources can also be expected. 

Additional areas recommended as wilderness could redistribute some of this use. In some cases 

the use in relatively undisturbed areas could increase as a result of wilderness designation. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 have the most opportunity for additional areas to provide wilderness 

experiences. 

Wilderness education will be emphasized in all alternatives in an effort to protect wilderness 

values. The emphasis of each alternative may affect the amount of budget available for the 

wilderness education program. In all alternatives information and education, management, and 

regulation enforcement are expected to protect wilderness values. Additional management could 

include strategies such as permit systems, group size limits, camping restrictions, and designated 

campsites. 

Effects on wilderness from livestock grazing 

Grazing would continue in wilderness in accordance with Congressional guidelines and 

management direction in the proposed forest plan. Improvement of conditions identified as not 

meeting objectives varies by alternative and would affect wilderness as described in the section 

on effects on vegetation from livestock grazing (Topic 2). Because the Wilderness Act of 1964 

permits grazing within wilderness, disposition of vacant allotments by alternative is based on 

other resource needs, not on wilderness considerations. 

Effects on wilderness from mineral and energy exploration/development 

Designated wilderness is withdrawn from energy leasing and mineral entry, subject to existing 

rights. Private minerals within wilderness could be developed. There would be no difference 

between the alternatives in effects from mineral or energy exploration or development on 

designated wilderness areas. 

 

Effects on wilderness from land ownership 

Generally landownership adjustments within designated wilderness are made in order to acquire 

private and state inholdings. These are usually done to protect or maintain wilderness values 

from the threat of development resulting in long-term benefits for wilderness resources. There 

would be no difference between alternatives in effects on wilderness areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 331 

Cumulative Effects 

Wilderness values and uses both increase as population and development of private lands 

continues. The last legislation to designate wilderness in the state of Utah was in 1984 just prior 

to completion of the 1985 Forest Plan. Wilderness designation is and has been an issue of high 

interest in the state. Large areas of potential wilderness occur on lands managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management in Utah. These areas have recently undergone an inventory update adding 

substantial acreages to wilderness study areas. However numerous attempts to reach 

compromise on legislation for wilderness designation have been made without success. The 

future of wilderness for these lands in the state of Utah is an unknown and until they are decided, 

national forest wildernesses are the primary contributors to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System for this region. 

The degree to which fire can be successfully returned to fire-dependent ecosystems within and 

adjacent to wilderness is a major factor in the long-term benefits of these areas as sources of 

intact properly functioning ecosystems. This varies by wilderness area because historic fire 

regimes vary with vegetation cover types. Management of wildlife and fish populations and 

control of noxious weed invasions both within wilderness and on adjacent lands, are other 

important contributors to the broad functioning of wilderness ecosystems. Finally, management 

of livestock grazing and recreation use to maintain wilderness values will affect the long-term 

role that wildernesses can play in contributing to biodiversity and sustainability of the larger 

systems of which they are a part. These factors do not vary significantly by alternative 

specifically for areas designated as wilderness, therefore cumulative effects to wilderness would 

be similar for all alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 332 

Topic 6 - Timber Suitability 

Introduction 

National Forests have long been a provider of forest products for lumber and many other uses. 

This topic discussion is intended to meet requirements for analyzing timber suitability for forest 

planning. The affected environment section provides information on the recent history of timber 

production related to the Wasatch-Cache, and this is followed by a discussion of the 

environmental consequences of the six alternatives that are being analyzed. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires identification of areas suitable and 

available for timber harvest and determination of the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) from those 

lands, and the certification of reforesting those lands within five years following harvest. 

Affected Environment 

The National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations require identifying those 

lands that area suitable for timber management. Suitable lands include forested lands outside of 

withdrawn areas (such as designated Wilderness) where reforestation can be assured and timber 

management activities can take place without causing irreversible resource damage to soils 

productivity or watershed conditions. Regulations require that lands identified as not suited for 

timber production be examined at least every ten years to determine if they have become suited 

(36 CFR 219.12(k)(4)(ii)). 

The assessment of suitable timberlands identifies two categories: “tentatively suited” lands are 

those available forest lands that are physically suited for potential timber management, and 

“suitable” timberlands are that portion of the tentatively suited lands determined appropriate for 

timber management under a given alternative. Tentatively suited lands are the same for all 

alternatives. Suitable lands may be thought of as those lands that are capable of growing forest 

stands, available for timber production and management, and managed under a prescription 

category (5.2 and 6.2), with an emphasis on managing timber for growth and yield, while 

maintaining or restoring forested ecosystems. The acreage of suitable lands varies between 

alternatives depending upon the management prescriptions applied within the alternative. The 

suitable lands for each alternative are evaluated to determine the range of potential timber 

harvest levels for that alternative. 

Two terms are used to describe timber harvest levels: the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) and 

The Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity (LTSYC). Allowable Sale Quantity is a term that is 

frequently misunderstood. The ASQ is the maximum amount of timber that may be offered for 

sale each decade for a given alternative. It is a management-determined limit that has been 

analyzed and shown to be sustainable over time without exceeding the growth on those lands. 

Timber that contributes to ASQ comes from suited timberlands and varies by alternative. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 333 

Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity represents the maximum level of sustainable timber 

production that suitable lands are capable of producing, and may be greater than the ASQ. It 

may not be less than the ASQ, however. 

Timber harvest may also occur on unsuited lands that are within management prescriptions such 

as 5.1, 6.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, and 4.4. These prescriptions while not emphasizing commodity 

production, allow the use of timber harvest to achieve management objectives. The volume 

produced from these lands therefore would be incidental to other management objectives and not 

included in the ASQ. The timber sale program for the Forest is the total of the ASQ volume 

(from MPC 5.2/6.2) and the volume offered from other MPCs. 

Table TM-1. displays the timber volume offered and sold since the 1985 Forest Plan was signed. 

Units are million board feet (MMBF) and thousand cubic feet (MCF). 

Table TM-1. Timber volume offered and sold since inception of Forest Plan in 1985. 

FiscalYear Offered Sold 

MMBF MCF MMBF MCF 

1986 13.9 2780 12.9 2580 

1987 11.8 2360 11.5 2300 

1988 12.4 2480 12.4 2480 

1989 14.2 2840 14.0 2800 

1990 8.6 1720 8.6 1720 

1991 10.0 2000 10.0 2000 

1992 10.0 2000 10.0 2000 

1993 10.0 2000 10.0 2000 

1994 5.5 1100 4.6 920 

1995 2.4 480 1.8 360 

1996 6.6 1320 1.7 340 

1997 5.4 1080 7.51 1500 

1998 5.7 1140 7.61 1520 

1999 3.1 620 5.01 1000 

2000 4.7 940 4.7 940 

Timber Market and Demand 

The Wasatch-Cache is a competitive market for timber sales; most sales offered receive bids 

from two or more bidders. Occasionally, a sale will receive no bids on the initial offering. There 

are several reasons sales may receive no bids at the initial offering, including market conditions, 

and sale characteristics such as species, minimum bid price, timing restrictions, etc. Sales that 

have been prepared in the past few years have been driven by a wide range of objectives 

designed to meet multiple resource needs. These sales include a larger percentage of smaller, 

less valuable trees than in the past and are more expensive to harvest. This occasionally has 

resulted in a sale receiving no bids, especially when the market is high. However, all sales that 

 

1

 Sold volume totals that exceed the offered volume reflect sales receiving no bid in prior years that subsequently 

were reoffered and sold in the current year. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 334 

received no bids have been reoffered and subsequently sold. Demand for timber is not a limiting 

factor in the timber program on the Wasatch-Cache. 

 

The Forest participates in the Small Business Administration timber program. A certain 

percentage of the sales offered by the Forest are “set-aside” to be processed by small business 

under this program. The percentage is recalculated every 5 years, and was recomputed in the fall 

of 2000. Currently, 66% of the Wasatch-Cache timber sales must go to small business. Several 

small businesses operate mills adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and depend upon 

the forest to provide a portion of their supply. These include Blazzard Lumber, Leavitt Lumber, 

and Thompson Logging in Kamas, UT; Ayres and Baker in Mountain View, WY; Jensen 

Lumber in Ovid, ID. Intermountain Resources of Montrose, CO also has recently purchased 

sales from the Forest. One large business, Louisiana-Pacific, operates mills in Belgrade and 

Deer Lodge, MT and Saratoga, WY which process timber purchased on the Forest. There are 

also several small companies and individuals that purchase small sales. 

The location of these mills reflects a significant change in the market situation since the initial 

Forest Plan was developed. Traditionally, all the volume sold on the forest was processed at 

mills in local communities. In the past 3 or 4 years, bidders from outside the local area have 

begun to look to the Wasatch-Cache as a source for timber, with the result that we are now 

selling timber to processors in adjacent states as well as local mills. This reflects the need for 

mills to expand their source areas to meet demand 

Changes in Suitability Based on Implementation and Monitoring Results 

The Five Year Monitoring Report (USFS, 1992) identified several areas that needed to be 

addressed during plan revision, including timber availability assumptions, technical feasibility 

and implementation assumptions, and integrated resource analysis procedures. The 1985 Forest 

Plan identified 166,000 acres of suited lands, much of it located within inventoried roadless 

areas. 

Technical concerns centered on harvest method assumptions and implementation of Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. The monitoring report found that during implementation of the plan, 

land management prescriptions applied on the ground differed from what was proposed in the 

plan. For example, harvest in high elevation spruce stands was modeled to occur in two or three 

entries. In reality, the silvicultural prescriptions currently being applied involve selection 

harvest, which results in lower yields per entry than the 1985 plan projections. The 1985 plan 

also projects growth response from thinning in dense, small diameter stands of lodgepole pine on 

the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. Subsequent monitoring and analysis has indicated that 

many of these stands will not respond to thinning. The monitoring report indicated that these 

stands should be removed from the suitable base or identified as a separate component until 

markets for this material develop. In addition to the problems meeting expected outputs forecast 

in the Forest Plan, implementation of standards and guidelines has resulted in deferral of some 

expected treatments. The monitoring report identified hiding cover and leave strips adjacent to 

harvest units as examples of standards and guidelines that are affecting timber production on the 

forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 335 

In the process of Plan implementation, site-specific analyses have repeatedly revealed areas of 

high water tables and wet "pothole" complexes, primarily on the North Slope Uinta Mountains, 

that were not identified during the 1985 Forest Plan development. These areas where 

regeneration is difficult, or irreversible soil damage may occur by use of ground based 

equipment and road construction have been reclassified as not tentatively suited for timber 

management and removed from the suitable timber base. 

More recently, standards and guidelines in the 1985 Plan have been modified to provide habitat 

for sensitive species that were not addressed in the original plan. An example is the northern 

goshawk; guidelines have been developed and a forest-wide amendment completed that is 

incorporated in the proposed revised plan. 

The 1985 Forest Plan projected harvest on approximately 5,300 acres in roadless areas on the 

North Slope. In reality, harvest activity has occurred on approximately 1,200 acres of these 

lands. Treatments have been deferred due to the sensitive nature of roadless lands, and the need 

to reevaluate long-term management objectives for these areas. 

Timber outputs in revision are based on the integration of goals which address the multiple 

values and uses of a given management area. Prescriptions applied vary by alternative to reflect 

a range of approaches to timber and forestland management. 

Insects and Disease 

Insect caused mortality is a normal function of the forest ecosystem. Most of the major forest 

insects attack and kill individual trees or small groups of large, old trees, frequently of low vigor 

or under stress from drought or root disease. However, if the population increases dramatically, 

large numbers of trees may be attacked, resulting in widespread mortality over extensive 

acreages. The lack of fire within existing forests of the Wasatch-Cache has skewed stand 

structure toward older age classes, with high numbers of large diameter trees per acre. These 

conditions increase the potential for extensive insect related mortality. The large continuous 

acreage of older, dense forests provides a suitable host to support insect populations and allow 

endemic levels of activity to rapidly increase to epidemic levels. 

Several insect species have been active on the Forest since the plan was implemented. The 

largest impact has been from the mountain pine beetle on the North Slope. An epidemic 

occurred around the time the plan was signed which resulted in high mortality levels in 

lodgepole pine stands occupying approximately 150,000 acres on the Wasatch-Cache and Ashley 

National Forests. Salvage logging to remove the dead trees was conducted over 1200 acres on 

the east end of the Mountain View Ranger District, concluding in the spring of 2000. Standing 

dead trees still occupy several hundred acres in the roadless area to the south of Beaver Meadows 

Reservoir and west toward Hoop Lake. Root systems of the trees are now deteriorated to the 

point that significant wind throw is expected in the near future, which will substantially increase 

fuel loadings. Currently, mountain pine beetle populations are at endemic levels in this area. 

Aerial surveys completed in fiscal year 2001 indicated low levels generally across the forest, 

with some increased mortality in the Smith and Morehouse, Beaver Creek and North Fork Provo 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 336 

River areas on Kamas District. A limited beetle suppression effort within campgrounds and 

undeveloped sites on the Kamas District is currently underway. 

Douglas-fir bark beetle activity is generally decreasing across the forest, although pockets of 

mortality occur on every District. Large groups of mortality continue to be recorded near Spawn 

Creek, Rigby Hollow, Beaver Mountain and Tony Grove Lake on the Logan District. 

Douglas-fir Tussock Moth caused extensive mortality of subalpine fir and Douglas-fir on 2250 

acres of the Ogden Ranger District in 1990. Dead trees were salvaged from the area over the 

next two years. No other outbreaks of this insect have been detected since that time. 

Drought in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s led to a large increase in western balsam bark beetle 

populations. Western balsam bark beetles continue to kill groups of subalpine fir across the 

Forest, but in general populations are considered to be at low levels. 

Englemann spruce beetle has increased on the Logan, Ogden, and Evanston Ranger Districts 

since the 1985 Forest Plan was developed. Spruce beetles were found west of Whitney 

Reservoir on the Evanston District in 1988, infesting trees that had been blown down the 

previous year. Salvage efforts to remove the down trees and the use of pheromone baits to 

control the populations were completed over the next four years. Approximately 1000 acres 

were treated in this manner. A second area was impacted a few years later; approximately 1000 

acres of spruce-fir stands were attacked in 1995 in the vicinity of the T.W. Daniels Experimental 

Forest on the Logan District. Aggressive suppression activities consisting of removing beetle 

infested trees and the use of pheromone traps were conducted in 1996 and 1997 in an attempt to 

prevent an increase in the insect population. At the same time, spruce beetle was also rapidly 

increasing on the Ogden District, extending from Dairy Ridge north to the Spencer Basin area. 

The same suppression strategy was employed in that area in 1998 and 1999. Both suppression 

attempts were successful in reducing the populations. 

The use of suppression techniques did not dramatically alter the stand conditions, however, 

leaving the residual spruce susceptible to further infestation (Bentz and Munson, 2000). A 

timber sale has been prepared to treat spruce stands in the vicinity of Daniels Experimental 

Forest in an attempt to limit the effects of future outbreaks and regenerate the spruce component. 

Treatment consists of removing small groups of mature trees and planting spruce seedlings, and 

commercial thinning the surrounding stands to maintain vigor of the trees and reduce their 

susceptibility to beetle attacks. This proposed sale has been delayed as a result of litigation. 

Examination of the Logan treatment area during the summer of 2002 indicated increased beetle 

activity, with numerous recently attacked trees. 

Aspen defoliation and dieback has been mapped on several districts. Over 600 acres on the 

Logan District, 600 on the Kamas District, over 1000 acres on the Salt Lake District, and several 

thousand acres on the Ogden District are affected. The cause of this discoloration and leaf 

dieback are unknown at this time. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 337 

Environmental Consequences 

Effects on the Timber program from the various alternatives depend upon the amount and the 

quality of the timber offered for sale. The amount offered annually is important to lumber mills 

dependent upon National Forest timber in planning their operations. The quality of the timber 

offered, specifically such variables as size of the timber, degree of insect and disease problems 

and species composition, affect the value and economic feasibility of the offering. Other factors 

that influence a prospective purchaser’s decision whether or not to bid for National Forest timber 

include accessibility, distance from the mill and special requirements or contract provisions that 

have the potential to increase the cost of timber processing. 

As explained in the affected environment section, the ASQ represents the maximum amount of 

timber that can be offered for sale each decade from suitable lands. That level has been analyzed 

and shown to be sustainable over time without exceeding the growth on those lands. It is not, 

however, a guaranteed output level. The actual output will be determined through site-specific 

analysis. Timber that contributes to ASQ comes from suited timberlands and varies by 

alternative. 

In addition to the ASQ volume, some volume may be derived from management efforts on the 

unsuited lands that fall within management prescriptions that allow timber harvest. This nonASQ volume would not be offered on a regular basis, but would depend upon opportunities 

arising through management for non-timber objectives. This volume, together with the ASQ 

volume is the Total Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ). 

General Effects 

Each alternative differs from the others in the amount of lands available for timber management 

as well as the objectives for timber management. Each, therefore, affects the timber program 

differently. 

Alternative 1 

This alternative allows natural processes to prevail, and all lands would be considered not suited 

for timber production. Timber harvest would not be used to meet other resource objectives. No 

volume would be offered under this alternative; it would therefore eliminate timber as a program 

in the Wasatch-Cache. Mills that are dependent upon National Forest timber would have to find 

other sources or go out of business. Small local mills would be most affected due to their 

inability to compete with larger mills that can draw from larger source areas to meet their needs. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 emphasizes restoring natural processes with active human management, 

conservation of large roadless areas, and allowing uses where they are compatible with 

restoration or maintenance of properly functioning conditions. This alternative designates no 

lands as suited for timber production; therefore, the allowable sale quantity would be zero. 

However, it does allow harvest of timber to meet other resource objectives. The timber program 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 338 

could continue with the purpose of restoring processes, but timing of offerings would be 

irregular and the volume would vary considerably. Up to 650 acres of tentatively suitable lands 

could be harvested annually under this alternative, providing up to 4200 CCF (2.1 MMBF). 

Harvest would concentrate on vegetation types that are considered at risk, such as bark beetle 

susceptible stands of spruce and lodgepole pine, and aspen stands that are subjected to conifer 

encroachment. A substantial volume of aspen and relatively low quality fir would likely be 

available from restoration efforts. Timber within some inventoried roadless areas would be 

available under terms of the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule, however that 

availability is so limited that it is unlikely much timber volume would be supplied from roadless 

lands (see discussion below under effects on timber management from inventoried roadless area 

management). 

The effect of this alternative on local mills would depend upon their having an existing market or 

developing a market for lower value species, and a source of supply to provide for their demand 

between National Forest offerings. Currently, there are limited markets for aspen and fir in the 

Wasatch-Cache area. This alternative would have less effect upon the local mills than 

Alternative 1, but would provide less volume on a regular basis than the other alternatives. Mills 

would not be able to count on a steady supply sufficient to meet their capacity. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative emphasizes ecosystem functioning and sustainability while providing some 

commodity outputs. It designates 38,000 acres as suitable, where management activities would 

focus on timber production. Road construction is permitted in some inventoried roadless areas 

depending on management prescription. Approximately 225 suitable acres would be treated 

annually, providing an ASQ of approximately 3400 CCF (1.6 MMBF) annually. Additional 

volume might be available from unsuited lands with prescriptions that allow harvest, but not on a 

regular basis. A maximum of 525 acres of unsuited lands could be harvested in this alternative, 

providing up to an estimated 3400 CCF (1.6 MMBF). Sale offerings would depend upon 

opportunities and funding as in Alternative 2. A majority of ASQ volume offered would be 

conifer, while volume from other than suited lands would include a greater percentage of aspen 

and low quality fir. The volume of timber provided by this alternative would be less than that 

needed to supply one mill on an annual basis, but would contribute volume toward meeting that 

demand. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 continues management under direction of the 1985 Forest Plan as amended to 

address needs for change identified since 1992. Adjustments have been made in the tentatively 

suited lands due to operability and other concerns. It designates 193,900 acres as suitable for 

timber production. More of the inventoried roadless areas would be available for treatment and 

road construction than Alternative 3. Approximately 625 suitable acres could be treated 

annually, resulting in an ASQ of approximately 6700 CCF (3.3 MMBF). Approximately 20% 

would be aspen. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, some additional volume could be made available 

from unsuited lands, depending upon funding and opportunities. An additional 625 acres of 

unsuited lands could be treated under this alternative, providing an additional 5800 CCF (2.9 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 339 

MMBF). This alternative would contribute significantly toward meeting local demand, but 

would not satisfy it completely. 

Some reallocation of funds into the timber program would be necessary to achieve this level of 

output from suited lands. 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 is designed to address the concern that the Forest should be used to directly benefit 

local economies by providing predictable, sustained outputs while allowing a variety of other 

uses. This alternative designates the largest amount of suited lands of any alternative. Most of 

the current roadless areas would be available for harvest and road construction. A total of 

226,000 acres would be considered suitable for timber production. Approximately 1250 acres 

would be treated annually, with an ASQ of approximately 12500 CCF (6.2 MMBF). With the 

emphasis on providing raw material for industry, treatments would concentrate on developing 

high quality material. Species mix and size and quality of timber offered for sale would tend to 

make sales under this alternative more economical and desirable to industry than any other 

alternative. The level of offered volume would completely satisfy the demand for one or two 

local mills. 

As with the other alternatives, some additional volume could be made available from unsuited 

lands to achieve objectives other than timber production. However, with the increase in the 

amount of suitable timberlands, and the corresponding reduction in the acreage of unsuited lands, 

this contribution is estimated to be relatively small. Up to 310 unsuited acres could be treated 

annually, providing an additional 2400 CCF (1.2 MMBF). 

Producing this level of timber would require a significant shift in dollar allocation within the 

Forest budget. This would require additional staffing to complete sale planning, preparation and 

administration activities. 

Alternative 6 

Alternative 6 emphasizes biodiversity by conserving large roadless areas and concentrating 

activities in areas where they can be sustained. Harvest would be allowed on 28,900 acres of 

suitable timberlands, virtually all of which are located in the Uinta Mountains. Approximately 

200 acres of suitable lands would be treated annually, generating an ASQ of approximately 4000 

CCF (2.0 MMBF). Additional volume would be available from other management prescription 

lands as with the other alternatives. An additional 300 acres of unsuited lands could be treated 

annually, providing up to an additional 4800 CCF (2.4 MMBF). These treatments would 

concentrate on restoration of forest types identified as at risk, specifically spruce and lodgepole 

pine stands, and aspen encroachment areas. Roadless areas might contribute some volume, but 

only under the terms of the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

This effect of this alternative on local mills is similar to the effects of Alternative 3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 340 

Alternative 7 

Alternative 7 is similar to Alternative 6, but has more suitable timberlands and does not 

implement the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Harvest would be allowed on 28,900 suitable 

acres, all of which are located in the Uinta Mountains. Approximately 200 acres of suitable 

lands would be treated annually, generating an ASQ of approximately 4000 CCF (2.0 MMBF). 

As with the other alternatives, additional volume may be provided by treating unsuited lands to 

achieve management objectives and the desired future condition. An estimated 500 acres could 

be harvested annually from the unsuited lands, generating an additional 5000 CCF (2.5 MMBF). 

As with the other alternatives, harvest from the unsuited lands is uncertain and irregular in its 

offerings. 

The effect of this alternative on local mills is slightly more beneficial than Alternative 6, and less 

than Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Table TM-2. Available Timberland by Alternative 

Available Timberland2 Alt.1 Alt. 2 Alt.3 Alt.4 Alt. 5 Alt.6 Alt.7 

Suited for Timber Production 

(Acres) 3 0 0 38,000 193,900 226,000 28,900 28,900

Unsuited and Harvest 

Allowed4

(Acres) 

0 79,900 131,6005 55,200 71,800 72,100 171,400

Total Acres 0 79,900 169,600 249,100 297,800 101,000 202,100

Allowable Sale Quantity, Total Sale Program Quantity and Long-Term 

Sustained Yield Capacity 

As stated in the opening paragraphs of this section, timber yield from a given alternative is 

expressed as three separate but related values. The Allowable Sale Quantity is the maximum 

volume that may be offered under the alternative from the suited lands. The Total Sale Program 

Quantity is the potential yield from suited and non-suited lands. The non-suited contribution to 

TSPQ is not a regularly scheduled yield, but depends upon other resource objectives and 

opportunities. The Long-Term Sustained Yield Capacity represents the maximum potential from 

suited lands only. Table TM-3. presents these levels in both cubic and board foot measures. 

 

2

 From GIS layer of available capable aspen and conifer merged with management prescriptions for each 

alternative. 

3

 Areas available and capable with Management Prescription 5.2 or 6.2. 

4

 Areas available and capable with Management Prescriptions that allow other harvest for non-timber 

objectives. 

5

 Of these acres, an estimated 60,000 allow harvest but no road construction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 341 

Table TM-3. ASQ, TSPQ And LTSYC Estimates From VDDT For All Alternatives 

In Millions Of Cubic Feet (mmcf) and Millions of Board Feet (mmbf) 

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

ASQ mmcf/yr 0 0 .3 .67 1.3 .4 .4 

ASQ mmbf/yr 0 0 1.6 3.3 6.2 2.0 2.0 

TSPQ mmcf/yr 0 .4 .6 1.28 1.55 .81 .9 

TSPQ mmbf/yr 0 2.1 3.2 6.2 7.4 3.9 4.5 

LTSYC mmcf/yr 0 0 1.0 4.9 4.9 .87 .87 

LTSYC mmbf/yr 0 0 5.0 25.0 25.0 4.3 4.3 

Effects on timber management from recreation and scenery management 

In areas managed for timber production (Management Prescription Category (MPC) 5.2/6.2 

which varies by alternative), recreation activities may need to be curtailed during actual harvest 

activities to ensure public safety. Scenic integrity objectives are matched with management 

prescription categories so that where timber production is emphasized (MPC 5.2/6.2), the scenic 

integrity objective (low) allows for dominant changes in landscape character over the short term. 

Timber harvest is not allowed in areas managed for developed recreation (MPC 4.5) except for 

purposes of removing hazard trees and ensuring future tree cover where desired. MPCs 4.1 and 

4.2 emphasize non-motorized recreation and do not allow timber harvest. Prescription 2.5 is 

scenic byways and also does not allow timber harvest. In areas with recreation prescriptions that 

allow timber harvest, scenic integrity objectives must be incorporated into harvest design and 

may affect the amount of volume as well as harvest operations. Site-specific analysis must 

incorporate scenery management according to the prescription and also the degree of sensitivity 

of the area for viewing by recreation users. Timber operations may be subject to timing 

restrictions for public safety in areas with heavy recreation use. The effects on timber 

management are directly related to the amount of suitable land; the greater the proportion of 

suitable lands, the less restrictive the recreation and scenery management effects. Recreation 

and scenery management effects will be greatest in Alternative 2, since that alternative has no 

suitable base. Conversely, Alternative 5 will have the least recreation and scenery effects, 

because it has the greatest total acreage of suitable lands. Effects for Alternatives 3, 4, 6 and 7 

will be between these two extremes, in proportion to the total suitable lands with each 

alternative. 

Effects on timber management from inventoried roadless area management 

Management of inventoried roadless areas varies significantly by alternative and has a direct 

effect on availability of forestlands for timber harvest. Alternative 1 does not allow timber 

harvest anywhere, regardless of prescription. In other Alternatives, areas recommended for 

(MPC 1.5) are not available for harvest of timber. Alternative 2 has the most acres of tentatively 

suited timber recommended for wilderness at 39,000 acres. Alternatives 4 and 5 do not 

recommend any inventoried roadless areas for wilderness. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 are 

intermediate, with 9,000, 13,500, and 14,000 acres respectively, of tentatively suited lands 

recommended for wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 342 

In Alternatives 2 and 6, the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Federal Register, 

January, 2001) is applied as an overlay to all prescriptions. Road construction and 

reconstruction are not allowed in inventoried roadless areas, nor is cutting, sale, or removal of 

timber except: for the cutting, sale or removal of generally small diameter trees which maintains 

or improves roadless characteristics and: 1) to improve habitat for threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or sensitive species, or 2) to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure, 

such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. Given this, regardless of whether 

the prescription usually would allow timber harvest, in all inventoried roadless areas, unsuited 

acres in Alternatives 2 and 6 are essentially not available for conventional timber harvest. In 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7, some roadless areas are managed under prescriptions that allow 

timber harvest, while others are not. The acres of available timber shown above in Table TM-2 

reflect differences in roadless area prescriptions that allow more timber harvest opportunities in 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, than in Alternatives 2 and 6. Alternative 7, with 171,400 acres of 

unsuitable land provides more harvest opportunities than 2, 3 and 6, and less than 4 and 5. 

Effects on timber management from fire and fuels management 

Fire and fuels management play an important role in reaching desired future conditions, a role 

that varies by alternative. Projected use of fire along with mechanical treatment of fuels and 

varying degrees of timber harvest are tools for returning vegetation to properly functioning 

conditions. Use of fire is allowed in areas managed under prescription 5.2 and 6.2 in all 

alternatives, but stand-replacing fires will generally not be used in forest stands within these 

MPCs. Therefore, the primary difference between alternatives is in the number of acres of 

unsuited lands that occur in MPCs that do not emphasize timber. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 

allow prescribed fire to be used as a primary tool in many areas that Alternatives 4 and 5 

dedicate to timber production (MPC 5.2). Alternative 2 has the highest acreage of projected fire 

use. Projected burning in Aspen/Conifer and Conifer/Aspen cover types in Alternatives 2, 3, 6, 

and 7 would reduce the total volume available for timber harvest. In alternatives 4 and 5, timber 

production and harvest are emphasized with concurrent de-emphasis of prescribed fire. Fuels 

management priorities are primarily in the urban wildland interface in oakbrush, and therefore 

will have little effect on timber management. Fuels management in conifer cover types can be 

accomplished with timber harvest, however materials removed will tend to be smaller size, and 

lower value and quality than needed to meet commercial timber demand. 

Effects on timber management from wildlife and aquatic resources 

management 

Standards, guidelines, and conservation strategies included in the Proposed Forest Plan apply to 

all alternatives and as such guide timber management to maintain biodiversity, species viability 

and habitat protection and improvement. These generally have effects on the amount of area that 

can be harvested, the type of harvest allowed, volume available, methods of handling snags and 

large woody debris, sizes of trees to be removed or left, management of roads both during and 

after harvest, and timing of harvest activities. 

In Alternatives 2 and 6, terrestrial wildlife habitat is emphasized (MPC 3.2) on an estimated 

32,000 and 29,000 acres respectively of unsuited acres. Although this prescription does not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 343 

allow “commercial timber harvest”, some timber could be removed as part of a vegetation 

treatment to meet habitat objectives. In Alternative 3, terrestrial wildlife habitat is emphasized 

(MPC 3.2) on an estimated 80,000 unsuited acres. Again some timber could be removed on all 

of these acres, but in Alternative 3, road construction would not be allowed on the 55,000 

inventoried roadless acres included, thus restricting the type and amount of access. In these 

areas, terrestrial wildlife habitat objectives would shape all aspects of any timber removal. 

Prescribed fire could also be considered in the same areas if it met habitat objectives. Sitespecific analysis would decide what tools (timber removal, burning or a combination) should be 

used to meet objectives for habitat. Therefore these acres could not be counted upon for regular 

sustained volumes or high quality materials to be removed. In Alternatives 4 and 5 terrestrial 

habitat emphasis (MPC 3.2) applies to 1,700 and 7,700 acres respectively but commercial timber 

harvest is allowed. Therefore, timber harvest in these areas would be designed to achieve habitat 

objectives and might result in different treatment (less volume, more restrictions) than would be 

the case in an area where timber production is being emphasized (MPC 5.2). 

Alternative 7 uses slightly different MPCs than the other alternatives. Terrestrial habitat 

emphasis (MPC 3.2) has been divided into those lands that can be developed (3.2d) and those 

where development is not allowed (3.2u). Timber harvest is permitted on 40,800 acres of 3.2d in 

Alternative 7, and not permitted on 46,800 acres of 3.2u. As with the other alternatives, this 

harvest would not be offered on a regular basis, and may include species or sizes of trees that are 

less commercially valuable than those on suitable lands. 

The recent listing of the Canada lynx as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 

may affect timber management, primarily by delaying pre-commercial thinning of dense, young 

lodgepole pine stands. This effect is not alternative dependent, because requirements are 

applicable to all lands within the habitat, regardless of prescription. The lynx guidelines state 

that precommercial thinning in lodgepole pine stands may be allowed if it is shown to result in 

enhancement or maintenance of snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. The primary effect would 

occur in those stands that cannot meet the above criteria. In stands that cannot be thinned, the 

effect would be to reduce the growth rate of trees due to competition and delay the growth into a 

merchantable size. The length of the delay would vary depending upon site quality and growth 

rates of the individual stands but could last for up to 20 years. 

Lynx guidelines may have some limited effect on timber yield, depending upon the amount of 

unsuitable habitat within a particular Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). The guidelines state that 

management activities may not change more than 15% from suitable to unsuitable habitat 

condition within a 10 year period, and that in LAUs with 30% or more habitat in an unsuitable 

condition, no vegetation management activities that would further increase unsuitable conditions 

would be allowed. This effect is expected to be minor, because no LAU currently exceeds 15% 

in an unsuitable condition, and no alternative harvests sufficient acreage to exceed the threshold 

levels of disturbance. For example, the alternative with the greatest number of acres harvested in 

a decade (Alt. 5) harvests only 12,400 acres from suitable lands forest-wide in the first decade. 

This equates to approximately 5% of the total suitable acreage in the alternative. It is unlikely 

that the entire 12,400 acres would fall within a single LAU, but would be spread throughout the 

suitable lands. Therefore, the effect is relatively minor. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 344 

In alternatives 2 and 6 watershed integrity and aquatic habitat are emphasized (MPC 3.1) on an 

estimated 58,000 and 41,000 acres of the unsuited acres. As above for terrestrial habitat, these 

areas do not allow commercial timber harvest but do allow vegetation treatment. For any 

removal of timber, riparian and aquatic habitat objectives would shape all aspects of timber 

harvest. Prescribed fire could also be considered in the same areas if it met objectives. Sitespecific analysis would provide for decisions on what tools (timber harvest, burning or a 

combination) should be used to meet objectives for habitat. Therefore, timber harvest in these 

areas would be designed to achieve habitat objectives and might result in different treatment (less 

volume, more restrictive design) than would be the case in an area where timber production is 

being emphasized (MPC 5.2). 

Alternative 7 subdivides MPC 3.1 into two separate categories: 3.1a, which allows harvest for 

aquatic habitat purposes, and 3.1w, which emphasizes watershed integrity and does not allow 

harvesting. In this alternative, 11,400 acres of unsuited lands are included in 3.1a, and 32,400 

acres of unsuited lands are in MPC 3.1w. This alternative has more of the unsuited lands in a 

restrictive prescription category than does either Alternative 2 or 6. 

Effects on timber management from insects and disease 

As described in the affected environment section, insect and disease caused mortality is a normal 

function of the forest ecosystem. However the degree to which populations increase 

dramatically, attacking large numbers of trees and potentially resulting in widespread mortality 

over extensive acreages can be influenced through timber management. Alternative 1 has the 

highest potential for insect and disease outbreaks that could affect potential values of timber. 

Alternative 5 provides the greatest level of active stand structure management, and would 

therefore have the lowest potential for insect outbreaks. 

Effects on timber management from Research Natural Areas and Special 

Interest Areas 

Research Natural Areas (RNA) are withdrawn lands and are therefore not available for timber 

harvest under any alternative. Management Prescriptions for Special Interest Areas (SIA) do not 

allow commercial timber harvest, but they do allow for vegetation treatment including tree 

removal for purposes of research, education, and/or to maintain or protect values for which the 

area was established. Alternative 1 does not allow timber harvest anywhere regardless of 

prescription. Alternative 2 and 6 include an estimated 7,000 and 6,000 acres, respectively, of 

SIA lands that are unsuited. The total unsuited SAI land in Alternative 7 is between Alternatives 

2 and 6 (6400 acres). These lands cannot be counted on for any kind of sustained timber 

production. In Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 SIA acres are not tentatively suited and therefore have no 

effect on timber management. 

Effects on timber management from Soil and Water Resources Management 

Soil and water resources are addressed in all timber management activities, regardless of 

Alternative. The major effects on the timber resource are in mitigation of potential effects, and 

practices to avoid adversely impacting the soil and water resources. Practices such as timing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 345 

restrictions on harvesting activities during wet periods will be analyzed in all harvest proposals 

and implemented wherever necessary under all alternatives. 

Effects on timber management from Oil and Gas Resources Management 

Oil and gas management affects timber management primarily during the development stage. In 

the past, timber harvest has been deferred in the vicinity of oil and gas development to eliminate 

the combined impacts of harvest and development. This restriction has only been applied during 

the development stage, and represents a temporary limitation on timber management. Oil and 

gas development benefits timber management through the development of a high standard road 

system to service the well sites. These roads can be used to access timber that would otherwise 

be inaccessible or require timber road construction, if site-specific analysis determines the road 

should remain in place. The likelihood of effects from oil and gas development on timber 

management is greatest in Alternative 5 and the smallest in Alternative 1. 

Effects on timber management from Heritage Resources Management 

Heritage resources effects are similar to soil and water in that they apply to all harvest proposals, 

regardless of alternative. The effects of heritage resources tend to be tied to a specific location 

and are addressed by avoiding disturbance to the location. The probability of encountering 

significant heritage resources increases with increasing area available for timber harvest. 

Therefore, Alternative 5 would most likely have the greatest impacts from heritage resources, 

although the effect is considered to be small. 

 

Effects on timber management from livestock grazing 

Grazing by wildlife and domestic livestock affects timber management primarily through 

browsing or trampling damage to young conifer and aspen seedlings. Such damage tends to 

occur along trails and where topography and water sources cause animals to congregate. In some 

cases the concentration of animals may prevent the establishment of tree regeneration in these 

areas. Repeated browsing of aspen sprouts by livestock or wildlife may affect aspen stand 

structure over time. The repeated removal of sprouts may result in more open stands than would 

otherwise occur. This tends to be limited to those areas where the animals congregate and is 

therefore relatively limited. Grazing effects to conifer stands occur primarily through trampling 

and are limited to concentration areas. 

Livestock grazing is not prohibited under any alternative, and although acres of suitable 

rangelands vary by alternative, actual grazing impacts are dependent on herding, salting, and 

maintenance of improvements such as fences. Grazing impacts on timber management generally 

have not been significant with current grazing levels and, therefore, effects are similar for 

Alternatives 1 - 7. 

Cumulative Effects 

Timber management in the National Forest has effects on, and is affected by, adjacent state and 

private lands management. When insect and disease outbreaks are ignored, especially after 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 346 

periods of drought and if forestlands are primarily mature and old, they can move through an 

entire landscape regardless of ownership. Wildfire is another area where adjacent land 

ownerships can have an effect on National Forest lands and vice versa. Alternative 1 has the 

greatest potential for impacts to non-national forest timber management because of highest 

likelihood of insect, disease, and uncharacteristic wildfire. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 project a 

combination of prescribed fire and harvest to return stands to a mix of age classes that would be 

more resistant to uncharacteristic disturbance. Alternative 2 would potentially have the greatest 

effect on prevention, with Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 at about half the acres treated. Alternatives 4 

and 5 use more harvest and less prescribed fire with total acres treated at about half of that for 

Alternatives 3 and 6. 

The timber program of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is influenced by and has effects on a 

new timber economy that is emerging in the State of Wyoming. This economy has been shaped 

by a series of significant changes (Rideout and Hesseln, 2000). The following excerpts from this 

report highlight factors affecting timber management in the broader context: 

“Nearly half of the volume processed in Wyoming's mills now comes from private supplies. 

With continuing industry consolidation, Forest Service sales face increased competition from 

state and private sources and the prospects of fewer bidders and longer haul distances. In 

essence, the Forest Service stumpage market position is changing from that of a dominant 

supplier to competitor with other sources. To the extent that such trends continue, a natural 

outcome would be to see more negotiated contracts with purchasers as the agency seeks 

vegetative services on low quality material and receives fewer bids per sale resulting from 

consolidation. 

Private supplies remain unknown with certainty but will play a greater role in the future of 

Wyoming's timber industry. Our interviews of processors suggested both declining private 

volumes under contract, and a historical recognition of underestimating the quantity and 

resilience of private supplies (primarily to a confusion between inventory and supply). 

Wyoming's private timber supplies are often associated with multi-function ranches and affected 

by the price of timber relative to other ranch products and services such as the price of beef. To 

the extent that private timber continues to increase in importance, expanding extension services 

could be considered.” 

Data from the State of Utah presents a similar pattern of declining public land timber and 

increasing private harvesting. In 1966, public lands provided 90% of the timber supply within 

the state. By 1996, the public land contribution had fallen to approximately 60%. 

Timber management activities on private lands adjacent to the National Forest may have an 

effect on management on the Forest. Site-specific analysis for proposed sales considers the 

reasonably foreseeable activities on private lands. Depending upon the level and location of 

such activities, National Forest management may have to be deferred, delayed or modified to 

meet watershed level objectives. This effect is assumed to be greatest with alternatives 4 and 5, 

which have the greatest amount of suited lands, and therefore most likely to have treatments 

proposed in areas with adjacent private holdings.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 347 

Topic 7 – Rangeland Capability and Suitability

Livestock Grazing/Range Management 

Introduction 

The analysis of livestock grazing and range management completed for this Forest Plan Revision 

is different than analysis for other resources because in 1996, a complete Environmental Impact 

Statement was developed specifically to address needs for range management at the Forest Plan 

level. This analysis resulted in amendment of the 1985 Forest Plan with management direction 

needed to guide range management forestwide. Results of that analysis are discussed below and 

that management direction is applied to all Alternatives and adopted in the Revised Forest Plan. 

The only other National Forest Management Act required items that still need to be addressed in 

this Forest Plan Revision analysis are: determinations of rangeland capability, suitability, 

condition and trend, projected outputs, and actions planned for restoration of lands in 

unsatisfactory condition. The analysis presented here focuses on these areas and does not repeat

the in-depth analysis completed to support the Rangeland Health Amendment of 1996. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction

Laws and Policies - Numerous laws, regulations, and policies govern the use and administration 

of rangeland resources on National Forest administered lands. National laws and regulations 

have also been interpreted for implementation in Forest Service Manuals, Handbooks, and 

Regional Guides. All grazing activities authorized under permit must comply with these laws, 

regulations, and policies, which are intended to provide general guidance for the implementation 

of grazing practices, and for protection of rangeland-related resources. 

Regulations for implementing the National Forest Management Act (NFMA): found at 36 

CFR 219.220 state “the suitability and potential capability of National Forest System lands for 

producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for management indicator species 

shall be determined.” These regulations go on to require determinations of lands suitable for 

grazing and browsing, condition and trend of these lands; estimates of present and potential 

supply and use of forage, capability to produce suitable food and cover for selected wildlife 

species; and identification of lands in less than satisfactory condition along with appropriate 

action planned for their restoration. In addition, alternative range management prescriptions are 

to consider grazing systems, facilities, land treatment, vegetation manipulation, pest problems, 

interactions among livestock, wild horses and burros, and wild animals, direction for 

rehabilitation, and comparative cost efficiency. 

Existing Forest Plan Direction - In 1996, the Environmental Impact Statement for the WasatchCache National Forest Rangeland Health Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service, 1996)

was completed. The purpose of this amendment was to provide enhanced management direction 

for rangelands forestwide, establishing a framework within which rangelands could be managed 

until future project level decisions (such as allotment management plans) could be made. 

Furthermore, the purpose was to define broadly, the desired future condition of rangeland 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 348 

resources and the standards and guidelines necessary to maintain healthy rangelands, riparian 

and watershed conditions, and to move toward goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. A 

premise of this effort was that plants have limits as to how much soil compaction, trampling, and 

repeated top removal they can withstand and still remain as healthy individuals. Continued high 

levels of grazing by livestock and/or wildlife can result in decreased individual plant vigor and 

ultimately changes in overall vegetation composition. The less palatable (and often undesirable) 

species can increase while palatable species decrease resulting in less favorable conditions for 

watershed protection and certain wildlife habitat elements. Livestock management, wildlife use, 

and unmanaged recreation can affect riparian and stream habitats by reducing or eliminating 

riparian vegetation, increasing soil compaction and/or sedimentation, reducing bank stability, 

affecting water quality, and impacting habitats for aquatic species. The Rangeland Health EIS 

considered all of these factors and adopted management direction designed to properly manage 

livestock grazing and recreation on rangelands.

The in-depth analysis included a history of livestock grazing in the Forest and an extensive 

assessment of current conditions including: four types of rangeland vegetation (riparian, upland, 

alpine, and aspen) and watersheds, social and economic considerations, and a number of ongoing uses of rangelands including recreation, livestock grazing and wildlife uses. Significant 

issues considered and used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives included: effects of 

livestock, wildlife, and/or undeveloped recreation on rangeland vegetation condition; effects of 

livestock, wildlife, and/or undeveloped recreation on riparian and upland watershed conditions; 

extent to which habitat and populations of rare (including threatened, endangered and sensitive) 

species are protected; extent to which grazing practices compete with and impact conditions of 

important wildlife habitat; extent to which Northern Utah and Southwest Wyoming lifestyles and 

economies would be impacted by changes in rangeland standards; and the extent to which the 

Forest Service would be able to effectively and efficiently employ rangeland standards and 

guidelines. 

After completion of full analysis of alternatives and their potential effects, including extensive 

public involvement, a Plan Amendment Decision established 1) a general description of the 

“desired future conditions” for four types of rangelands in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest; 

2) Standards and guidelines for sustaining ecosystem health in relation to livestock and wildlife 

grazing and undeveloped recreation uses on rangelands; and 3) A monitoring plan for short-term 

implementation and long-term trend. 

We have reviewed information and conclusions from the Rangeland Health Amendment analysis 

and found these to still be valid within this plan revision effort. Therefore we will not re-address 

these items but will incorporate by reference, decisions made there to apply to all Alternatives in 

this FEIS with one exception. The Riparian Class rating system used in the 1996 Amendment 

has been reviewed and updated to reflect species at risk needs. The update addresses riparian 

areas that provide habitat for “endangered”, “threatened”, “proposed”, or Forest Service sensitive 

species (i.e. species at risk). With the update, streams supporting these species are automatically 

categorized as “Class I” which will emphasize the importance of these areas and the desire to 

meet responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service Policy. See Appendix 

L of the Forest Plan for the updated rating system. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 349 

As stated in the Introduction to this section, there are some additional planning requirements 

included in NFMA that were not addressed by the 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment. These 

items are addressed in this FEIS for Forest Plan Revision. 

Site-specific Sources of Direction for Livestock Grazing - It should be noted that additional, 

more-detailed direction for management of livestock grazing is contained in Allotment 

Management Plans, Annual Operating Instructions, and Term Grazing Permits. These provide 

site-specific analysis of rangeland condition and trend and decisions authorizing stocking rates, 

grazing systems, range structural and non-structural improvements such as fences, water 

developments, and vegetation treatments, and detailed monitoring plans. While the Forest Plan 

revision is required to consider, estimate and provide direction for some of these over broad land 

areas, site-specific decisions must be tied to site-specific analyses not accomplished by Forest 

Planning. 

Affected Environment 

Capable Rangeland Acres

Capability is defined as “the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and 

services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given 

level of management intensity.”(FSM 1905) Using the Intermountain Region Protocol: 

Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions (USDA Forest 

Service 1998b) a capability analysis was completed to identify areas with the physical 

characteristics conducive to livestock grazing. Appendix B includes a discussion of capability 

criteria (forage production, steepness of slope, and distance to water) used in this analysis. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest contains about 1,240,000 acres of National Forest System 

lands. Using standard criteria and Geographic Information Systems (mapping tools), an 

estimated 370,000 acres or 30 percent of those lands are classified as “capable” for domestic 

livestock grazing. The 1985 Forest Plan estimated capable acres at about 36% of 934,767 acres 

of National Forest System lands. Table RN-1 displays acres of capable rangeland for each 

Management Area of the Forest. The Bear, Cache/Box Elder, and Stansbury Management Areas 

contain the greatest percentage of capable rangelands while the Central Wasatch Management 

Area contains the lowest percentage of capable rangelands. Capable rangelands are the same for 

all alternatives. All lands, regardless of slope, are capable and suitable for grazing and browsing 

by wildlife. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 350 

Table RN-1. Capable Rangeland Acres by Management Area (rounded to the nearest 100 acres) 

Management Area Total Acres Percent Capable Total Capable Acres 

Bear 52,300 59 30,700 

Cache-Box Elder 291,100 45 131,900 

N. Wasatch-Ogden 141,600 22 31,000 

Central Wasatch 97,500 10 9,400 

Stansbury 68,600 41 27,800 

Western Uintas 279,800 25 70,100 

Eastern Uintas 308,400 22 69,100 

Forest Total 1,239,300 30 370,000 

Source: Forest Service GIS database. 

Forage Production

An important component of rangeland management is the ability of the land to produce forage. 

Based on assessments of forage production alone (in pounds per acre), projections are that the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest could support much higher grazing outputs (commonly 

measured as Animal Unit Months) than the average actual use reported annually (Table RN-2). 

Such a projection based on forage production alone would be misleading and not very useful 

because it does not represent how livestock allotments in the National Forest are necessarily 

grazed and managed. When actual topography which is often quite rugged, distances to water, 

patterns of rangeland vegetation, condition and effectiveness of structural improvements such as 

fences and water developments, and operator diligence in herding and salting are taken into 

account, it is clear that actual grazing outputs can be quite variable. These outputs are more 

accurately addressed at a site-specific analysis scale (such as for a single or group of similar 

allotments) where all of these factors can be examined together. In the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, capable rangelands within an allotment are frequently widely scattered. Structural 

improvements are variable in their condition and effectiveness, and livestock herding and 

management depends on individual operators. Because of this, forage production is not a viable 

basis for projecting outputs. Instead our best estimates for the required output projections in this 

analysis, are based on the relationship between acres of suitable rangelands expected to be 

grazed by alternative, with actual use levels averaged over a ten year period. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 351 

Current Livestock Grazing Levels 

Table RN-2 displays current and recent past (1990-1999) livestock grazing in terms of permitted 

and authorized AUMs. The Forest Service defines an AUM as “the amount of forage required to 

sustain a 1,000-pound animal for one month.” Permitted use is that use level displayed on the 

grazing permit and represents the maximum number of livestock and season of use allowed. 

Authorized use is the actual numbers and time period of livestock grazing for any given year. It 

is reported yearly and displayed in the Annual Operating Instructions. 

Livestock grazing is permitted during the summer months. The normal grazing season is the 

middle of May through the middle of September. The average of authorized grazing outputs for 

the period 1991 through 1999 was 58,934 sheep and cattle AUMs. For the 1999 grazing year, 

71,247 animal unit months were permitted, and 62,653 AUMs were authorized and actually 

grazed. Actual allotment stocking in Head Months (HM) for the year 2000 was 89,706 sheep 

head-months and 39,627 cattle HM’s. 

Table RN-2. Average AUMs for the period of 1990 to 1999, based on actual use 

Sheep AUMs Cattle AUM's Total AUMs Difference 

Percent 

Authorized vs. 

Permitted

Year Permitted Authorized Permitted Authorized Permitted Authorized Sheep Cattle Sheep Cattle

1990 32,965 29,139 44,785 39,165 77,750 68,304 3,826 5,620 88% 87% 

1991 34,118 30,754 46,357 34,366 80,475 65,120 3,364 11,991 90% 74% 

1992 31,277 24,341 45,136 37,254 76,413 61,595 6,936 7,882 78% 83% 

1993 36,762 24,501 42,759 36,989 79,521 61,490 12,261 5,770 67% 87% 

1994 34,389 26,828 44,013 32,874 78,402 59,702 7,561 11,139 78% 75% 

1995 31,615 21,579 39,798 33,393 71,413 54,972 10,036 6,405 68% 84% 

1996 17,321 14,348 27,146 15,850 44,467 30,198 2,973 11,296 83% 58% 

1997 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

1998 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

1999 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

10 year 

maximum 36,762 30,754 46,357 39,165 83,119 69,919 12,261 11,991 90% 91% 

10 year 

minimum 17,321 14,348 27,146 15,850 44,467 30,198 2,973 3,918 67% 58% 

10 year 

average 30,711 24,613 41,507 34,321 72,218 58,934 6,098 7,186 80% 82% 

Source: Forest Service RAMIS database 

Demand Versus Use - The extent to which the overall demand for livestock forage is being met 

can only be inferred. For both cattle and sheep, average authorized livestock use levels (AUMs 

per year) have consistently been below term permit numbers and seasons. Actual use levels for 

the ten-year period 1990 through 1999 averaged 82 percent of permitted. Reasons for this 

include: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 352 

• Limited agency funding to implement capital improvements and range developments. 

• Voluntary and involuntary reductions in livestock numbers or seasons for resource protection 

or personal convenience. 

• Permit waivers back to the government that were not re-issued, due to resource concerns or 

loss of a grazing season because of timing of re-issuance. 

• Livestock markets and ranch economies reactions to changes in demand and competition. 

• Recovery efforts for wildfire areas that included temporarily reduced grazing use. 

Vacant Allotments - There are currently 12 vacant allotments. These allotments do not have 

associated Term Grazing Permits and have been ungrazed for several to many years. Some of 

these are within the Salt Lake and Davis County watersheds and were left vacant to protect 

public supply watersheds. Three of the Allotments in the Eastern Uintas Management Area were 

vacated in the past with the understanding that they would be left vacant to provide habitat for 

re-introduced bighorn sheep in cooperation with the State of Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources. However, none of these allotments have been formally designated as closed. Prior to 

re-introducing livestock grazing to any of the vacant allotment areas, a site-specific analysis is 

required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Alternatives in this FEIS include a 

range of options for vacant allotments from closing them all to maintain benchmark areas in 

ungrazed condition and provide habitat for bighorn sheep, to leaving them all open to be 

considered in the future for re-introduction of grazing after site-specific analysis. Appendix I 

displays the names, total allotment acreages, current status (vacant or active), and status by 

Alternative for all Allotments in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Current Condition and Trend 

Rangeland condition and trend is reported annually by Allotment. Where actual monitoring data 

is not available, condition and trend are to be estimated. Table RN-3 was presented in the DEIS 

and shows a summary of range conditions and trends, for years 1993 and 1999, of riparian and 

upland rangelands with Forest Plan management objectives. 

Important Note: A review of these figures during development of the FEIS showed that 

reporting across the Forest has been uneven from Ranger District to Ranger District. Some 

Districts did not estimate condition or trend where no actual monitoring data was available. In 

order to develop estimates of forest-wide consequences of Alternatives, (in which acres in 

unsatisfactory condition are removed from “suitable” acres), we extrapolated from those Districts 

where monitoring had been conducted and estimates had been made. Forest-wide, a total of 

16,200 capable acres of uplands and 2,100 capable acres of riparian were estimated to be “not 

meeting or moving toward” objectives (i.e. in unsatisfactory condition). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 353 

Table RN-3. Rangeland Condition and Trend 

Setting Status in Relation to Forest Plan Objectives 1993 Acres 1999 Acres

Undetermined Condition 4,952 5,254 

Estimated Meeting 18,014 18,014 

Verified Meeting 488 748 

Estimated Moving Toward 1,355 977 

Verified Moving Toward 30 140 

Estimated Not Meeting 1,723 1,296 

Verified Not Meeting 150 120 

Riparian 

Total Acres w/ Management Objectives 21,760 21,295 

Undetermined Condition 232,421 109,317 

Estimated Meeting 150,827 337,931 

Verified Meeting 961 1011 

Estimated Moving Toward 28,176 37,778 

Verified Moving Toward 27,499 27,499 

Estimated Not Meeting 13,526 11,076 

Verified Not Meeting 400 400 

Uplands 

Total Acres w/ Management Objectives 221,389 415,695 

Source: Forest Service RAMIS and INFRA databases 

Rangeland Health Amendment Implementation 

Key decision items from the 1996 Rangeland Health FEIS included utilization standards for 

rangelands in satisfactory condition, ground cover standards, a system for assigning riparian 

classes, and direction for establishment of key areas for monitoring utilization, riparian greenline status, and other indicators of rangeland health. The intent of the Rangeland Health 

Amendment management direction was to incorporate these standards for minimum ground 

cover and maximum utilization into Term Grazing Permits, and then to establish key areas and 

begin monitoring for utilization, condition, and trend at key areas within the allotments as soon 

as possible. Implementation of this direction has been accomplished in many but not all 

allotment areas. 

Utilization Standards for Upland Vegetation Types in Satisfactory Condition - Currently, 

maximum utilization standards for satisfactory condition upland, aspen, and crested wheat-grass 

vegetation types have been incorporated into Term Grazing Permits. The 1996 Rangeland 

Health Amendment to the Forest Plan did not address rangelands in unsatisfactory condition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 354 

Utilization Standards for Riparian Classes 1, 2, and 3 –Currently, these values have been 

assigned to 72 Wild and Scenic River candidate streams and rivers as a part of that inventory 

process (See Revised Forest Plan Appendix VII). Remaining streams still need to be classified 

and the accompanying standards implemented in those riparian areas. 

Minimum Ground Cover Standards – These standards are expressed as a minimum acceptable 

percentage of what the potential undisturbed ground cover would be for various vegetation types 

(See Revised Forest Plan Appendix VII). Currently, the value for potential undisturbed ground 

cover has been established for a number of vegetation types from a few specific locations. More 

site-specific potentials may be developed in the future during Allotment Management Plan 

revisions. 

Monitoring of Utilization, Condition, and Trend –Use of the Rangeland Health Amendment 

standards for monitoring is applied to designated “key species” located at designated “key areas” 

(FSH 2209.21). Key areas were established on all allotments on the Forest during the 1960’s to 

assess conditions and to establish long-term trend studies. Most of these are still usable as key 

areas but validation to ensure these areas meet the current definition of a key area is a necessary 

step. The method for assessing rangeland vegetation and soil conditions in the 1960’s (Parker 3-

step) has been replaced with new methods (nested frequency). These new methods have been 

established on approximately 50% of allotments. Of these allotments, 80 % are currently being 

monitored for utilization and long-term condition trends. Of the allotments without validated 

key areas, 40% have been studied using other methods to determine conditions and long-term 

trends. The Revised Forest Plan includes an Objective specifically focused on improving 

rangeland grazing administration. 

Environmental Consequences 

Background

Needs For Change related to rangeland resources were identified in Chapter 1 of this document. 

Capable and suitable rangelands must be identified and forage production/potential outputs 

estimated. Restoration of rangelands in unsatisfactory condition and the risks of livestock/ 

wildlife disease transmission need to be considered in revised plan management direction. A 

number of allotments are currently vacant, bringing into question the future of these allotments. 

To address all of these needs, a range of potential modifications to Forest Plan direction are 

displayed in the Alternatives, and the effects of those potential modifications are analyzed in this 

section. 

General Effects- Common to All Alternatives

This section addresses how various types of management direction and activities can affect 

livestock grazing in terms of rangeland capability, suitability, and productivity. The general 

effects described here are, for the most part, common to all of the alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 355 

Forest Plan Direction and Implementation

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. 

For the 5% estimate of capable areas where present rangeland conditions are not meeting 

objectives, conditions are expected to improve under all alternatives with full implementation of 

Forest Plan management direction. However, the rate of improvement will vary by alternative. 

Grazing Permits and Administration

Livestock use and its associated activities are allowed on open Allotments under the Term 

Grazing Permit system, within all Management Prescription Categories except in Research 

Natural Areas (prescription 2.4) and Developed Recreation Areas (prescription 4.5). The 

authority to protect, manage, and administer National Forest System lands for range management 

must be in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in Parts 1 through 3 of the term 

grazing permit issued for a specified area. Grazing administration responsibilities do not vary by 

alternative, as they are determined by existing policy (FSM 2230) and annual budget priorities. 

However, recognizing that some areas of the Forest are in unsatisfactory condition, the Revised 

Forest Plan includes an Objective focused specifically on improving grazing administration to 

restore these lands to satisfactory conditions. 

Capable Rangelands

Capable rangelands are accessible to livestock, produce forage or have inherent forage-producing 

capabilities, and can be grazed on a sustained yield basis, under typical and reasonable 

management practices. Capable rangeland acres are the same for all alternatives (see Table RN1). However some forested lands, if affected by timber harvest or fire, may become accessible 

and can produce forage. Forage may be produced for 10 or more years before vegetation changes 

terminate available production or accessibility. These lands are classified as transitory range 

and are not a part of the capable base. Transitory range is discussed further below under the 

Effects sections for timber harvest, vegetation/fuels treatments, and fire management. 

Suitable Rangelands

Suitability is defined as “the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices 

to a particular area of land as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices.” (FSM 1905) Once capability is determined (see 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 356 

section titled Rangeland Capability under the Affected Environment section earlier in this 

Chapter), an assessment of suitability by alternative is conducted to address whether livestock 

grazing is, or is not, compatible with management direction for a management area’s other uses 

and values, and which if any, other uses would be foregone with livestock grazing. Using the 

Intermountain Region Protocol: Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest 

Plan Revisions (USDA Forest Service 1998b) criteria were reviewed and tailored to local 

conditions for a suitability assessment. Appendix B-9 provides a discussion of suitability criteria 

used in this analysis and each of the alternatives includes a determination of rangeland suitable 

acres. 

The Forest has been analyzed for being suitable to grazing and browsing (to include wildlife) as 

required in 36 CFR 219.20. This analysis considered other uses or values of the area. All lands, 

with the exception of talus slopes, water and rock, are suitable for grazing and browsing by 

wildlife. Suitable range expected to be used by wildlife is the same for all alternatives. 

Criteria for rangeland suitability evaluation for livestock grazing include several that apply to all 

alternatives while other criteria vary by alternative. Existing and proposed Research Natural 

Areas (RNA’s) and/or RNA additions are not considered suitable rangelands in any alternative. 

Also, existing administrative sites and developed recreation sites are not considered suitable, due 

to the incompatibility of uses. Given that livestock already do not graze these areas, their 

subtraction from suitable acres has no effect on current levels of grazing. 

Rangeland Forage Productivity

In many cases, when shrub vegetation communities are moved to younger age classes, 

productivity for grazing herbivores may increase. A “flush” of forbs and graminoids often 

follows wildland or prescribed fire, and in some cases emergency recovery activities will 

actually establish a grass cover to protect soil productivity and watersheds from damage 

following severe wildfires. Productivity increases can be especially dramatic when older ageclass sagebrush and other mountain brush types are impacted by wildland or prescribed fire. The 

increase in grass and forb production in these cases can last for many years or even decades. The 

magnitude of these increases in productivity will depend directly on site-specific conditions as 

well as the potential for wildland or prescribed fire to occur under a given alternative. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we assume a similar likelihood of unwanted wildland fire in these 

vegetation types for all of the alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative 

Rangeland Suitability. 

Determination of rangeland capability is an assessment of an area’s ability to provide forage and 

water for livestock use. In contrast suitability is an assessment of an area’s potential conflicts 

with other resources (alternative uses) and how to resolve them. Capable rangelands within 

grazing allotments were analyzed using different criteria for grazing suitability by alternative. 

This analysis considered other uses or values of the area (economic and environmental 

consequences and alternative uses foregone) and identified areas where grazing may not be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 357 

appropriate. Table RN-4 displays total acres of capable rangelands, capable acres within grazing 

allotments, and the acres subtracted based on suitability criteria by alternative. Some lands 

within the Forest are incompatible with domestic livestock grazing or do not allow grazing due 

to alternative uses foregone. These (RNAs, developed recreation sites) were discussed above and 

are common to all alternatives. 

Table RN-4. Rangeland Suitability Acres by Alternative (numbers rounded to the nearest 100) 

Criteria Alt1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Total Forest Capable Acres 1 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900

Capable Acres Within Open 

(Active and Vacant) Allotments 1 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700

Developed Recreation Sites Within 

Open Allotments Subtracted 1 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700

Remaining Capable Acres Within 

Open Allotments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000

Capable Acres Within Vacant

Allotments Closed for Maintaining 

Resource Conditions Subtracted2

 -10,400 -10,400 0 0 0 0 -2,500

Capable Acres within Vacant 

Allotments Closed For Bighorn 

Sheep Subtracted 3

 -7,800 -7,800 0 0 0 -7,800 -7,800

Uplands Acres Not Meeting FP 

Objectives Subtracted4

 -16,200 -16,200 0 0 0 -16,200 0

Riparian Acres Not Meeting FP 

Objectives Subtracted 4 -2,100 -2,100 -2,100 0 0 -2,100 0

Acres for Cutthroat Trout 

Management Subtracted5 0 -26,000 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suitable Acres 263,500 237,500 297,900 300,000 300,000 273,900 289,800

Percent of Total Capable Within 

Open Allotments After Developed 

Recreation Sites Are Subtracted 87.0% 78.5% 98.4% 99.1% 99.1% 90.5% 95.7%

1 Information from Forest Corporate GIS database 2

 Alternatives 1 and 2 close all vacant allotments and Alternative 7 closes those vacant allotments (Clegg, 

Hardscrabble, Mill Canyon, Shingle Mill and Wright) within the Salt Lake and Davis County watersheds for general 

watershed condition maintenance 3

 Vacant allotments (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) closed for bighorn sheep health purposes. 

This would reduce suitable acres by 7,800 acres. In addition, Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 allow for the closure of 

Gilbert Peak, Henry's Fork-Hessie Lake, & Red Castle allotments should those permits be voluntarily waived 

without preference. This would reduce suitable acres by an additional 9,500 acres. Alternative 7 allows for these, 

as well as East Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork Blacks Fork, East Fork Bear River, and Stillwater allotments to be 

closed if permits are voluntarily waived without preference. This would reduce suitable acres by another 9,800 

acres, should all these permits be waived. 4

 Information extrapolated from monitored areas (INFRA database) and applied forest-wide. 5

 Entire watershed acres removed within allotments with both known cutthroat trout populations and reported riparian 

acres in unsatisfactory condition. 

 

A determination of suitability by alternative was completed to address whether or not livestock 

grazing is compatible with other uses and management direction identified in each alternative 

and uses that would be foregone with livestock grazing. This suitability determination excluded 

lands outside open allotments (both active and vacant) because alternative uses forgone were 

addressed in the past to a large degree, as well as in the 1985 Forest Plan. Domestic livestock 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 358 

have been removed from culinary and other municipal watersheds to maintain water quality, 

from developed recreation sites to avoid conflicts and to maintain human health, safety of 

livestock, and Research Natural Areas (RNAs) to protect the values for which these areas were 

established. Because no new developed recreation sites have been identified through this Forest 

Plan revision, and because proposed RNA expansions are outside existing allotments, no 

additional conflicts were noted for these considerations. As noted in Table RN-4, all alternatives 

remove 2,700 acres of developed recreation sites currently within open allotments leaving a total 

of 300,000 capable acres. 

Vacant Allotment Disposition- Alternatives 1 and 2 remove 10,400 capable acres by closing all 

vacant allotments to maintain ungrazed resource conditions, and protect watersheds. These 

Alternatives also close 7,800 capable acres in the Eastern Uintas Management Area for bighorn 

sheep habitat. Alternative 6 closes only the vacant allotments for bighorn sheep habitat (7,800 

capable acres). Alternative 7 closes vacant allotments in Salt Lake and Davis Counties (2,500 

capable acres) for watershed protection, and 7,800 capable acres in the Eastern Uintas 

Management Area for bighorn sheep habitat. Alternatives 4 and 5 retain vacant allotments for 

future site-specific evaluation. 

Unsatisfactory Condition Lands Disposition- Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 remove 16,200 acres of 

uplands and 2,100 acres of riparian areas in unsatisfactory condition (i.e. not meeting or moving 

toward objectives) to restore these lands. Alternative 2 also removes 26,000 acres from 

watersheds with both known Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout and unsatisfactory 

riparian conditions. Alternative 3 removes only the 2,100 acres of unsatisfactory condition 

riparian areas for restoration. Alternative 7 retains capable acres in unsatisfactory condition as 

suitable, but adds a guideline for lower forage utilization (30-40% rather than 50%) on these 

areas to restore these lands. Alternatives 4 and 5 retain all capable acres except those within 

developed recreation sites as suitable. 

Effects of Suitability Determinations 

Closure of vacant allotments provides ecological benefits including maintenance of 

watersheds, maintenance of ungrazed resource conditions for benchmarks, and reduced risk of 

disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep. Given that the Allotments are 

currently vacant, there is no immediate or direct effect on permittee operations or community 

economies from these allotment closures. It is also important to note that experienced budget 

levels in recent years have been inadequate to complete site-specific analyses on active 

allotments, making vacant allotments an even lower priority for analysis. Even in alternatives 

where vacant allotments are left open, it is highly unlikely that resources would be available to 

conduct the required site-specific analysis for re-introducing livestock grazing. Therefore, the 

short-term on-the-ground consequences of these alternatives would be similar to closure- i.e. the 

vacant allotments would remain in ungrazed condition. Given this, closure of vacant allotments 

is considered only as a long-term effect. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the most long-term 

ecological benefit closing all vacant allotments. Alternative 7 provides somewhat less long-term 

ecological benefits than 1 and 2 because it focuses closures only on Salt Lake and Davis County 

watersheds and on the bighorn sheep habitat in the Eastern Uinta Mountains Management Area. 

Alternative 6 provides the long-term benefits for bighorn sheep habitat but not for the other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 359 

vacant allotment areas. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 do not close vacant allotments thus not providing 

for long-term benefits although as explained above, short-term the allotments would likely 

continue to remain in ungrazed condition accruing those benefits for the short-term. 

Effects of removal of areas in unsatisfactory condition from suitable acres 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 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. Given that acres for 

this analysis were extrapolated forest-wide from areas with monitoring, the relative proportions 

of the above conditions are unknown. There would likely be a range of improvement probability 

that can only be predicted with site-specific assessment. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would result in 

this range of improvement on a total of 18,300 upland and riparian acres and Alternative 3 would 

result in 2,100 acres with a range of improvement on riparian acres. 

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. Recent literature (Holechek, et al. 2001, Holechek 1988) indicates that 

sagebrush grasslands, mountain shrublands, oak woodlands, and pinyon-juniper woodlands can 

receive 30-40 percent utilization. Holechek, et al.(2001) noted that rangelands in poor 

(unsatisfactory) condition should receive the lower utilization level when grazed during active 

forage growth. 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- In addition to the closure of vacant allotments in 

the Eastern Uintas Management Area (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) for 

bighorn sheep habitat, Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 allow for the future closure of Gilbert Peak, 

Henry's Fork-Hessie Lake, & Red Castle allotments should those permits be voluntarily waived 

without preference. This would reduce suitable acres by 9,500 acres. Alternative 7 allows for 

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

Stillwater allotments to be closed if permits are voluntarily waived without preference. This 

would reduce suitable acres by 9,800 acres (for a total of 19,300 acres) with the associated 

benefit being 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 360 

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. 

Estimated Grazing Outputs 

For the following discussion, a distinction must be made between outputs and permitted 

numbers. The NFMA requires projections of outputs generally expressed as Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs). 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 here are for outputs only. Permitted number changes are 

dependent on other decision-making processes. 

For the 10-year period 1991 to 1999, grazing outputs as AUMs ranged from a high of 69,919 to a 

low of 30,198. While it is recognized that actual use can vary as displayed in Table RN-2, and 

that permitted numbers have been consistently higher than actual use, the averages of actual use 

have been used in this analysis to estimate outputs. These estimates are more realistic than either 

the high or the low ends of the range observed over the last 10 years or the total permitted 

numbers. 

With an average of 58,900 AUMs (rounded from Table RN-2) produced during that period on 

approximately 281,850 (rounded) suitable acres, the average acres per AUM were approximately 

4.78. (Suitable acres were adjusted for these calculations to exclude the 18,152 acres in vacant 

allotments. These do not currently produce outputs nor are they expected to within the planning 

period.) Suitable acres by alternative along with this average AUM output per acre have been 

used in this analysis to estimate grazing outputs by Alternative shown in Table RN-5. 

Implementation of the removal of capable acres in unsatisfactory condition from grazing in 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 may or may not result in an actual reductions in livestock numbers but 

are projected to reduce outputs. This is because diligent herding, salting, range improvements, 

and adjustments to seasons of use may be employed to remove grazing from these areas with the 

same or reduced numbers of livestock. In Alternative 7, outputs are projected at a reduced level 

for those acres in unsatisfactory condition proportional to the reduced allowable utilization of 30-

40% (compared to 50% allowed on all other suitable acres). FEIS Appendix B-9 displays 

calculations for these outputs. In Alternatives 4 and 5, outputs are expected to be similar to the 

average of the last 10 years because no areas are removed from grazing and forage utilization is 

allowed at current levels (50%) from the 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment. Effects of these 

output changes on economic and social conditions are discussed in the Social and Economic 

Effects section later in this FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 361 

Table RN-5. 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

Suitable acres 281,850 263,550 237,550 279,750 281,850 281,850 263,550 281,850

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 

Numbers are rounded to nearest 10. Cattle are 58 percent of total AUMs; Sheep are 42 percent of total 

AUMs

1

Average Authorized AUMS 

2

 For Alternative 7, 4.78 acres/AUM on satisfactory range, 6.70 acres/AUM on unsatisfactory range, for all 

other Alternatives, 4.78 acres/AUM on all suitable acres. 

Effects on Grazing from Timber Harvest 

In many cases, when plant communities are moved to younger age classes, productivity for 

grazing herbivores will be increased temporarily. A “flush” of forbs and graminoids can 

accompany vegetation management activities such as timber harvest depending on a number of 

site-specific factors. The type of harvest, degree of overstory removal, treatment of slash, and 

individual site productivity or habitat type affect the degree to which increases in forage 

production may occur. Treatment areas can result in some increase in forage production. While 

livestock can use this, suitability is not altered because of the transitory nature of such increases. 

Use of these areas may improve distribution of livestock grazing in other areas resulting in less 

forage utilization, less reduction in ground cover, and less likely changes in species composition 

from livestock grazing. The forest-wide nature of this analysis does not allow us to identify 

exactly where these actions would take place, but over a 10-year period aspen and/or conifer 

treatment would be approximately 15,500 acres in Alternative 5; 13,000 acres in Alternative 4; 

7,500 acres in Alternative 3; 6,500 acres in Alternative 2; 5,000 acres in Alternatives 6 and 7; 

and no acres in Alternative 1. These relative acreages provide an estimation of the magnitude of 

the effects described for timber harvest. 

Effects on Grazing from Vegetation/Fuels Treatment 

Regardless of alternative, fuels treatments (primarily in oakbrush in the wildland urban interface) 

would have a minimal effect, if any, on livestock grazing. The removal of woody fuels to reduce 

fire hazard can potentially increase forage production for a short period, but is not expected to 

increase overall or long-term grazing capacity. In addition, fuels management will not require 

the removal of livestock from areas for any extended period of time and, therefore, will not 

require a reduction in livestock numbers during treatment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 362 

Effects on Grazing from Recreation

Effects on livestock grazing from recreation activities do not vary by alternative because the 

primary differences in alternatives for recreation are in winter motorized/nonmotorized 

allocations which have no relevance to livestock grazing operations. As described in Effects 

Common to All Alternatives, domestic livestock grazing is prohibited in developed recreation 

sites under all alternatives. Many but not all developed recreation sites are fenced to exclude 

livestock grazing. There are approximately 2,650 (rounded to 2,700) acres of developed 

recreation sites in existing allotments and these acres are removed from suitable range Table RN4). Currently Annual Operating Plans for livestock grazing direct permittees to manage livestock 

to avoid these areas. As recreation increases on the Forest along with population growth, there is 

expected to be an increased amount of interaction between undeveloped recreation uses and 

livestock. Effects include potential changes in livestock distribution in areas within allotments 

and heavily used for undeveloped recreation (such as along road corridors where camping and/or 

fishing occur and where ATV users create new routes that are adopted by others). Recreationists 

are known to leave gates open and this may result in livestock movement into areas where rest is 

planned. Complaints to the Forest Service and permit holders from recreationists who do not 

like the looks, sounds, and smells of livestock grazing along trails and other popular recreation 

attractions are expected to continue and may increase as recreation user densities increase. 

However, none of these effects are expected to vary by alternative in this Forest Plan Revision. 

Some motorized recreation users are expected to complain because livestock grazing permits 

often include allowance for motorized access to maintain fences and water developments while 

the general public is not allowed motorized access to the same areas. This would likely be the 

most frequent under Alternative 1 because of motorized trails closed to public access within 

areas recommended for Wilderness. Other Alternatives would show little relative difference in 

this effect. 

Effects on Grazing from Wildlife Management

Discontinuing domestic sheep grazing in overlapping areas used by domestic sheep and bighorn 

sheep in the Eastern Uinta Mountains and Western Uinta Mountains Management Areas would 

reduce the risk of disease being transmitted from domestic to bighorn sheep. Alternatives 1, 2, 6, 

and 7 remove 7,760 capable acres from suitable range by closing the three currently vacant 

allotments (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) to reduce disease risks (Table RN4). Since these allotments are already vacant, there is no direct effect on current grazing 

operations or outputs. There is an indirect effect on potential future grazing outputs because 

these allotments would not allow potential future stocking with domestic livestock. 

In addition to the vacant allotments above, Alternatives 1, 2, 6 and 7 would discontinue domestic 

sheep grazing on three sheep allotments (Gilbert Peak, Henry’s Fork-Hessie Lake, and Red 

Castle) that overlap current bighorn sheep habitat if permits were voluntarily waived without 

preference. This would reduce suitable acres by an additional 9,500 acres for a total reduction of 

17,300 capable acres. Alternative 7 would extend the area protected further for bighorn sheep to 

four additional allotments (East Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork Blacks Fork, East Fork Bear River, 

and Stillwater) immediately to the west, again if those permits were voluntarily waived without 

preference reducing suitable acres by about 9,800 acres for a total of 27,100 acres. Subtraction 

of these areas from suitable rangelands would have a long-term effect on overall potential 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 363 

grazing outputs for domestic sheep. Because this action would be a result of a voluntary choice 

made by individual permit holders, it is expected that before they would take such an action, they 

would have weighed the potential impacts to their operations and identified a net benefit. 

Otherwise they would not likely choose to take this action. 

Desired future conditions for vegetation developed in the 1996 Rangeland Health Amendment 

and described in the Revised Forest Plan as well as those to be developed site-specifically for 

individual grazing allotments take wildlife habitat needs into account. To achieve these 

conditions, grazing standards and guidelines are also contained in the Revised Forest Plan. 

Compliance with these will have some effects on livestock grazing operations in the form of 

required monitoring of utilization, and movement or removal of livestock when utilization 

standards are reached. 

Effects on Grazing from Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species Management 

Alternative 2 removes approximately 26,000 acres of 6th order watersheds within seven 

allotments (Blacks Fork, Gilbert Creek, Logan Canyon, Middle Fork, Poison Mountain, Walker 

and West Fork Smiths Fork) from the suitable range acres. These watershed have both existing 

populations of Colorado River or Bonneville cutthroat trout and at least 20 acres of riparian acres 

identified in the INFRA database as either estimated or verified as not meeting Forest Plan 

objectives. Effects on livestock grazing in these allotments would be a net reduction in stocking 

during allotment management plan revisions for these allotments to allow for rehabilitation of 

theses watersheds. Stocking could be increased upon achievement of site-specific objectives 

developed to meet needs for these fish populations. No other alternatives remove entire portions 

of watersheds within allotments. 

In Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 about 2,100 acres of riparian habitat not meeting objectives are 

subtracted from suitable grazing acres to achieve rehabilitation of these areas. This will result in 

the need for increased herding, salting, and/or fencing of these areas to prevent livestock grazing. 

Without site-specific information the exact needs for each area are not known. However any of 

these needs will result in some increase in cost of operations to permit holders either in the form 

of personnel to herd or costs of fence construction and maintenance. In Alternative 7 only, 

rehabilitation of these riparian areas is achieved through implementation of a lower forage 

utilization allowance (30-40% rather than 50%) on the areas. This will require monitoring and 

movement of livestock upon reaching the lower utilization. Effects on grazing operations will 

vary depending on site-specific conditions from increased need for herding to possible early 

removal of livestock from these areas if forage utilization cannot be redistributed to other parts 

of the allotment. Effects on grazing are expected to be somewhat less than with Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, and 6. Alternatives 4 and 5 mitigate grazing impacts to aquatic and semi-aquatic species 

management on a case-by-case basis as needs are identified site-specifically having the least 

short-term effect on grazing. However, long-term these alternatives may result in greater 

pressure to remove grazing because of the slow progress in rehabilitating unsatisfactory aquatic 

and semi-aquatic habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 364 

Effects on Grazing from Soil and Water Resource Management 

Closure of vacant allotments is considered a long-term beneficial effect for watershed protection. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the most long-term benefit closing all vacant allotments. 

Alternative 7 provides somewhat less long-term benefits than 1 and 2 because it focuses closures 

only on Salt Lake and Davis County watersheds and on the bighorn sheep habitat in the Eastern 

Uinta Mountains Management Area. Alternative 6 provides the long-term benefits of vacant 

allotment closure for bighorn sheep habitat but not for the other vacant allotment areas. 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 do not close vacant allotments thus not providing for these long-term 

benefits. However because of limited resources available to complete site-specific analyses 

required for re-stocking, these allotments would likely continue to remain in ungrazed condition 

accruing those benefits for the short-term. 

 

Reducing or removing livestock grazing from uplands and riparian areas not meeting Forest Plan 

objectives (desired conditions) is prescribed to allow for relatively more rapid and more certain 

recovery of soil and watershed conditions. Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7 remove 16,200 acres of 

uplands and 2,100 acres of riparian areas not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives 

from grazing suitability. The effect on grazing will vary depending on site-specific conditions. 

Alternative 2 also removes 26,000 capable acres for cutthroat trout habitat/watershed 

improvement. Alternative 3 removes 2,100 acres of riparian areas from grazing suitablility. 

Effects on grazing from these removals of areas will vary depending on site-specific factors. 

Areas that can be easily avoided through livestock herding, and/or salting would only require 

that increase in personnel and effort. Areas that must be fenced would require both the cost of 

fence construction and on-going maintenance that can be substantial. Areas that are relatively 

small, scattered, or in locations where it is difficult to avoid grazing would be an on-going 

problem for grazing operations and are much less likely to improve. Given that acres for this 

analysis were extrapolated forest-wide from areas with monitoring, the relative proportions of 

the above conditions are unknown. There would likely be a range of costs to grazing operations 

that can only be predicted with site-specific assessment. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would result in 

this range of costs for a total of 18,300 upland and riparian acres and Alternative 3 would result 

in 2,100 acres with a range of these costs for operations on riparian acres. 

Effects on Grazing from Special Designations 

There would be no effect on livestock grazing from special designation areas. Proposed 

Research Natural Areas additions are outside existing allotments. In addition, areas proposed as 

Special Interest Areas with portions in existing allotments, were identified where existing 

livestock grazing would not affect the values of those areas and where designation would not 

effect the ability to continue existing grazing practices. 

Effects on Grazing from Fire Management

Prescribed fire within active allotments would require one year of rest prior to prescribed fire use 

and generally two additional years to achieve desired conditions following prescribed fire. This 

would ensure that successful regeneration of the shrub and tree layers occurs where aspen 

regeneration is a critical component. The effects of this required rest on grazing operations will 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 365 

vary depending on the site-specific location of burn units in relation to allotment pastures and 

depending on timing of the burns across a given landscape. In most cases pasture rotations 

and/or riding and herding can be used to control livestock use of the burned units. This may 

require a temporary change in the grazing system including shortened seasons of use and or 

intensified livestock management that will effect grazing operations. At the same time, 

prescribed fire is expected to increase forage production in aspen and sagebrush communities 

and to increase the amount of transitory range in areas where conifers are temporarily removed 

from the overstory. This means that for areas burned later in the decade, the areas already 

burned and recovered can provide forage that will hold livestock longer which may allow for 

more normal seasons of use and less need for intensive herding. The relative magnitude of these 

effects is directly related to the number of acres and vegetation cover types treated with 

prescribed fire in a given alternative. 

For the aspen and aspen-conifer vegetation types, Alternative 2 treats the most of any alternative 

with approximately 8,000 acres per year (Table VEG-4). Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 treat 

approximately 3,200 acres of these types per year and Alternatives 4 and 5 treat approximately 

720 acres per year. Alternative 1 does not allow prescribed fire and would treat no acres. While 

not all of these aspen treatment acres are likely to be in active allotments, where they are, 

livestock grazing will be limited until aspen reach an average height of 6 feet. As forage 

production increases following treatment, permitted livestock numbers would not increase 

because of the transitory nature of these increases. Over the longer term, and later in the decade, 

authorized numbers may trend more toward permitted numbers in relative proportion to acres 

treated through fire, and range conditions would likely improve because of better distribution and 

lighter use on available forage. 

A majority of the sagebrush vegetation types have high shrub canopy cover because of fire 

suppression and/or heavy grazing pressures in the past. As a result forage production is 

depressed below potential for the sites. Prescribed burning of sagebrush types will require preand post treatment exclusion of grazing to both build up fine fuels and assure establishment of a 

forb-grass under-story. Once established, however, sustained utilization of the increased browse 

can occur for many years, creating the potential for increases in total forage available. The 

magnitude of the increase will be proportional to the amount of sagebrush and mountain brush 

type vegetation treatments by alternatives. Alternative 2 treats the most with approximately 

4,000 acres of sagebrush and/or pinyon-juniper per year (Table VEG-4); Alternative 7 treats 

3,000 acres per year; Alternatives 3 and 6 treat 2,000 acres per year; Alternatives 4 and 5 treat 

1,000 acres, and Alternative 1 treats no acres. Most but not all of these sagebrush and pinyonjuniper acres are likely to be in active allotments. As forage production increases following 

treatment, permitted livestock numbers would not increase because of the transitory nature of 

these increases. However authorized numbers may trend more toward permitted numbers in 

relative proportion to the acres improved. And, like the aspen communities, range conditions 

would likely improve because of better livestock distribution and lighter total use on available 

forage. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 366 

Effects on Grazing from Management of Recommended Wilderness

There is no direct effect on grazing or livestock operations from interim management of those 

areas recommended for wilderness. Motorized access associated with grazing in these areas 

would continue to be authorized in term grazing permits, until such time Congress acts on these 

wilderness recommendations. There may be some indirect effect on grazing operations in the 

form of complaints from recreationsists who believe grazing should be curtailed or eliminated in 

areas recommended for wilderness. 

Cumulative Effects

The area of consideration for cumulative effects for rangeland use is the entire Bear River Range 

(both Wasatch-Cache and Caribou National Forests), the Wasatch Range, including the 

Wellsville Mountains south to the Mount Nebo area (Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests) 

and the Uinta Mountains (Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests). Figure RN-1 shows the 

area currently occupied by open range allotments (both active and vacant) on these forests. 

There is additional grazing on adjacent lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

as well. 

Many grazing permit holders depend on allotments administered by the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management to provide a portion of their year-round grazing operations. The 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest will continue to play a role in supporting livestock operations. 

Overall, a slight decline in the demand for livestock grazing can be expected over the life of this 

plan (short term), as private land development, higher property values, and conflicts between 

livestock operations and adjacent urban recreation uses increase. 

Over the last two decades, there has been a decline in the actual use of forage authorized under 

term grazing permits. This trend is expected to either plateau or continue. Livestock operation 

costs are expected to continue rising, and livestock market price fluctuations—in what has 

become an international market—will continue to occur. As result, operation economies of scale 

will likely become more important. The number of small livestock operators may become fewer 

in number, as base properties or livestock are sold for financial reasons or if younger generations 

choose other occupations. As a result, the number of grazing permit holders on the Forest could 

become fewer. The remaining permit holders could potentially have larger livestock holdings 

and greater numbers of permitted livestock. The combining of some allotments could occur as a 

part of this process, thus increasing the number of pastures available for use during the grazing 

season. This situation would allow for greater seasonal management flexibility and shorter 

pasture grazing durations. To achieve a sustainable level of forage production and properly 

functioning conditions under any alternative, a significant amount of sagebrush will need to be 

brought to younger age classes by treatment. Otherwise, livestock forage production can expect 

further declines with the continued declines in sagebrush under-story vegetation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 367 

Figure RN-1. Open Allotments (Active and Vacant) on the Caribou, Wasatch-Cache, Ashley, and 

Uinta National Forest portions of the Bonneville Basin, Overthrust Mountains, and Uinta 

Mountains Ecological Sections. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 368 

There will likely be a net loss of open space and in some cases, a loss of big-game winter and 

spring ranges, as ranches are sold and subdivided. These conditions will likely continue to occur 

in Cache, Summit, and Tooele Counties. Morgan and Rich Counties could experience this 

situation to a lesser extent, depending on the level of recreation and second home growth 

experienced. As a result, marginal winter habitat may be used more frequently by big game, 

which may increase localized competition between livestock and wildlife on private lands. 

Uinta Mountains. The Wasatch-Cache, Ashley, and Uinta National Forests currently manage 

approximately 1.7 million acres within the Uinta Mountains Subsection. Of these acres, 

approximately 95 percent are currently in open allotments (88 percent in active, open 

allotments). The Wasatch-Cache National Forest currently has nearly 509,000 acres of open 

allotments in the Uinta Mountains portion of the Forest. Of these, just less than 465,000 acres 

are currently active, while nearly 44,000 acres are currently vacant. These vacant allotments 

would be closed in Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, but would remain open in Alternatives 3 and 4. 

In addition about 39,000 acres of allotments would be closed only if permits are voluntarily 

waved without preference in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 and nearly 130,000 acres in Alternative 7. 

The Ashley National Forest currently has over 960,000 acres of their portion of the Uinta 

Mountains in open allotments (slightly more than 890,000 acres in active, open allotments and an 

additional 70,000 acres in open, but vacant allotments). The Uinta National Forest has 166,000 

acres of active, open allotments on the Uinta Mountains portion of the Forest. 

Wasatch Mountains (including the Bear River Range and Wasatch Range). The Caribou, 

Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests currently manage over 1.4 million acres within the 

Wasatch Mountains Subsection. Of these acres, approximately 69 percent are currently in open 

allotments. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest currently has about 306,000 acres of open 

allotments in the Wasatch Mountains portion of the Forest. Of these, 300,000 acres are currently 

active, while nearly 6,000 acres are currently vacant. These vacant allotments would be closed 

in Alternatives 1 and 2, but would remain open in Alternatives 3-7. The Caribou National Forest 

currently lists about 260,000 acres of their portion of the Bear River Range in open allotment. 

They did not distinguish the active vs. vacant allotments. The Uinta National Forest has more 

than 414,000 acres of open allotments (402,000 acres active, open and 12,000 acres open, but 

vacant) on the Wasatch Mountains portion of the forest. 

Bonneville Basin. The Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests currently manage 

approximately 216,000 acres within the Bonneville Basin Subsection. Of these acres, 

approximately 69 percent are currently in open allotments. The Uinta National Forest currently 

has nearly 100,000 acres of active open allotments on the Bonneville Basin portion of the Forest. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest currently has about 48,000 acres of open allotments in the 

Bonneville Basin portion of the Forest of which nearly 42,000 acres are currently active, while 

slightly more than 6,000 acres are currently vacant. These vacant allotments would be closed in 

Alternative 1 and 2, but would remain open in Alternatives 3-7. 

Effects of Activities on Livestock Grazing. In the past, activities such as fire, timber harvest, 

recreation development and uses, and range improvements have all affected the ability of 

livestock to graze on the forest and the quality of forage. Fire in tree-dominated plant 

communities and timber harvest temporarily increased available forage for livestock use, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 369 

creating “transitory range”. These activities removed the overstory, which typically increased 

the production of forage in the understory. Fire in sagebrush and other rangeland plant 

communities also temporarily increased forage production in these stands. Because of fire 

suppression, many rangelands now have reduced productivity. More recently, with the use of 

prescribed fire on a very limited basis, some sagebrush communities have increased their 

productivity; at least until the sagebrush density again competes with the herbaceous component. 

In the 1960’s the Forest Service took many actions, including herbicide use, plowing, and 

seeding in sagebrush and juniper or pinyon-juniper stands to increase forage specifically for 

livestock production. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 370 

Topic 8 – Special Designations 

Introduction

Special designations refer to areas identified in this forest planning process, with values that 

could require specific management direction to enhance, recognize, or protect those values. 

Four kinds of potential designations are covered in this special designations section. These 

include Research Natural Areas (RNA’s, Management Prescription Category (MPC) 2.4), 

Special Interest Areas (SIA’s, MPC 2.7), and Wild and Scenic Rivers (MPCs 2.1-2.3). This 

special designations section does not include Wilderness (MPCs 1.1-1.4), recommended 

wilderness (MPC 1.5), undeveloped areas (MPC 2.6) or scenic byways (MPC 2.5). These are 

considered within other sections of this document. 

Laws, Policy and Direction 

Each of the categories of allocation within special designations has its own set of legal, 

regulatory or policy direction. 

Research Natural Areas 

36 CFR 219.25 - states that forest planning shall provide for the establishment of RNAs. To be 

identified are examples of important forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, and geologic 

types that have special or unique characteristics of scientific interest and importance and that are 

needed to complete the national RNA network. 

Forest Service Manual, Title 4063 - provides specific direction concerning establishment and 

management of RNA’s. 

Special Interest Areas and Special Areas 

Special Interest Areas are meant, “to protect and, where appropriate, foster public use and 

enjoyment of areas with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, or 

other special characteristics. To classify areas that possesses unusual recreation and scientific 

values so that these special values are available for public study, use, or enjoyment” (FSM 

2360.2). These areas are designated by law, or may be designated administratively, as special 

interest areas. Areas so designated are managed to emphasize specific related values. Other uses 

are permitted in the areas to the extent that these uses are in harmony with the purpose for which 

the area was designated. 

Special Areas are meant, “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.” (FSM 2372). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 371 

The primary distinction between these designations, based on the above descriptions from the 

Forest Service Manual, is that Special Areas have recreation as an underlying value while 

Special Interest Areas protect and “where appropriate” foster use. 

36 CFR 294.1 - states that a Regional Forester (if under 100,000 acres) may designate certain 

suitable areas other than wilderness or wild areas which should be managed principally for 

recreation use. 

Forest Service Manual, Title 2372 - provides specific direction concerning establishment and 

management of SA's, and indicates that forest planning may be one means for establishment. 

Forest Service Manual, Title 2360 - provides specific direction concerning establishment and 

management of SIA's. Forest planning may be one means for establishment. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 - establishes the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, defines 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and provides policy for preservation, management, and a process for 

further designations. 

Interagency National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final revised Guidelines for 

Eligibility (1982) - USDA and USDI - provides additional guidance to agencies on how to 

consider Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility, suggesting that Wild and Scenic rivers be considered 

during forest planning. 

Affected Environment

Research Natural Areas (RNA’s) 

The research natural areas (RNA's) on National Forests are protected for the purposes of 

maintaining biological diversity, conducting non-manipulative research and monitoring, and 

fostering education. RNA's help preserve the Nation's natural heritage for future generations. 

The protection afforded RNA's is a critical step in maintaining a range of biological diversity of 

native ecosystems and species. Because they are protected in a natural state, RNA's also provide 

valuable opportunities for monitoring of long-term ecological change, and comparison of the 

effects of resource management activities against unmanaged controls. Research Natural Areas 

(RNA's) are areas within National Forests that the Forest Service has designated to be 

permanently protected and maintained in natural condition. These protected natural areas 

include: 

• Unique ecosystems or ecological features 

• Rare or sensitive species of plants and animals and their habitat 

• High-quality examples of widespread ecosystems 

The regional RNA program works within the framework of the National Research Natural Areas 

Strategy, circulated by the Chief of the Forest Service in July 1993. An effort is being made to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 372 

integrate the RNA program fully with other National Forest and Research programs and 

planning. 

Under the current Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan three 

areas are managed as RNA's. The first two, Red Butte and Morris Creek, were established by 

the time the forest plan was signed in 1985; Mollens Hollow was established in 1988. 

• Red Butte Canyon near Salt Lake City 5140 acres 

• Morris Creek adjacent to Farmington Canyon 154 acres 

• Mollens Hollow within Blacksmith Fork watershed 1100 acres 

These three areas are managed to protect their research values as pristine examples of certain 

types of ecosystems. No uses are allowed that diminish the natural values of these lands. 

Potential uses, which are possible but limited on a permit basis, are research, baseline 

monitoring, or other similar non-destructive or non-manipulative activities. 

In 1998 an analysis of Research Natural Area needs was completed for National Forest lands in 

Utah (Tuhy 1998). These needs were defined for vegetation types that on National Forest lands 

that are currently lacking for existing RNAs in Utah. The objectives of establishing RNAs are to 

preserve a wide spectrum of pristine representative areas typifying important forest, shrubland, 

grassland, alpine, aquatic, geological, and similar natural situations that have special or unique 

characteristics of scientific interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network 

of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity; preserve and 

maintain genetic diversity; protect against serious environmental disruptions; serve as reference 

areas for the study of succession; provide on-site and extension educational activities, serve as 

baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes, serve as control areas for comparing 

results from manipulative research; and monitor effects of resource management techniques and 

practices” (FSM 4063). 

Potential addition

Additional acreage contiguous to the existing Morris Creek RNA is proposed for designation in 

plan revision. With this 850 added acres, additional elevation range, slopes, aspects, soils and 

plant communities and dependent species would be represented in the RNA providing a larger 

and more diverse ecosystem to the RNA. 

Special Interest Areas and Special Areas 

Currently there are no Special Interest Areas or Special Areas established on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. During recent forest planning and leadership discussions, the possible 

appropriateness of applying these categories to certain key areas has been recognized. Areas 

identified in this draft EIS are noted in Table SD-1 below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 373 

Table SD-1. Potential Special Interest Areas 

Area Identified Value 

Lower Logan Canyon (2 areas separated by a road) 

Large number of unique and sensitive or 

endangered plant species. In addition, this area 

includes the Douglas-fir/Ninebark habitat type 

identified by Tuhy (1998) as a need for protection 

within the RNA system. 

Lower Red Butte (within existing RNA) 

This area has many invasive species, including 

cheatgrass and several noxious weeds, and 

provides many opportunities for restoration 

ecology research as well as environmental 

education. 

Willard Basin 

Relic tall forb community as well as Burke’s 

draba populations potentially threatened by 

recreation use (trespass OHV use). 

W.C. Daniels School Forest Utah State University’s education and research 

forest under special use permit 

Potential Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas 

Some additional areas have recognized values for potential RNA or SIA designation. These 

areas were not analyzed under any alternative, but could be evaluated through later analyses. 

Some of these areas are identified below, but others are likely to occur on the Forest. 

Ben Lomond Peak, Ogden Ranger District – This area is identified as a potential RNA 

because it has relic tall forb communities that may be more representative of typical conditions 

within this vegetation group than other areas on the Forest. Tall forb communities in this area, 

while likely to have been historically grazed, show little current effects from these uses. Species 

composition and associated ground cover appear to be relatively undisturbed. Because it is 

estimated that nearly 50 percent of the tall forb communities on the forest have been significantly 

altered or lost, it is important to identify areas to protect these ecologically sensitive types. 

Western portion of the Deseret Peak Wilderness, Salt Lake Ranger District – This area, 

which runs from the western Forest boundary in Skull Valley to Deseret Peak, has representative 

Basin and Range plant communities in relatively undisturbed conditions. This potential 

Research Natural Area has not been grazed in recent history and communities from low elevation 

Wyoming big sagebrush to bristlecone and limber pine are present. In addition, there is a 

potential to research possible cryptogamic soil crusts as well. Access is limited, but these 

communities provide invaluable reference conditions from which management activities could 

be compared. 

Portions of Tri-Canyon Area, Salt Lake Ranger District – This area could be recognized as a 

special area with a number of values identified, including relic tall forb communities that have 

recovered from historical mining, logging and development; value as critical watershed and 

opportunities to educate about the importance of watersheds for communities; and value as a 

broad scenic backdrop for communities, as well as outstanding scenery within the area. Because 

it is so close to the large urban Salt Lake Valley communities, its values are easily accessed and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 374 

could be defined in an open public process, highlighted, appreciated and protected for current 

and future communities. 

In addition to those specific areas mentioned above, there is the need and potential for an aspendominated research natural area in the Bear River Range, or the Wasatch Range. Because of the 

history of livestock grazing in the Bear River Range especially, there is a need for an area that 

would provide a comparison with potential species composition and structure in these aspen 

communities. Possible areas outside existing allotments are in the Bear River Range near 

Franklin Basin or in the Wasatch Range in Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 was enacted to protect and preserve in their freeflowing condition, certain selected rivers of the nation and their immediate environments. In 

1998, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in consultation with other federal agencies undertook 

an inventory of the rivers on the Forest to determine whether any might be eligible as wild and 

scenic rivers (USDA Forest Service 1999c). The inventory made no decision regarding 

designation, nor does the Forest Service have this authority, one that is usually exercised by the 

U.S. Congress. 

The inventory included 82 rivers that were segmented into 96 river sections (or segments) for 

analysis. All segments were subjected to a preliminary screening of values, and 54 segments 

were found that might potentially have at least one outstandingly remarkable value. The 

identified values of these 54 were then further scrutinized, as was their free-flowing status. Of 

the 54 segments in the detailed study, 50 were found to be free flowing. Of these 50, 33 were 

found to possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value and were considered eligible for the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These river segments are classified as wild, scenic or 

recreational based on the amount of development present on each segment. 

Since the publication of the DEIS in May 2001, new information regarding Little Bear Creek has 

changed the eligible segment length from 4.5 miles to 1 mile. The classification of this segment 

and for White Pine Creek, Spawn Creek, and Bunchgrass Creek were reported erroneously in the 

DEIS as Wild; these river segments are correctly classified in this FEIS as Scenic. 

Since the completion of the inventory, the values identified during that process have been 

protected, as is required by law and policy. Following the inventory phase of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers study process; another study to assess suitability and make recommendations is to 

be conducted. The suitability study can be completed after revision of this forest plan. The 

Forest Service is required to protect identified values until a suitability study determines whether 

a river is suitable or not. Suitable rivers are protected until designated by Congress, or otherwise 

directed by other legal means. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 375 

Table SD-2. Names and Classification of 33 Eligible River Segments 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers 

River Name and Eligible Segment Classification 

1 Henry’s Fork: Henry’s Fork Lake to Trailhead Wild 

2 West Fork Beaver Creek: Source to Forest Boundary Wild within Wilderness 

Scenic below Wilderness 

3 Middle Fork Beaver Creek: Beaver Lake to Confluence 

with East Fork Beaver Creek 

Wild within Wilderness 

Scenic below Wilderness 

4 Thompson Creek: Source to Hoop Lake Diversion Wild 

5 West Fork Blacks Fork: Source to trailhead Wild within Wilderness 

Scenic below Wilderness 

6 East Fork Blacks Fork: Headwaters to confluence with 

Little East Fork 

Wild 

7 Little East Fork: Source to Mouth Wild 

8 Blacksfork: Confluence of West Fork and East Fork to 

Meeks Cabin Reservoir 

Recreational 

9 West Fork Smiths Fork: Source to Forest boundary Scenic 

10 East Fork Smiths Fork: Red Castle Lake to trailhead Wild 

11 Hayden Fork: Source to Mouth Recreational 

12 Stillwater Fork: Source to Mouth Wild within Wilderness 

Scenic below Wilderness 

13 Ostler Fork: Source to Mouth Wild 

14 Left, Right, and East Forks Bear River: Alsop Lake and 

Norice Lake to near Tralihead 

Wild 

15 Boundary Creek: Source to confluence with East Fork 

Bear 

Wild 

16 High Creek: High Creek Lake to Forest Boundary Wild 

17 Lefthand Fork Blacksmiths Fork: Source to Mouth Recreational 

18 Logan River: Idaho state line to confluence with Beaver 

Creek 

Scenic 

19 Logan River: Confluence with Beaver Creek to Bridge at 

Guinavah-Malibu Campground 

Recreational 

20 Beaver Creek: South Boundary of State Land to Mouth Recreational 

21 White Pine Creek: Source to Mouth Scenic 

22 Temple Fork: Source to Mouth Scenic 

23 Spawn Creek: Source to Mouth Scenic 

24 Bunchgrass Creek: Source to Mouth Scenic 

25 Little Bear Creek: Little Bear Spring to Mouth Scenic 

26 Main Fork Weber River: Source to Forest Boundary Scenic 

27 Middle Fork Weber River: Source to Forest boundary Wild 

28 Beaver Creek: Source to Forest boundary Recreational 

29 Provo River: Trial Lake to U35 Bridge Recreational 

30 Left Fork South Fork Ogden River: Frost Canyon/Bear 

Canyon Confluence to Causey 

Wild 

31 Willard Creek: Source to Forest boundary Scenic 

32 Red Butte Creek: Source to Red Butte Reservoir Scenic 

33 Little Cottonwood Creek: Source to Murray City 

Diversion 

Recreational 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 376 

Environmental Consequences 

Potential RNA additions and SIA establishment 

Table SD-3 notes the acres, by alternative, included in each RNA and SIA. Alternatives 1, 2, 6, 

and 7 provide the most protection to a variety of ecosystems. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 maintain 

the existing acres of RNAs and propose no acres of SIAs. 

Table SD-3. Acres of Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas 

(rounded to the nearest 100 acres) by alternative. 

Designation Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 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.

RNA Changes 

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. 

Currently, most of these north-facing slopes are only lightly used, if at all, by recreationists 

(occasional hikers/climbers). The area has no system roads or trails within it 

While the area would be posted as off limits to recreation, this is probably would have little 

effect on existing use patterns. There is no known research currently being conducted in the 

area. Prescribed fire as well as wildland fire use would be encouraged as a component of 

research in order to study the effects of fire on the fire-dependent plant or fire-tolerant plant 

communities that occur in the area (Gambel oak, quaking aspen, and mountain mahogany). 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 377 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would not add this acreage as part of the RNA system. Currently, 

examples of environments within the Wasatch Mountain Range are considered under-represented 

by Forest Service and Heritage ecologists. In these alternatives, no protected status would exist 

for monitoring and potential research associated with these environments. 

SIA additions

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 provide SIA management prescriptions for the four areas listed 

above in different combinations. 

The 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. 

In potential 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. 

The potential 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. 

Intermittent on and off-site interpretive programs could be provided for each of these new SIA’s 

to enhance public knowledge and appreciation for their associated values. 

In Alternatives 4 and 5, the areas identified above would not be protected or recognized by SIA 

prescription, with potential loss or modification of the identified values over time. 

W.C. Daniels School Forest – This area 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. Under Alternatives 1 and 2 the road 

corridor that runs through this SIA would be managed within the SIA, while under Alternatives 6

and 7 the road corridor has a separate management prescription category (MPC) for motorized 

recreation (MPC 4.4). This road corridor has been used by recreationists for many years, and is a 

major seasonal route on the eastern part of the Logan Ranger District. The key difference 

between the prescription scenarios presented for the road corridor within the school forest is that 

the 4.4 MPC highlights the recreation values while the 2.7 prescription places emphasis on the 

special interest values of the area. Management of the area under Alternatives 2, 4, or 5 would 

still be as the W.C. Daniels School Forest but under other MPCs without SIA designation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 378 

Potential Special Area Designation 

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. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Under all alternatives, the values identified by the Wild and Scenic River inventory would have 

interim protection until a suitability study is completed. Standards for the protection of these 

values (which vary depending on classification as wild, scenic, or recreational) are provided as 

an appendix to the proposed Forest Plan. In general, those rivers preliminarily classified as wild 

can have the least modification of their natural setting; scenic rivers allow somewhat more 

modification; and recreational rivers allow the most. Ongoing activities at the time of eligibility 

inventory generally will not be in conflict with protection of values. New projects and proposals 

that could affect the identified outstandingly remarkable values and free flow must be considered 

in light of interim protection guidance, and potential effects disclosed through standard 

environmental analysis processes. The protection standards apply under all alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 380 

Topic 9 – Oil and Gas Leasing 

Introduction 

Oil and natural gas are important resources for the people of the United States. They are the 

primary sources of energy for mechanical equipment, lighting, heat, transportation 

communications and production of food. Petroleum products are important components in 

agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing of fibers and plastics. The federal government seeks to 

reduce the dependency on oil and gas from other nations by continuing to locate and develop its 

own reserves. Domestic oil and gas reserves, including those beneath National Forest System 

lands, are important nationally because they represent a more reliable reserve of energy. Also, 

the refineries located along the Wasatch Front and their economic value to Utah, are dependent 

upon relatively local domestic sources for crude oil. 

This section will address the scope of the leasing analysis for the forest plan revision. Within the 

affected environment subsection, information is presented on the area’s current production, oil 

and gas potential, existing leases, mineral ownership, and industry interest in the area. Within the 

environmental consequences subsection, the effects of oil and gas activities as proposed in the 

alternatives are shown. 

Leasing Analysis in the Forest Plan Revision 

Part of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is covered by a leasing EIS. The 1994 North Slope 

Oil and Gas Leasing Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision covered 

lands along the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains (USFS Forest Service 1994). The Record of 

Decision initially made available about 219,000 acres of federal minerals for leasing but 

removed leasing consideration on 23,000 other acres. (A portion of the area, about 32,000 acres, 

included in the Record of Decision is on the Ashley National Forest). The Record of Decision 

was appealed. The appeal resulted in a settlement whereby the Wastach-Cache and Ashley 

National Forest Supervisors withdrew a portion of their decision for specifically identified 

roadless lands pending further analysis (Levere and Heaton, 1994). The remainder of the 

decision remained intact and has been implemented. It will hereafter be referred to as the 1994 

Leasing Decision. 

The oil and gas analysis included in the forest plan revision is limited to the area removed from 

implementation as a result of the appeal settlement. The area being analyzed is within the 

Western and Eastern Uinta Mountains Management Areas and will be referred to as the Appeal 

Settlement Zone. On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest this area totals about 68,300 acres of 

federal minerals (This number is greater than acres shown in the DEIS because of mapping 

corrections). The acreages shown in all the tables to follow include all federal minerals within 

the proclaimed boundary of the forest, not just the federal minerals under Forest Service 

administered surface. It is also important to note that the actual surface acres within this area is 

70,000, however; there are 1,700 acres of private minerals for which we have no decision 

authority. To provide important context for the analysis within the Appeal Settlement Zone, 

additional information on leasing of adjacent national forest has been included. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 381 

The 1994 Leasing Decision is considered still in effect. It will not be reconsidered in this forest 

plan revision. The 1994 Leasing Decision will be brought into compliance with the updated 

terminology and direction of the Revised Forest Plan. There are roadless acres within the area 

covered by the 1994 Leasing Decision. Road construction and reconstruction associated with 

leasing will be consistent with the final outcome of the RACR. 

Laws, Policy and Direction 

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 – Deposits of coal, phosphates, sodium, oil, shale, or gas 

owned by the United States, including those in National Forests, were made subject to 

disposition by leasing. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the 

Interior, was made responsible for leasing under this Act. This Act has been amended to 

include more minerals. 

• Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 – All deposits of coal, phosphate, oil, 

oil shale, gas, sodium, potassium, and sulfur that are within lands acquired by the United 

States may be leased by the Secretary of Interior under the same terms and conditions as 

contained in leases issued under the 1920 Act. No mineral deposits shall be leased without 

the consent of the head of the executive department having jurisdiction over the lands 

containing the deposit and subject to such conditions as that official may prescribe. 

• Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 – The continuing policy of the federal 

government is to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically 

sound and stable domestic mining and minerals industries and the orderly and economic 

development of domestic mineral resources. 

• Energy Security Act of 1980 – Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to process applications 

for leases and permits to explore, drill, and develop resources on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands, notwithstanding the current status of any management plan being prepared. 

• The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 – Expands the authority 

of the Secretary of Agriculture in the management of oil and gas resources on NFS lands. 

Without the Forest Service’s approval, the BLM cannot issue leases for oil and gas on NFS 

lands and the Forest Service must approve all surface-disturbing activities on NFS lands 

before operations commence. 

• 36 CFR Parts 228 and 261 - On April 20, 1990, the Forest Service completed the final 

regulations and procedures to implement the 1987 Reform Act. The regulations establish a 

staged decision process designed to accommodate the nature of oil and gas exploration and 

development. This staged decision process is explained in Appendix I. 

• Executive Order 13212 – On May 18, 2001, President George W. Bush directed agencies 

to take appropriate actions to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects 

that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 382 

Concepts Related to Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Analysis and 

Decisions 

The following stages of oil and gas decisions could occur. In the initial stage an environmental 

analysis is conducted to determine the environmental consequences of lease options. The 

Deciding Officer selects an option. The decision states which lands are administratively 

available and which specific lands are authorized for leasing. 

The next stage of analysis and decision occurs when an operator submits a surface use plan of 

operations (SUPO) with an Application for Permit to Drill (APD). The Forest Service conducts 

a site-specific analysis of the proposed well location and the potential effects. A decision 

document is then issued based on the analysis. Specific resource protection mitigation measures 

and monitoring requirements are part of the decision. Compliance to forest standards and 

guidelines would also be necessary. 

If the exploratory well makes a discovery and additional wells are needed to confirm the field, 

then another level of environmental analysis and decision are necessary, to disclose the effects of 

a field development. 

Affected Environment 

Current Oil and Gas Production 

Since the discovery of oil and gas in the 1960s southwestern Wyoming and north central Utah 

has been an area of petroleum exploration and development. The two counties within this area 

that include Wasatch-Cache lands are Summit County, Utah and Uinta County, Wyoming. There 

are 19 active wells on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

A total of 11 fields in Summit County, Utah make it the fourth largest producer of oil and the 

third largest producer of gas in the State (State of Utah, Division of Oil and Gas and Mining, 

2001). The one field on national forest system lands in Summit County, the Bridger Lake Unit on 

the Mountain View Ranger District, contributes to these production levels with 6 active wells, 

Most production in the County is outside the forest from privately owned minerals. The Bridger 

Lake field was the first oil and gas showcase in the nation. First established in 1990, it 

represents a cooperative venture between the Forest Service and petroleum industry to develop 

the nation’s energy while maintaining its environmental integrity (USDA Forest Service, 1990c). 

Fields in Uinta County, Wyoming produce the fourth largest amount of natural gas and fifth 

largest amount of oil in Wyoming (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2001). Of 

the 28 fields in the county, portions of the Luckey Ditch Unit and Whiskey Springs Unit, and 

several scattered wells outside of units are located on national forest system lands within the 

Wyoming portion of the Mountain View Ranger District. The majority of development in Uinta 

County, Wyoming is on adjacent BLM or private lands. 

All current production is outside the Appeal Settlement Zone. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 383 

Oil and Gas Potential 

Several sources have identified petroleum plays for southwestern Wyoming and north central 

Utah. A petroleum play is a geologic unit of known or postulated oil and gas accumulations 

sharing similar geologic properties. 

In 1995 the United States Geological Survey conducted a national assessment of the oil and gas 

resources of onshore areas and state waters of the United States. The purpose of the National 

Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (USGS, 1995) was to assess potential 

additions to proven oil and gas reserves based on the best information and theory available. The 

Assessment identified 4 plays associated with the northern part of the Uinta Mountains: 1) Moxa 

Arch, 2) basin margin anticline, 3) subthrust, and 4) Hogsback. One of the plays, termed the 

Basin Margin Anticline Play, scientists found a discovery in excess of 1 MMBOE to be not 

unlikely. The complete assessment with maps is available online at 

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga. 

These plays closely correspond with more recent work completed by Chidsey. Chidsey in his 

1999 report (Chidsey, Utah Geological Survey in Utah Geological Association, 1999) identified 

10 plays in Summit County, four of which include areas of national forest. He concludes that 

despite current producing fields in Summit County, the county still contains large, promising 

areas that are virtually unexplored. He found the potential prospects are structurally and 

stratigraphically analogous to many producing fields in the thrust belt and other areas of the 

Rocky Mountain region. He identified the overlap of the North Flank subthrust-Green River 

basin and Hogsback Thrust as being the area with the highest exploration risk, but the largest 

reserve potential. A portion of these plays is within the Hayden Fork-Stillwater Fork and East 

Fork Bear area of the Appeal Settlement Zone. 

In the 1990 Oil and Gas Potential Report prepared for the Forest by Kaldenback, he identified 

three north slope plays are targeted for exploration: the Moxa Arch, North Flank Fault subthrust, 

and Hogsback Thrust areas. Most activity is associated with the Moxa Arch where development 

began in the 1960s and continues. To date, areas associated with the North Flank Fault have not 

produced oil and gas. The majority of roadless lands are associated with this area. The 

complex subsurface geology, substantial drilling depths, the rugged terrain, and a short operating 

season due to high elevations complicate exploration. Eight exploratory wells have been drilled 

in areas associated with the Hogsback Thrust though none have resulted in oil and gas 

production on a continuing basis (USDA Forest Service 1994). 

The three reports on potential in the Appeal Settlement Zone conclude the area has a high 

potential for oil and gas occurrence. 

Existing Leases 

A large portion of the north slope of the Uinta Mountains is currently under lease. Within the 

proclaimed boundary about 43,900 acres of federal minerals in Utah and 19,800 acres of federal 

minerals in Wyoming (see figure OG-1) are currently leased. A large portion of the Appeal 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 384 

Settlement Zone, about 19,000 acres, is currently leased and within an established unit called the 

Table Top Unit. A unit is a block of leases which are consolidated to gain maximum 

development potential and minimize the need for surface facilities. Many of these leases were 

issued in the 1970s. Leases are issued for a period of 10 years; however, all leases within the 

Table Top unit are currently suspended so the time period does not apply (U.S. v Amerac Energy 

Corp., 1999). The Table Top Unit is shown on the oil and gas leasing maps. 

A decision from the oil and gas analysis included in the forest plan revision applies only to future 

Federal leases. New requirements cannot be imposed on the contractual terms of existing leases 

nor can existing leases be revoked if a decision not to lease is made. Existing leases will be 

honored. 

Figure OG-1 Existing Leases in the Uinta Mountains portion 

of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Industry Interest 

Leasing interest in the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains area is still fairly high and is 

expressed primarily by smaller independent companies. New drilling activity on the Forest in 

the past several years has been limited due to the depressed oil market and the unavailability of 

adjacent lands (unleased lands) that create financial risk to adjacent lessees (Burkhardt, 2000). 

The surge in oil and gas prices since 1999 and the spectre of potential world hydrocarbon 

shortages may renew interest for exploration and development in the area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 385 

Land and Mineral Ownership 

On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest the federal government usually owns both the surface 

and mineral estate. Lands such as these that have never left federal ownership are considered 

public domain lands. Some lands, however have federal surface ownership with the minerals 

owned by private individuals The Forest Service does not have authority to issue leases on these 

lands because the federal government does not own the mineral rights. As such there is no 

leasing decision to be made by the Forest Service for the Federal surface/private minerals. An 

estimated 1,700 acres of private minerals are within the area being analyzed. 

 

Environmental Consequences 

The environmental consequences of implementing various leasing alternatives are discussed in 

this section, but also in other resource sections. For example, the effects of the leasing program 

on water and soils can be found in the watershed resources section. 

Terms Used in This Section 

• Not Administratively Available (NAA): A decision that lands are not available for leasing. 

• No Lease (NL): A decision not to lease until, at some future time, lands are determined to be 

available for leasing. 

• No Surface Occupancy (NSO): A lease stipulation prohibiting occupancy on or disturbance 

of the land surface to protect special values or uses. The stipulation would apply to well 

sites and production facilities such as tank batteries and compressor stations. Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines would govern the design, placement, and decisions related to any 

roads or other linear facilities (pipelines) that typically extend beyond the lease boundary. 

• Controlled Surface Use (CSU): A lease stipulation allowing use and occupancy with special 

operational constraints for identified resource values. 

• Timing Limitation (TL): A lease stipulation prohibiting drilling during specified time 

periods to protect identified resource values. 

• Standard Lease Terms (SLT): 

Oil and gas lessees incur numerous environmental obligations in order to comply with applicable 

laws and regulations. Standard lease terms require compliance with laws and regulations and are 

incorporated by reference into the lease to ensure that other energy and mineral resources and 

surface resources such as soil, water, and vegetation are protected (36 CFR 228). In addition to 

standard lease terms, federal managers can require stipulations to be part of the lease. 

Stipulations can be thought of as mitigation to protect other resources and place even more 

restrictions on oil and gas development by requiring certain condition be met. They include 

seasonal restrictions (Timing Limitation), operational restrictions (Controlled Surface Use) or 

avoidance (No Surface Occupancy). Resource stipulations for the forest have been developed so 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 386 

the resources are sufficiently protected or that sufficient authority has been retained to apply 

needed mitigation if and when a drilling proposal is submitted. In cases where stipulations 

overlap, the more restrictive one applies. 

1994 Leasing Decision for Adjacent Lands 

The 1994 Leasing Decision that was implemented remains in effect. Under that decision, about 

140,400 acres are administratively available and have been offered for bid both competitively 

and non-competitively. The analysis that was the foundation of the 1994 leasing decision is 

incorporated by reference. 

Table OG-1. Acres available for lease under the 

1994 Leasing Decision (listed by stipulation category) 

Stipulation Acres 

Controlled Surface Use/ 

Timing Limitation 

8,800 

Controlled Surface Use 28,400 

Timing Limitation 27,600 

No Surface Occupancy 30,800 

Standard Lease Terms 44,800 

This area is further considered in context with the range of alternatives addressed in the forest 

plan revision in a later section under this Topic. 

Difference in Stipulations from 1994 Leasing Decision to Revised Forest Plan 

The 1994 Leasing Decision developed lease stipulations for site-specific resource areas. They are 

contained within the broader stipulation categories listed in the “Terms” section. For example, 

within the Timing Limitation stipulation, more specific stipulations were developed to protect 

elk calving areas, elk winter range and bighorn lambing areas since these are important resources 

on the Wasatch-Cache. Applicable stipulations are shown in Appendix G. 

Most of the stipulations developed in 1994 are also considered for lands addressed under this 

forest plan revision. In several instances, however, new stipulations have been developed 

because of the use of management prescriptions that are applied only to the lands in this revision. 

For example, stipulations developed for management prescription categories 2.6, 4.1, and 4.2 

will apply to appropriate areas within the Appeal Settlement Zone as mapped by alternative. 

Some stipulations developed in 1994 do not apply to the Appeal Settlement Zone because the 

resources they are protecting are not present within the ASZ. An example of this would be the 

No Surface Occupancy applied to developed campgrounds. 

The revised forest plan will not change existing leases.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 387 

Determination of Effects 

This section outlines the methods used to determine the magnitude of the effects. 

Some Standards and Guidelines and four management prescriptions in the proposed Forest Plan 

were converted into stipulations that would be applied to new leases. Locations of the various 

resources and prescriptions were mapped where appropriate. 

In order to analyze the environmental effects that could occur as a result of the leasing decision, 

a ‘reasonably forseeable development’ scenario (RFD) was developed by alternative to depict the 

type and scale of activity that could be reasonably anticipated. The RFD scenarios were 

developed using historical oil and gas information, geologic information and interpretation, and 

projected market trends. It must be recognized that future development and exploration may not 

occur as presented in the RFD scenarios but the scenarios provides a reasonable basis for 

analyzing potential subsequent activities and effects. 

The RFD scenarios are defined for the portion of the North Slope that lies outside the 1994 

Leasing Decision area. The base scenario assumes a maximum of 7 exploration wells. Applying 

the unit’s historical discovery ratio of one field discovery per 5.6 drilled exploration wells 

indicates that the 7 projected exploration wells might discover one new producing field. 

Important: The base scenario changes for each alternative depending on the lease stipulations or 

restrictions that would be applied to oil and gas activities. Also, the scenarios take into account a 

number of factors uniquely related to the suspended leases in the Table Top Unit (about 22,000 

acres, including a portion outside the analysis lands). Once suspended leases in the Unit are 

activated, the time remaining before some leases reach expiration would be fairly short. This 

would preclude the amount of exploration that would otherwise be possible and affect the 

number of possible wells that might be drilled. Once the leases terminated, the degree to which 

the lands could be leased again and/or occupied would be subject to new stipulations identified 

under each of the alternatives. Further, it is unlikely that exploratory wells would be 

directionally drilled from outside the area due to the risk and high cost stemming from the 

complex geology, difficult terrain and short seasons due to elevation, and the uncertainty of 

being able to develop a field due to surface constraints, should one be discovered. (Burkhardt, 

2001). 

Due to the existing leases and Unit, field development could occur under any alternative, the 

effects of which would be within the range disclosed under Alternatives 3, 5, 6 and 7. This 

possibility is recognized but the scenarios for each alternative are designed to respond to the 

alternative for analysis purposes. 

RFD BY ALTERNATIVE (see Table OG-2 for a summary of the activities related to each 

Alternative): 

Alternative 1: This alternative would designate most of the 68,300 acres eliminated from the 

1994 Leasing Decision as wilderness. No new leasing would be allowed. No activity would 

occur, with the possible exception of development on a block of existing leases within the Table 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 388 

Top Exploratory Unit. This Unit will likely be explored. The RFD scenario shows that two 

exploratory wells would be drilled under this alternative before the leases expire once the lease 

suspension is lifted. One of those two wells would likely be the Table Top well which has 

already been authorized, but currently suspended pending this leasing decision. 

Full field development is not predicted under this alternative because once current leases are 

explored, and should discovery not occur, then leases would expire, the leasehold would erode, 

and new leases would not be issued. Within the assumption that a discovery would be possible 

for every 5.6 wells drilled, the 2 wells possible on the units are unlikely to make a discovery. 

Alternative 2: This alternative would be similar to Alternative 1 except it would not preclude 

leasing with No Surface Occupancy and therefore, directional drilling directed under fringe 

acreage could occur with the goal of either discovering or developing oil and gas under the NSO 

lands. 

It is reasonably foreseeable that two exploratory wells would be drilled under this alternative, 

both on the Table Top Unit. One of those two wells would likely be the Table Top well which 

has already been authorized, but currently suspended pending this leasing decision. Once current 

leases expire, expected soon after the leases are released from suspension, it is unlikely that 

exploratory wells based on the revision leasing decision would be directionally drilled from 

lands outside the analysis lands due to the complexity of the geology, associated cost, high risk, 

and very limited ability to develop a field along the margins of the NSO lands even should there 

be a discovery (Burkhardt, 2001). Therefore, full field development is not predicted by this 

alternative. 

Alternative 3: Under this alternative, four exploratory wells would be drilled with the possible 

discovery of one field. Three of the exploratory wells would likely be in the Table Top area and 

the other being southwest of the existing fields in the Hickey Mt.- Table Mt. Area. The 

increased number of wells anticipated is due to fewer restrictive surface occupancy stipulations. 

Should one of these exploratory wells encounter producible quantities of hydrocarbons, field 

development would occur and would be expected to include approximately five development 

wells in addition to the discovery well. 

Alternative 4: This alternative is “continue management under the 1985 forest plan as 

amended” and since there currently is no leasing decision for the “appeal settlement zone”, that 

situation would continue. This alternative maintains the current lessees “in limbo” with respect 

to their leases in the Table Top Unit. All of the leases within the Unit would remain suspended 

and the development status would remain clouded by the lessee’s valid existing right on those 

lands. 

Alternative 5: Under this alternative the full RFD scenario is envisioned which consists of 7 

exploration wells and the discovery of one field (approximately 5 development wells in addition 

to the discovery well). One of the non-productive exploratory wells would possibly be converted 

into a water injection well to facilitate disposal of produced water (Burkhardt, 2001). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 389 

Alternative 6: This Alternative would be similar to Alternative 3. Since Alternative 6 extends 

the recommended wilderness area farther to the west than does Alternative 3, the potential for 

impacts to that area by development of existing leases in the Table Top Unit is greater than for 

Alternative 3. 

Alternative 7: Under this alternative, five exploratory wells would be drilled with the possible 

discovery of one field. Three of the exploratory wells would likely be in the Table Top area and 

the other two being nearer to the current development on the Mountain View Ranger District. 

The increased number of wells anticipated is due to the amount of acres allowing surface 

occupancy. 

Should one of these exploratory wells encounter producible quantities of hydrocarbons, field 

development would occur and would be expected to include approximately five development 

wells in addition to the discovery well. 

Table OG-2. Summary of Activities Expected Under RFD Scenarios for Each Alternative 

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

EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES

Exploratory well 

pads 2 2 4 Suspension continues 7 4 5 

Miles of new road 

construction 3 3 6 0 10-11 6 7.5 

Acres Disturbed by 

Exploratory Wells 20 20 40 0 70 40 50 

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

New fields 

Developed 0 0 1 Suspension continues 1 1 1 

Acres Disturbed by 

New Field 

Development 0 0 35 0 35 35 35 

Miles of road 

construction or 

reconstruction 

0 0 4 0 4 4 4 

TOTAL 

DISTURBED 

ACRES 20 20 75 0 105 75 85 

Footnote: Exploration activities: The total ground disturbance would average about 10 acres for each 

exploratory well (includes 1.5 miles of new road construction for each exploratory well—acreage 

disturbance from road is incorporated into 10 acres). See Appendix B for the explanation of how surface 

disturbance was calculated. 

Development Activities: The total land area that could be disturbed by development for each field 

would be about 35 acres (includes .8 miles of new road construction or reconstruction for each 

development well—acreage disturbance from road is incorporated into 35 acres). See Appendix B for the 

explanation of how surface disturbance was calculated. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Resources from Availability Decisions 

A decision regarding oil and gas leasing is actually two decisions: first, what lands should be 

made available for leasing and second, authorization of specific lands for leasing with 

appropriate stipulations applied. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 390 

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 OG-3. Available Acres and Not Available Acres by Alternative 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 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 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities by Type of Stipulation 

Lease stipulations can restrict the placement, number and type of wells and facilities, reduce 

exploration and development opportunities, and increase drilling and operational costs. Lease 

stipulations were factored into the development of the RFDs. Types of stipulations are tabulated 

below, and discussed in the following narrative. The Oil and Gas Leasing maps prepared for 

each alternative show the application of these stipulations spatially within the ASZ. 

Standard Lease Terms 

All leases are subject to Standard Lease Terms (SLT). These are the least restrictive stipulations 

on lands potentially available for leasing. With the exceptions noted below, SLT permits year 

round occupancy of leased lands and therefore, without special stipulations (restrictions), provide 

full access and the maximum opportunity to explore for oil and gas resources. 

SLT require an operator to minimize adverse impact to air, water, land, visual, and biological 

resources, and to other land uses or users. Standard Lease Terms require that the lessee comply 

with all applicable laws, regulations, and formal orders. If threatened and endangered plant and 

animal species or cultural resources are present, then development may not be possible for those 

portions of the lease. Known potential for these situations are noted in Lease Notices attached to 

leases in potentially affected areas. Previously unknown threatened or endangered species 

and/or cultural resources may be identified during preliminary on-site inspections. Effects to 

these resources can usually be mitigated but may substantially increase cost to the operator. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 391 

If potential negative effects to surface resources can be mitigated under Standard Lease Terms, 

which include the following provisions, in addition to surface use requirements listed in 36 CFR 

228, then no additional stipulations are necessary: 

• Drill site may be moved 200 meters 

• Operations may be delayed up to 60 days 

Leases issued with SLT only have the lowest level of restrictions and meet the Forest Service 

mineral policy direction to encourage development of mineral resources. 

Table OG-4. Tabulation of Lease Stipulations Applied to Each Alternative 

Resource Component Alternatives 

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

Wildlife 

 Elk Calving Area 

 Elk Winter Range 

 Moose Winter Range 

 Bighorn Sheep Lambing area 

 Threatened & Endangered 

 Sensitive 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

TL 

TL 

TL 

TL 

LN 

CSU 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

SLT 

SLT 

SLT 

SLT 

LN 

SLT 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

TL 

TL 

TL 

TL 

LN 

CSU 

Watershed 

 Unstable Soils 

 Geologic Hazards 

 Slopes > 40% 

 Wetlands > 40 acres 

 Riparian Areas > 40 acres 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

CSU 

CSU 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

SLT 

SLT 

SLT 

SLT 

SLT 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

CSU 

CSU 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

Recreation 

 4.1 Backcountry nonmotorized 

 4.2 Recreation nonmotorized 

NL 

NL 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

N/A 

N/A 

SLT 

SLT 

NSO 

NSO 

CSU/ 

NSO 

CSU 

Roadless 

 2.6 undeveloped NL NSO NSO N/A SLT NSO NSO 

NL=No Lease, NSO=No Surface Occupancy, CSU=Controlled Surface Use, TL=Timing 

Limitation, and LN=Lease Notice 

Special Lease Stipulations 

The following are special lease stipulations which are provisions that modify standard lease 

rights and are attached to and made a part of a lease. Special stipulations provide for greater 

protection of identified resources and mitigation of negative effects than Standard Lease Terms 

allow. The Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee, a joint Forest Service-BLM 

committee, developed guidelines for use of these stipulations in 1989. Refer to “Uniform Format 

for Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations”, Final Recommendations Prepared by Rocky Mountain 

Regional Coordinating Committee, March 1989, for additional information about the use of these 

stipulations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 392 

Timing Limitation Stipulation (TL) (Seasonal Restriction): Prohibits surface use during 

specified time periods to protect identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to the 

operation and maintenance of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate 

the continued need for such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific mitigation 

measures would be insufficient. 

TL is used when necessary to restrict exploration activities on leased lands for a period of time 

greater than 60 days. TL provides accessibility for a portion of the year, and maintains the 

potential for discovery and utilization of potential oil and gas resources. TL could increase 

exploration costs if the window available for drilling is too narrow. Use of TL meets Forest 

Service national mineral policy. 

TLs could increase exploration costs if a well is not completed within required time limits. 

Shutting a drilling operation down and leaving the equipment idle or moving the equipment to 

another site and moving it back increases costs. TL may push operations into the winter, where 

activities on frozen ground or in frigid weather can also increase operator costs. 

When a drilling proposal is submitted, on the ground conditions may allow an exemption or 

require an extension of timing limitations based on seasonal conditions or habitat use. 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU): Use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another 

stipulation), but identified resource values require special operational constraints that may 

modify the lease rights. 

CSU stipulations are designed to identify standards that must be met by operators and to control 

drilling or production operating standards to mitigate potential adverse effects to surface 

resources. Such stipulations permit year-round occupancy and accessibility to leased lands. 

They maintain potential for discovery and utilization of oil and gas resources while providing for 

mitigation of effects on other resources. Compliance with CSU stipulations may require more 

decision-making responsibility at the time surface-disturbing activities are proposed. 

Compliance with a CSU stipulation could increase the cost of oil and gas activities by requiring 

use of expensive technology to meet mitigation requirements. Leasing with CSU stipulations 

meet Forest Service mineral policy direction. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): Use of occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral 

exploration or development is prohibited to protect identified resource values. 

Even though NSO stipulation prohibits surface occupation for exploration or development of oil 

and gas resources, the subsurface resources are legally available if they can be accessed by 

means other than occupying the surface specified in the NSO stipulation. Leasing an area with 

NSO, rather than declaring it “not administratively available” for leasing, may allow 

development through directional drilling if lands adjacent are available for leasing with surface 

occupancy or are privately owned. Technology limits the distance a well’s surface location can 

be placed from the downhole location. Also, in some areas, it is technically impossible to 

directionally drill. Directionally drilled wells are more costly to drill and to maintain and as such 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 393 

reach the end of their economic life sooner than straight-hole wells. While drilling and 

production may be more costly, leasing with NSO does offer opportunities for exploration and 

development of lands where surface occupancy is prohibited. Leasing with NSO meets Forest 

Service minerals policy direction. 

Lease Notice (LN): Provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already 

exist in law, lease terms, regulations, or operational orders. A Lease Notice also addresses 

special items the lessee should consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or 

additional restrictions. Lease Notices attached to leases should not be confused with Notices to 

Lessees which serve as instructions on specific items of importance within a specified area. 

Effects by Alternative 

The table below displays the acres subject to oil and gas stipulations that would be applied by 

Alternative. See the oil and gas Alternative maps for the spatial application of the leasing 

stipulations. 

Table OG-5. Acres with Stipulations Listed by Alternative 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 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 1000

Standard Lease Terms 0 0 10,400 -- 68,300 0 1000

The following discussion focuses on 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 as a result of management prescription generally tend to be big blocks and 

would affect drilling access. However, some areas within alternatives 3 and 7 where NSO is 

assigned because of resource concern such as steep slopes, areas are not expansive and could be 

more easily accessed from adjacent lands. 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. Of the acres available Alternative 2 

would have the greatest percentage of acres leased with NSO stipulation followed by 

Alternatives 6, 3 and 7. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 394 

Effects from Management Prescriptions 

This discussion focuses on the four management prescriptions which by their own definition 

remove an area from leasing availability or place limits on oil and gas activities beyond those 

given in Standard Lease Terms. In some alternatives the amount of lands authorized for leasing 

and under what stipulations is determined by alternative descriptions not by individual 

management prescriptions. The applicability of management prescriptions to each alternative is 

described below. 

Management prescription 1.5 removes lands from leasing availability and affects four of the 

seven alternatives. Effects directly as a result of the remaining three management prescriptions 

(2.6, 4.1, and 4.2) are only applicable in Alternatives 3 and 7. This is because in Alternatives 1, 2 

and 6, alternative descriptions place broad restrictions on leasing for protection of roadless areas. 

Alternative 5 has been developed leases with standard lease terms. 

Other management prescriptions may highlight important resources but are too broad to have 

associated stipulations. 

Management Prescription 1.5 – Recommended Wilderness – No Lease 

Areas mapped with this prescription are not available for leasing. No new leasing is allowed. 

Alternative 1 precludes leasing throughout the ASZ so the restriction from this prescription does 

not affect leasing availability. The restriction on leasing from recommended wilderness is the 

greatest in Alternative 2 followed by Alternatives 7, 6 and 3. Alternative 5 has no acres 

allocated to Management Prescription 1.5 and Alternative 4 makes no leasing decision. 

Management Prescription 2.6 – Undeveloped Areas – NSO 

Areas mapped with this prescription are leased with a NSO stipulation. This means the mineral 

estate may only be accessed from adjacent areas. Of the two alternatives affected by application 

of the 2.6 prescription, Alternative 3 has 9,600 acres allocated to the prescription, while 

Alternative 7 has 4,200 acres allocated. 

 

Management Prescription 4.1 – Backcountry Nonmotorized – NSO/CSU 

For those 4.1 areas leased with no surface occupancy, the mineral estate may only be accessed 

from adjacent areas. Of the two alternatives affected by application of the 4.1 prescription, 

Alternative 3 allows leasing in all of the 14,500 acres allocated to 4.1 with no surface occupancy 

while alternative 7 leases the portion of 4.1 acres with high quality back country recreation 

values, about 10,500 acres, under the same conditions. 

The remaining portion of the acreage assigned a 4.1 prescription in Alternative 7 (1,300 acres) 

will be managed under a controlled use stipulation. Use and occupancy is allowed (unless 

restricted by another stipulation), but will be strictly applied. Activities must maintain primitive 

character and be screened from trails and other facilities. Roads accessing well pads will be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 395 

open for administrative use only. If the well is a dry hole, the road will be closed and 

decommissioned to public travel. 

Management Prescription 4.2 – Recreation Nonmotorized – NSO/CSU 

In Alternative 3 oil and gas leasing is allowed with NSO in areas allocated to 4.2. This means the 

mineral estate may only be accessed from adjacent areas that allow surface occupancy. In 

Alternative 7 the majority of lands allocated to 4.2, about 1,000 acres are managed for surface 

occupancy with a controlled use stipulation. Use and occupancy is allowed, but will be strictly 

applied. Roads accessing well pads will be open for administrative use only. If the well is a dry 

hole, the road will be closed and decommissioned to public travel. 

Effects Oil and Gas Activities from Major Resource Programs 

This section discusses how oil and gas activities are affected by proposed Standards and 

Guidelines and stipulations developed for other resources. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Air 

Mineral activities are regulated by the state and must meet established requirements. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Fish and Wildlife Management 

As a minimum all leases require a CSU stipulation to determine the presence of sensitive species. 

The CSU stipulation usually restricts drilling and other activities within a specified distance from 

the area requiring protection if activities would likely result in degradation of habitat, 

abandonment, disruption, or other failure. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Livestock Grazing 

Occupancy and use for oil and gas activities are not restricted by grazing activities. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Recreation Management 

In Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6 occupancy and use for oil and gas activities are restricted in those 

areas where backcountry recreation opportunities are being emphasized. In Alternative 7 oil and 

gas activities are similarly restricted with no surface occupancy however surface occupancy is 

allowed in one backcountry area but with restrictions to protect the primitive setting. Compliance 

with a CSU stipulation could increase the cost of oil and gas activities to meet mitigation requirements. 

In addition, seismic activities are restricted in certain times and in certain areas because of 

recreation use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 396 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Soil Management 

An NSO stipulation requires wells to be located on slopes no greater than 40 percent. The 

acreage restricted by this stipulation varies little across the range of alternatives. They tend to be 

small areas of NSO that would allow well location near, but not on, the initial and preferred 

location. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Special Area Designation 

Special designations include Research Natural Areas, Special Interest Areas, Scenic Byways, and 

the three different classifications for designated wild and scenic river segments. Research 

Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas are not within the area being analyzed for oil and gas 

leasing, so there is no effect on oil and gas activities. A portion of the Mirror Lake Scenic Byway 

is within the ASZ and will be protected to maintain its high scenic integrity objective. A 

Controlled Surface Use stipulation is applied to eligible stream segments to protect the identified 

outstandingly remarkable value. Depending on what value is identified some restrictions may be 

placed on oil and gas activities. 

Effects on Oil and Gas Activities from Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management 

There is an area of existing leases, the Table Top Unit that could be explored regardless of 

roadless area management considered in the forest plan revision. Existing leases are considered a 

valid existing right and not subject to new decisions from the plan revision. In the future because 

nearly all the area is recommended for wilderness, availability of federal minerals is significantly 

restricted in Alternative 1. In Alternative 2 where roadless is recommended as wilderness, 

exploration development and production of oil and gas resources is foregone. No surface 

occupancy is implemented for new leases in the remaining acres, so though the possibility of 

exploiting oil and gas resources by directional drilling from offsite locations exists, exploration 

and development is hampered. In Alternative 3 roadless acres in 4.1, 4.2, 2.6, and 3.2 are leased 

with NSO. Again this would limit the opportunity to exploration development and production of 

oil and gas resources. Under Alternative 5 new leases would be issued under Standard Lease 

Terms with little restriction to oil and gas exploration and development. 

Alternative 6 precludes leasing in recommended wilderness and allows no surface occupancy in 

areas currently not leased. The existing leases within the Table Top Unit would be reissued to 

allow surface occupancy for oil and gas exploration and development in areas not precluded by 

management plan direction. Road construction needed in conjunction with the continuation, 

extension or renewal of a mineral lease on lands would be allowed. This results in about 3,300 

acres (the area mapped for terrestrial habitat and motorized recreation opportunities) with 

existing leases to allow for continuing mineral development in the future. Oil and gas activities 

in the remaining portion of the Appeal Settlement Zone would be limited by the lack of surface 

occupancy and the constraints of directional drilling from offsite locations. Again most 

opportunities to develop and utilize any oil and gas would be very limited or foregone because of 

inventoried roadless area protection. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 397 

In Alternative 7 about 20,400 acres of roadless is unavailable and 20,900 acres are leased with no 

surface occupancy. Within the areas leased with NSO, the opportunity for exploration, 

development and production of oil and gas resources would be constrained. Oil and gas 

development within the interior of large blocks of NSO would in all probability be foregone. On 

the remaining 27,000 acres oil and gas operations would be allowed with restrictions placed on 

them from other resource needs not roadless protection. 

Leasing in Context with the 1994 Leasing Decision 

Since the 1994 Leasing Decision is being incorporated into the Forest Plan Revision, the 

following table displays the total acres of federal minerals on the North Slope of the Uinta 

Mountains within the Wasatch-Cache proclaimed boundary that will be available for leasing. 

Table OG-6. Acres of Federal Minerals Available for Leasing on the North Slope of the Uinta 

Mountains by Alternative 

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

Acres 

available for 

leasing within 

ASZ1

0 40,100 50,100 N/A 68,300 48,300 47,900 

Acres 

available from 

1994 Decision 

140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400 140,400

TOTAL 

ACRES 

AVAILABLE 

140,400 180,500 190,500 140,400 208,700 188,700 188,300 

1 Appeal Settlement Zone only 

2

 N/A = not applicable because no decision is made

Table OG-7. Acres of Federal Minerals Available on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains 

by Stipulation by Alternative 

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

Acres Available 

for Leasing 

140,400 180,500 190,500 140,400 208,700 188,700 188,300 

Available with Stipulations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

 30,800 70,900 68,000 30,800 30,800 75,500 50,700 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Allowed 

109,600 109,600 122,500 109,600 177,900 113,200 137,600 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 398 

Cumulative Effects 

Nearby Oil and Gas fields 

There are a total of 11 fields in Summit County with one on national forest (Bridger Lake). 

The fields on private land are located in far northwestern Summit County. Most fields have 2-6 

active wells though the largest field, Anshutz Ranch East, has 47 wells. The majority of the 

fields have been in production for many years and there are ancillary facilities such as pipelines 

to assist in transporting the product (Chidsey, 1999). They are located far enough away from 

national forest lands to result in negligible cumulative effects. 

North of the forest in Uinta County, Wyoming is also highly developed with oil and gas fields. 

There are 28 fields with a total of 474 wells. 

 

Private Minerals 

There are about 1,700 acres of privately owned minerals interspersed in the Appeal Settlement 

Zone. Within the Uinta Mountains there are 29,100 acres of private minerals under Forest 

Service managed lands. These minerals are not regulated by the Forest Service and may be 

developed by their owners at their discretion. Nearby leased federal minerals may facilitate 

development of private minerals. 

Existing Leases 

As explained earlier, a portion of the Appeal Settlement Zone is currently leased. There are 

additional federal minerals under lease yet not currently developed outside the area under 

analysis. Additionally, federal minerals are available for lease as a result of the 1994 Leasing 

Decision. The 1994 Leasing EIS (USDA Forest Service, 1994a) predicted a Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Scenario total of 14 exploratory wells resulting in the possibility of 

two to three fields for the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Uinta Mountains. Some of this 

development is predicted for the Appeal Settlement Zone. Development of leases outside the 

Appeal Settlement Zone could result in 7 exploratory wells and one to two additional fields. 

This could result in additional miles of reconstructed or construction of new roads and well pads. 

One or two additional fields could be developed. The level of development predicted and 

associated effects are documented in the 1994 North Slope Oil and Gas Leasing Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

 

Availability of Oil and Gas Resources 

Where lands are administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing or surface occupancy totally 

precluded by NSO and the lands have high potential for the occurrence for oil and gas resources, 

then that decision has greater potential impacts than if the lands have low potential for oil and 

gas resources. Since the lands covered in this forest plan revision on the North Slope of the 

Uinta Mountains all are classified as having high potential for the occurrence for oil and gas 

resources, any acreage removed from lease consideration may limit the further potential 

production of oil and gas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 399 

Declining Domestic Production 

A reduction in acres available for exploration on public lands nationwide would affect the 

domestic oil and gas industry and could further increase the dependency of the United States on 

foreign sources. A declining domestic oil and gas industry results in the loss of personnel with 

expertise in oil and gas exploration and development and affects the ability of the industry to 

respond to potential changes in the supply of imported energy. The industry has experienced 

such a decline during the last cycle of depressed oil and gas prices, but as prices have recovered 

over the last two years, the industry has faced staffing problems due to a reduction in the 

available of qualified exploration people. Alternative 5 would make the most acres available for 

leasing while Alternative 1 would eliminate all acres for leasing. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 

would provide intermediate numbers of acres available. 

Access 

Access to leases across federal lands is controlled by land and resource management plan 

standards and guidelines. The standards and guidelines are not specifically included in oil and 

gas leases but apply to the lessee, as well as any forest user. Generally, when a stipulation is 

applied to a lease, similar or identical restrictions will apply to the placement, construction, and 

use of access roads, pipelines, and power lines. 

Drainage – Loss of Revenue 

Drainage occurs when oil and gas migrates within the subsurface from areas of high pressure to 

areas of lower pressure, such as is found in the vicinity of a producing well. Production of 

migrated oil and gas without compensation to the owner and/or lessee from whose estate the 

hydrocarbon moved is called drainage. The remedy of choice is often drilling and completing a 

producing well on the mineral estate losing hydrocarbons. 

A federal oil and gas lease obligates the lessee to protect federal minerals outside the lease from 

drainage. Developing a well on the drained mineral estate is one method of drainage protection. 

Other protection may be achieved by including unleased lands in units, by communitization 

agreements, or assessment of compensatory royalties. However, if the federal mineral estate is 

not leased, the oil and gas may be drained and produced from adjacent non-federal lands or 

unleased federal lands without compensation to the federal government. Since these revenues 

would be shared with the state, drainage also means lost revenue to the state or county. 

Drainage also affects revenues. Once a reservoir has been tapped, reservoir pressure drops off 

dramatically. Failing to maximize recovery could result in a loss of the resource. Development 

will not be efficient without all of the lands being leased and available for development. 

Maximum economic recovery could be diminished because any reservoir discovered may not be 

efficiently developed due to the fact that producing and/or injection wells may not be efficiently 

sited. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 400 

When lands are leased, the lessee can be required to protect the lease from drainage. However, 

when land is not leased, there is no means to protect from drainage. The potential loss of federal 

royalties caused by drainage from unleased lands is expected to be greatest in Alternatives 1 and 

2 because no new leases would be issued in Alternative 1 and in Alternative 2, all lands would be 

stipulated NSO. 

In summary, where the land is not leased or an NSO stipulation is applied, drainage of the 

subsurface oil and gas resource could occur, with a resultant possible loss in royalties and 

decrease in recovery efficiency. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 401 

Topic 10 – Fire Management 

Introduction 

Historically, and currently, fire has been and continues to be the main recurring disturbance 

factor in most of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) ecosystems. However, for the 

past 100 years, fire has been largely excluded from the forests, shrublands, and grasslands of the 

WCNF resulting in significant changes to many ecosystem components. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

The Organic Administration Act (1897) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make 

provisions for the protection of national forests against destruction by fire. 

The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (1937) authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and land utilization to protect public 

lands. 

The Wilderness Act (1964) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to take such measures as 

may be necessary in the control of fire within designated wilderness. 

The National Forest Management Act (1976) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to specify 

guidelines for land management plans to ensure protection of forest resources. 

The Clean Air Act (1977) provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air 

resources. 

The Federal Fire Policy (1995) outlines policies on fire suppression and integrating fire on the 

landscape. 

The Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy: Implementation Procedures 

Reference Guide (1998) covers the process for making fire suppression decisions, prescribed 

fire burn plans and implementation, and wildland fire use planning and implementation. 

Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A 

Cohesive Strategy for (USDA, 2000) describes fuel treatment priorities for federal lands. 

A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the 

Environment, 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDA, USDI 2001) and Implementation 

Plan (2002). The Departments of Interior and Agriculture collaborated with the western 

Governors to develop a comprehensive approach to the management of wildland fire, hazardous 

fuels, and ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation on federal and adjacent State, tribal, and 

private forest and range lands in the United States. The primary goals of the 10-year 

Comprehensive Strategy are: 1) Improve prevention and suppression, 2) Reduce hazardous fuels, 

3) Restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and 4) Promote community assistance. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 402 

The Utah Fire Amendment (USDA Forest Service, 2001) amended all of the Forest Plans for 

the Utah National Forests to allow for prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Prescribed fire was 

authorized in all places following site-specific environmental analysis. Wildland fire use was 

authorized Forest-wide following the Fire Management Plan with the following exceptions: 

administrative sites; developed recreation sites; summer home sites; designated communication 

sites; oil and gas facilities; mining facilities; above-ground utility corridors; high-use travel 

corridors; and sensitive watersheds. 

The WCNF has elected, in this Forest Plan, to follow the decisions, and standards and guidelines, 

covered in the Utah Fire Amendment with one exception – the WCNF may allow wildland fire 

use in sensitive watersheds. The WCNF would prefer to do fire planning for specific sites to 

determine whether to include portions of “sensitive watersheds” (as defined in the Utah Fire 

Amendment) in areas approved for wildland fire use. For example, an acceptable wildland fire 

use perimeter may include portions of sensitive watersheds if a barrier to fire spread is included 

in the sensitive watershed. Until more site-specific analysis is completed (as areas are approved 

for Widland Fire Use in the Fire Management Plan), the WCNF will not implement landscapelevel wildland fire use prohibitions in sensitive watersheds 

Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction provide additional guidance for fire 

management activities. 

Several layers of fire management related documents guide Forest Service actions. The WCNF 

Fire Management Plan (FMP) is a broad level plan governing fire management actions that is 

reviewed annually and revised as needed to reflect the Forest Plan and changes in the fire 

management program. The FMP, based on guidance and direction in the Forest Plan, provides 

detailed information for wildland fire use, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and hazardous fuels 

treatment. Content in the FMP is available to the line officer, fire manager, and fire incident 

commander, prior to future planned (prescribed fire, mechanical treatment) and unplanned 

(wildland fire) fire management activities so they can appropriately address resource and social 

concerns. Examples of measures that could be implemented to protect resources include: 

restrictions on prescribed burn severity and size, restrictions on the timing of fire use, restrictions 

on areas where burning activity would not be allowed, and guidance on where mechanical fire 

suppression activities would be limited. 

Other specific documents that are related to fire management activities include the prescribed 

fire burn plan, wildland fire use plan, wildland fire implementation plan and the wildland fire 

situation analysis. These are fire management implementation documents for planned 

(prescribed) and unplanned (wildland fire) ignitions. They incorporate relevant measures and 

procedures from the fire management plan and apply them to site-specific, on-the-ground 

activities and actions. This tiering ensures that the prescribed fire and wildland fire actions will 

consider, incorporate, and be consistent with relevant Forest Plan management direction 

requirements. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 403 

Affected Environment 

Fire Occurrence 

Fire occurrence records from 1970 to 2001 were analyzed for the following statistics. Of the 

almost 2000 fires recorded in the WCNF’s fire occurrence database from 1970 to 2001, twothirds of the fires (63%) are human-caused. The rest (37%) are started by lightning. The WCNF 

averages about 60 wildfires per year; the fewest recorded, was 13 fires in 1984; and the years 

with the most fires were 111, (1979), 110 (2000) and 96 (2001). The average fire size is 40 

acres. Most fires are extinguished at 0.1 acres in size and 70% of the fires are < 1 acre. The 

largest fire recorded since 1970 burned 14,200 acres in June of 2002 named the East Fork Fire 

near Bear River, Utah. According to the fire statistics, the number of large fires appears to be 

increasing -- 90% of the fires >100 acres have occurred since 1980. Fire seasons of 2000, 2001 

and 2002 were some of the busiest on the WCNF in terms of number of fires and total acres 

burned. 

Prescribed Fire 

The use of prescribed fire on the WCNF has been very limited in the past. For the past three 

years, the WCNF has prescribed burned approximately 1,250 acres per year, primarily in aspen 

stands. 

Wildland Fire Use 

Wildland fire use, only allowed after completion of a wildland fire use plan within in the FMP, is 

currently only allowed in one Wilderness Area in the WCNF: The High Uintas. Wildland fire 

use plans have been in effect in these two Wilderness Areas since 1998; and since then the 

WCNF has not managed any ignitions as wildland fire use. The Forest Service intends to 

prescribe appropriate wildland fire use during upcoming revisions of the Fire Management Plan. 

Wildland fire use plans may cover non-Wilderness lands as well as designated Wilderness areas. 

Upcoming revisions will include wildland fire use plans for the Deseret Peak, Mt. Naomi, and 

Wellsvilles Wildernesses and surrounding areas within the next 3 years. Wildland fire use plans 

for the other Wilderness areas will be developed within the next 5 years. 

Fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface 

In the last ten years there has been a tremendous increase in the development and population 

adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forest boundary along the Wasatch Front. 

Soaring populations coupled with the increased use of national forest land has increased the risk 

and frequency of fire. Compounding the situation is the presence of vegetative communities with 

uncharacteristically high fuel loading. This situation can support severe fires which can result in 

significant impacts to properties and natural resources 

Given this situation and the current national emphasis on reducing fuels in the wildland-urban 

interface, the WCNF, in conjunction with the Uinta NF, recently completed the Wasatch Front 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 404 

Fuels Assessment Report (USDA Forest Service 2002). The Assessment analyzed the fuel 

situation and reduction opportunities on over 400,000 acres along the Wasatch Front. It is 

anticipated that the Fuels Assessment will guide site-specific planning to reduce fuels along the 

Wasatch Front. 

The predominate cover class within the assessment area was oakbrush/shrub. Over 83 percent of 

the oakbrush/shrub cover class was classified as medium (62.6 percent) to high (20.8 percent) 

density. About half of the assessment area is classified as a medium/high, high, or very high 

fuel hazard. The oakbrush/shrub cover class dominates this area on the Wasatch-Cache. 

 

Several areas along the Front were identified as having higher opportunities and needs for 

treatment. These areas include the cities and towns of North Ogden, Ogden, South Ogden, 

Bountiful, North Salt Lake, Sandy and Draper. Portions of the some of the canyons, specifically 

Parley’s Ogden, Little Cottonwood were also labeled high treatment opportunity. Emigration 

Canyon in particular had the most classified as the highest treatment opportunity. 

The WCNF has implemented few projects aimed at reducing hazardous fuels. No mechanical 

treatments have been initiated for the purpose of reducing high fuel loading. However, that is 

likely to change within the near future because of increased national emphasis on fuel reduction 

in the widland-urban interface. 

Fire Regimes and Condition Classes 

The ecosystems of the WCNF fall within a variety of fire regimes. Tables FM-1, FM-2, and 

FM-3 describe and categorize the fire regime and condition class as well as the condition classes 

of vegetation types that comprise 5% or more land cover on the WCNF. 

Table FM-1. Fire Regime Definitions 

Fire Regime Group Frequency 

(Fire Return Interval) 

Severity 

I 0 – 35 Years Low Severity 

II 0 – 35 Years Stand replacement severity 

III 35 – 100+ Years Mixed severity 

IV 35 – 100+ Years Stand replacement severity 

V >200 Years Stand replacement severity 

Fire regime and condition class definitions were adapted from the FS publication, “Protecting 

People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy” (April, 

2000). As stated in the Cohesive Strategy, treatment efforts should be concentrated in the shorter 

interval fire-adapted ecosystems (Fire Regimes I and II) that are in Condition Classes 2 and 3. 

This emphasis generally agrees with treatments aimed at achieving properly functioning 

conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 405 

Table FM-2. Condition Class Definitions 

Condition 

Class 

1 

The disturbance regime is largely intact and functioning. The effects of insects and 

disease as well as the potential intensity and severity of fire are properly functioning. 

Vegetation components are resilient to disturbances from wind, insects, disease, or 

fire and do not predispose the stand or its key components to a high risk of loss. 

Note that currently none of the vegetation types on the WCNF are classified as this 

condition class.

Condition 

Class 

2 

Moderate alterations to the historic disturbance are clearly evident, such as one or 

more missed fire return intervals. The effects of insects and disease as well as the 

potential intensity and severity of fire pose an increased threat to key components 

that define the system. Composition and structure of vegetation has shifted towards 

conditions that are less resilient and are therefore more at risk to loss from wind, 

insects, disease or fire.

Condition 

Class 

3 

The disturbance regime has been significantly altered. The effects of insects, 

disease, or fire may cause significant or complete loss of one or more defining 

ecosystem components. The highly altered composition and structure of the 

vegetation predisposes the stand or ecosystem to disturbance events well outside 

the range of historic variability, potentially producing changed environments never 

before measured.

Table FM-3. Vegetation on the WCNF by Fire Regime and Condition Class1

Vegetation Type Acres % of 

Forest 

Fire 

Regime 

Condition 

Class 

Aspen, Aspen-Conifer, Conifer-Aspen2 205,600 17% II, III, IV 3 

Sagebrush 189,600 15% II 2, 3 

Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine Fir 153,400 12% V 2 

Mixed Conifer3 151,700 12% III, V 2 

Barren Land 101,500 8% n/a n/a 

Oakbrush-Maple 90,800 7% II 2, 3 

Douglas-fir 87,500 7% I, III 3 

Pinyon and Juniper4 79,000 6% II, V 3 

Lodgepole Pine 61,300 5% IV, V 2 

1

Determinations of the fire regime and condition class were derived from professional expertise of the Plant Ecologist 

(Padgett) and Fire Ecologist (Pollet) and content found in the following two references: Fire Ecology of Forests and 

Woodlands in Utah (Bradley et al. 1991) and Fire Effects Information System (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

2 Aspen , Aspen-Conifer, and Conifer-Aspen fall within fire regimes II, III, and IV, depending on the location of the 

aspen. Aspen occupies a wide ecological amplitude on the WCNF, and its historical fire regime is closely related to 

its neighboring vegetation. For example, where aspen is situated near sagebrush, it would have a more frequent fire 

return interval compared to the fire return interval of aspen located near spruce/fir forests. 

3

Mixed Conifer includes both the Bear River Range (lodgepole, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir) and Uinta 

Mountains (lodgepole, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and Douglas-fir). The historical fire regime in the WCNF’s 

mixed conifer was likely more frequent mixed-severity fires coupled with infrequent stand-replacement fires. 

4

The historical fire regime for continuous cover of pinyon juniper with a grass/shrub understory was fairly frequent, 

preventing establishment of large trees. However, in rocky, generally unvegetated areas where trees were able to 

get established, some juniper trees were able to grow quite large with the lack of fire. In these vegetatively isolated 

pockets, fire was extremely infrequent. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 406 

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects 

Congress and federal land management agencies have recently spotlighted fire management 

policies and practices; this attention resulted from several severe fire seasons in the west starting 

in 1994 through 2002. Emerging national direction and policy emphasize increased fire 

suppression resources, fuel treatment, and fire restoration on the landscape. 2001 was the first 

year of substantially increased funding and personnel. It is unclear if this level of commitment 

and emphasis will be stable for the life of the Forest Plan, or if it will fluctuate. Discussion of 

effects for alternatives will assume a stable (based on 2001 and 2002 budgets) funding strategy 

for fire suppression, hazardous fuel treatment, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. 

Challenges to achieving landscape-level fuels reduction programs and prescribed fire programs 

may include: funding uncertainty, 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 human 

populations in and surrounding the forest. These challenges vary slightly among all alternatives 

and differences among alternatives are highlighted under specific effects and cumulative effects. 

It is difficult predict with any degree of certainty the future frequency and size of unwanted 

wildland fires and wildland fire use. Generally, effects on fire management related to these 

unplanned ignitions do not vary widely among Alternatives 2 through 7. Exceptions are noted 

under specific effects and cumulative effects. 

Effects are discussed in terms of the four aspects of the Fire Management Program: 1) fuel 

treatment to reduce hazardous fuel loadings; 2) prescribed fire for ecosystem benefit; 3) wildland 

fire use for resource benefit; and 4) fire suppression. 

Effects on Fire Management from Roads and Access Management 

Historical fire data show that the largest numbers of fires that occur on the Forest are along 

travelways, and primarily adjacent to roads. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would have the greatest 

potential for effects on fire management. Alternative 5 allows the greatest number of new roads 

(more than 60 miles) and Alternatives 3 and 4 allow nearly 50 miles of new roads. Alternatives 

6 and 7 would have a significantly lower potential for effects on fire management. These 

alternatives allow between 12 and 15 miles of new roads. Alternative 2 would have a lower 

effect on fire management, allowing 9 miles of new and closing 7 miles of existing roads. 

Alternative 1 would have the least potential for effects on fire management. This alternative 

allows for 3 miles of new roads, but closes 76 miles of existing roads. 

Effects on Fire Management from Timber Harvest 

Table VEG-4 lists the number of acres treated through timber harvest and various other activities 

that will affect fire management activities. Timber harvest can create additional concentrations 

of activity fuels and increase the risk of ignition potential from the increased activity in the area, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 407 

such as chainsaws, and motorized equipment. Increased numbers of openings resulting from 

timber harvest can reduce fire’s ability to transition from a surface fire to a crown fire and can 

reduce spread rates and spread distance. Timber harvest can reduce fuel loadings substantially in 

areas where natural fuel loadings are excessively high. However, timber harvest can also create 

additional activity fuels which if not treated properly under a slash disposal program can lead to 

higher fuel loadings over a given area and subsequently increase the threat of ignition and 

hazard. 

In Alternative 1 where timber harvest is not allowed, there would be less activity fuel build-up. 

However, natural fuels would continue to accumulate and some fires may increase in size and 

intensity to an extent that initial attack success would be low. In addition, as timber stands age 

and become more decadent, the threat of large stand replacing fires becomes more likely. These 

types of fires create more risk to firefighters, the public, and adjoining high-value resources 

(developed areas, wildland-urban interface areas, plantations, etc.). 

Alternative 5, allows for the harvest of the greatest amount of timber, with Alternative 4 

harvesting nearly as much. Age class diversity, as a result of timber harvest, would be increased 

over the landscape, reducing the potential of large-scale, stand-replacement wildfires. However, 

Alternatives 4 and 5 would constrain fire use activities within suitable timber areas (prescription 

5.2). Limiting prescribed fire (as described in Alternative 1, and to a lesser degree in 

Alternatives 4 and 5) would result in higher fire hazard and trends away from proper functioning 

condition for those areas except where they are treated by mechanical means. Alternatives 2, 3, 

6 and 7 describe a combination of timber harvest, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuel reduction 

placing their effects between effects described for Alternatives 1 and 5. Alternative 2, as shown 

in Table VEG-4, treats the greatest number of acres using prescribed fire, more than twice the 

acres of Alternatives 3, 6, and 7, over four times that of Alternative 5 and more than 6.5 times 

that of Alternative 4. 

Effects on Fire Management from Vegetation/Fuel Treatment 

For the purposes of the following discussion, prescribed fire, vegetative treatments, and 

mechanical treatments (Table FM-4 from Table 2-2) are included as vegetation/fuel treatment. 

Table FM-4 summarizes the acres of vegetation/fuel treatment (as defined in this discussion) by 

alternative. 

Alternative 1 has no vegetation/fuel treatment, but there would still be effects. Without any 

management-implemented vegetation/fuel treatment, the amount of biomass available to burn 

would increase potentially resulting in larger, more severe wildland fires. This situation would 

cause the most safety problems during active fires for firefighters and the public. 

Alternative 2 has the greatest amount of acres treated. Based on the design of these 

vegetation/fuel treatments to move landscapes toward PFC, the risk of large, severe wildland 

fires would be reduced in areas where these treatments occur. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 408 

Table FM-4. Acres of Vegetation/Fuel Treatment by Alternative 

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

Vegetation Treatment Types Vegetation Treatments 

(Total acres treated during 10-year planning period) 

Prescribed Fire- Aspen & Aspen/Conifer 

Mixed2 0 80,000 32,000 7,200 7,200 32,000 32,000

Aspen/Conifer Vegetative Treatment2 0 6,500 5,250 6,250 3,100 3,000 5,000

Aspen/Conifer Commercial Harvest (acres) 

from MPC 5.22 0 0 2,250 6,250 12,400 2,000 3,500

Prescribed Fire- Douglas-fir (non-lethal) 2 0 4,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000

Prescribed Fire- Sagebrush9 0 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 30,000

Mechanical Treatment- Oak2 0 16,000 8,000 0 8,000 8,000 20,000

Prescribed Fire- Oak2 0 40,000 20,000 8,000 20,000 20,000 8,000

Total Vegetation/Fuel Treatment Acres 0 186,500 89,500 37,700 60,700 87,000 100,500

Alternative 7 would treat more than half the acres of Alternative 2 and slightly more than 

Alternatives 3 and 6. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 would have an intermediate effect on reducing 

fuels and, therefore on reducing the risk for uncharacteristically large and severe wildand fires. 

Alternative 5 is treats about 32 percent of the acres treated in Alternative 2 and about 60 percent 

of the acres treated in Alternative 7. Many vegetation/fuel treatments would be focused in 

populated areas and the risk to firefighters and the public would be mitigated in areas where 

treatments have occurred. 

Alternatives 4 has fewer acres of vegetation/fuel treatments that all alternatives that treat 

vegetation. Where treatments do occur, the risks to firefighters and the public would be lessened 

and fires would be smaller and less intense than in those places where fuels were not treated. 

Fewer acres would be treated, however, so the benefits of fuel treatments would be less than 

Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, which all have significantly more acres treated. 

Effects on Fire Management from Recreation 

Undeveloped recreation can affect the fire management program both positively and negatively. 

As human use increases on the Forest, more people will be on hand to report fires that may 

normally go undetected for some time. With increased use, however, there will also be an 

increase in the incidence of human-caused wildfires. 

Alternatives 3 and 5 increase recreation access opportunities compared to the other alternatives. 

Under these alternatives, human use will increase and therefore both fire detection and humancaused wildfires will likely increase. The other alternatives are all very similar in terms of 

effects from recreation and would likely have fewer human-caused ignitions than Alternatives 3 

and 5. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 409 

Effects on Fire Management from Wildlife Management 

Alternatives with more acres emphasized for wildlife habitat may affect fuel treatment and 

prescribed fire activities. The objectives for wildlife habitat may conflict with fuels reduction or 

fire management objectives. More acres of wildlife management habitat emphasis may result in 

more resource conflicts; modification of treatment types or intensity; or mitigation of treatment 

effects. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 have the most acres designated as terrestrial habitat emphasis 

and would result in the most potential conflicts. Alternatives 4 and 5 have the fewest acres 

emphasizing terrestrial habitat and would have less potential conflicts. Alternatives 1 and 2 

would have moderate potential conflicts. 

Managing species at risk (SAR) poses significant constraints for fire management in terms of 

precluding treatments in an area that may negatively impact SAR habitat. However, most native 

wildlife species evolved with recurring fire and fire generally benefits wildlife habitat in the 

long-term. If certain vegetation treatments (prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and mechanical 

treatments) are prohibited over large areas due to TES concerns, greater risk of standreplacement unwanted wildland fire will result due to more continuous fuels and higher fuel 

loading. This may result in a complete loss of habitat in an area for some SAR. 

Prescribed fire, fuel treatment, suppression actions, and wildland fire use may need to be 

modified if they occur near habitat for species at risk or big game winter range. The effects of 

these modifications wouldn’t change across the alternatives. 

Effects on Fire Management from Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Species 

Management 

Alternatives with more acres emphasized for aquatic habitat/watershed emphasis may affect fuel 

treatment and prescribed fire activities. The objectives for aquatics/watersheds may conflict with 

fuels reduction or fire management objectives. More acres of aquatic/watershed habitat 

emphasis may result in more resource conflicts, modifications of treatment types or intensity, or 

mitigation of treatment effects. Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 have the most acres emphasizing 

aquatic/watershed and would result in the most potential conflicts. Alternatives 4 and 5 have the 

fewest acres emphasizing aquatics/watershed and would have less potential conflicts. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would have moderate potential conflicts. 

Prescribed fire, fuel treatment, suppression actions, and wildland fire use may need to be 

modified if they occur near habitat for species at risk or in riparian areas. The effects of these 

modifications wouldn’t change across the alternatives. 

Effects on Fire Management from Soil and Water Resources Management 

Under all alternatives, fire management may be affected by Forest Plan soil and water standards 

and guidelines, water bodies that are listed as impaired by Utah, and implementation of best 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 410 

management practices (BMPs). Standards and guidelines under the section, Watershed, 

Riparian, and Aquatic Health contain several items that may preclude the use of fire or affect the 

amount of work needed to implement a prescribed burn or wildland fire use project. For 

impaired water bodies, projects that may increase the parameter that is causing the impairment 

will not be allowed unless it can be ascertained that no increase in that parameter will result from 

the project. Depending upon the issues of concern, BMPs may limit the extent or the timing of 

fire management projects or may require actions that will mitigate adverse effects of the fire 

management project. 

Effects on Fire Management from Air Quality 

Air quality laws pertaining to smoke affect prescribed fire and wildland fire use activities. 

Prescribed fire and wildland fire use activities may need to be altered or mitigations employed to 

comply with air quality rules and regulations. Alternatives 2, 3, 5 and 6 have the most acres 

planned for prescribed fire and would be most affected by smoke management regulations. 

Alternative 1 would likely have the most acres burned in wildland fire use and may be also 

affected by smoke management regulations. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be least affected. 

Effects on Fire Management from Special Designations 

In RNAs, certain fire management activities are not allowed or may be constrained -- fuel 

treatments are not allowed, and wildland fire use and prescribed fire may be allowed only to 

meet specific resource considerations. Fire suppression tactics may need to be modified in 

RNAs. Acres of designated RNAs is highest in Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 and constraints on 

fire management activities would be applied to more acres compared to Alternatives 3 and 5 that 

have fewer acres designated as RNAs. 

In Special Interest Areas or Special Areas, fire management actions should help perpetuate the 

unique ecosystem. Fuel treatment or prescribed fire may be accomplished for hazardous fuel 

reduction if it is compatible with the unique ecosystem. There may be constraints on fire 

management actions within these special areas. Alternatives 1, 2 6, and 7 have the most acres 

designated for Special Interest Areas or Special Areas and would have the most areas of 

constraints. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 have the least acres designated and the fewest areas of 

constraints due to Special Interest Areas or Special Area designations. 

Effects on Fire Management from Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing concerns could significantly constrain fire management activities. Livestock 

grazing affects the amount of fuel available to burn in a wildland or prescribed fire. Intensive 

grazing in an area reduces the amount of fine fuels available to carry a surface fire possibly 

resulting in more successful fire suppression efforts. However, this becomes a disadvantage 

during prescribed burning when the fine fuels necessary to carry a lower-intensity fire are not 

available. 

Grazing may affect prescribed fire in several ways: grazing may need to be deferred one or more 

years prior to prescribed fire to build up grass fuels necessary to carry a fire; and grazing will be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 411 

deferred for two growing seasons following prescribed fire to allow proper regeneration of native 

grasses and forbs. 

Most of the grazing within allotments is in sagebrush and aspen fuel types. Therefore, the 

greatest impact to the fire management program from grazing will be in these fuel types. Effects 

from grazing will be the least in Alternative 1 since no fire management activities except 

wildland fire use are allowed. Effects from grazing would be related to the total amount of 

prescribed fire planned, with more effect when more acres are planned for burning. 

Coordination between planned prescribed burns and annual livestock grazing operations will 

need to be intensive. The most difficult to implement is Alternative 2 because it includes the 

highest acreage (12,000 acres annual average) of prescribed fire in these vegetation types. 

Alternative 7 includes this need for intensive coordination and management on 6,200 acres 

having a higher probability of success because of less total acres. The relative probability of 

success is directly related to total acres. Alternatives 3 and 6 have 5200 acres, and Alternatives 4 

and 5 have 1720 acres. 

Effects on Fire Management from Noxious Weed/Invasive Annual Plant 

Establishment 

Noxious weed and invasive plant concerns can significantly affect fire management activities. In 

areas infested with noxious weeds or invasive annual grasses (cheatgrass or medusa head), 

wildland fire is often undesirable. The presence of noxious or invasive plants in an area may 

preclude prescribed fire or wildland fire use (or mechanical treatment in some cases) in that area 

if increased invasion of unwanted species is likely. Fires typically occur more frequently and 

burn larger in areas infested with invasive annual grass than in native vegetation. Currently, 

there are few feasible methods of controlling noxious weeds or invasive annual plants over large 

areas. 

Noxious weed and invasive plant control do not vary by alternative; therefore the effects on fire 

management are similar for all alternatives. 

Effects on Fire Management from Oil and Gas Management 

Wildland fire use is not authorized in areas where oil and gas facilities are located. An 

appropriate management response will protect these areas is they are threatened. Prescribed is 

allowed only if compatible with oil and gas production. Alternative 5 has the greatest probability 

of these facilities being threatened because it has the greatest area available for leasing and 

consequently the greatest potential for facilities. Alternative 1 has the smallest probability. 

Effects on Fire Management from Scenery Management 

Fire management activities may be constrained by scenic resource concerns, especially in 

sensitive areas such as along primary and secondary travelways and use areas and along the 

Wasatch front. Scenic resource concerns may result in more costly management actions; for 

example, feathering edges or following natural features for fuel breaks is more expensive than a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 412 

linear fuel break, and smaller prescribed burn projects diminish the economies of scale inherent 

in larger projects. Scenic resource concerns affect all alternatives similarly. 

Effects on Fire Management from Wilderness Management 

Wilderness (prescription 1.1-1.4), recommended wilderness (prescription 1.5) is conducive to 

managing natural fuels using wildland fire use. Prescribed fire may be used in wilderness only 

to meet specified wilderness objectives; by contrast, prescribed fire may be used in 

recommended wilderness as long as it does not result in long-term changes to the wilderness 

character. To employ wildland fire use, the areas must be large enough for naturally occurring 

fires to fulfill their role in the ecosystem and reduce the risk of fire burning in areas where 

wildland fire may not be desirable (private property, developed recreation sites, sensitive 

watersheds). In wilderness and recommended wilderness, mechanical treatments and timber 

harvest are not allowed which may increase risk of high-intensity unwanted wildland fires – 

especially in the wildland-urban interface. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 have the most acres for Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness, 

followed by Alternatives 6, 7, 3, 4 and 5. Alternatives 1 and 2 would employ more wildland fire 

use, but fires can be expected to be larger under these alternatives. Alternatives 4 and 5 would 

likely have more prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, which would reduce potential for 

large, severe wildland fires. Alternatives 6, 7 and 3 would have effects between Alternatives 1 

and 5. 

Effects on Fire Management from Roadless Area Management 

In Alternatives 1, 2 and 6 that apply the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, prescribed fire and 

wildland fire use will be the favored treatment for ecosystem benefit and hazardous fuels 

treatment over mechanical treatment in inventoried roadless areas. Fire suppression will likely 

not be affected among the alternatives due to the relationship of human-caused ignitions and 

access. For example, as access to the Forest increases, the number of human-caused fire starts 

increases, but reporting increases and the ability for fire suppression resources to access an area 

increases. Conversely, as access to the Forest is limited, the number of human-caused starts 

decreases, but the ability for fire suppression resources to access an area also decreases. 

Cumulative Effects 

Table VEG-4 shows that Alternative 1 allows no treatment of vegetation (prescribed fire, timber 

or other mechanical methods), which will result in the greatest potential for fuels build up. 

Alternative 2 allows the greatest amount of all vegetation treatments. Alternative 4, while 

allowing the greatest amount of timber harvest, treats the least total acres because relatively few 

acres are treated through prescribed fire. As noted in Table VEG-6, the VDDT model identified 

Alternative 1 as having the potential to burn the most acres of aspen, and conifer through failed 

fire suppression. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the potential to have the fewest acres burned 

through failed fire suppression. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 all had the potential to burn about one 

third the acres of Alternative 1 through failed fire suppression, and half again as many acres as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 413 

Alternatives 4 and 5. The cumulative effects discussion for fire management is divided into the 

four fire management activities (fuel treatments, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and fire 

suppression) and a discussion on development in the wildland-urban interface. 

Fuel Treatments 

The potential for wildland fire is measured in terms of fire hazard and resistance to control. 

Wildland fire hazard can be defined by age, vegetation structure, vegetation density, vegetation 

amount and the proximity of this vegetation to high value areas. The relative degree of fire 

hazard is also related to the ability to use treatments that manipulate fuel-loading amounts 

resulting in desired fire behavior and effects. Prescribed fire, wildland fire use, timber harvest 

and mechanical treatments are all ways to manage fuel reductions. For alternative comparisons, 

fuel hazard may be increased in areas where fuel reduction actions (prescribed fire, mechanical 

treatment, timber harvest, wildland fire use) are constrained. Examples of management direction 

that constrains fire hazard reduction include: wilderness, recommended wilderness, and 

undeveloped area prescriptions precluding mechanical treatment; timber emphasis areas 

precluding prescribed fire; and areas precluding wildland fire use. These vary in both total 

acreages and location of those acres by alternative. It is assumed that reducing fire hazard will 

eventually lead to a reduced large wildfire occurrence and related expenditures. 

Alternative 1 allows no hazardous fuels reduction treatments except wildland fire use. This 

alternative is questionable in its ability to achieve desired results from large wildland fires. In 

terms of safety and property protection, it is generally safer and less costly (for firefighters and 

the general public) to suppress fires in the initial stages rather than attempting suppression on 

large, high-intensity wildfires that are imminently threatening public safety and property. 

Alternative 1 would result in some natural fuels reduction if wildland fires were allowed to grow 

large. Without treatments placed strategically on the landscape, however, hazardous fuels 

reduction in critical areas (i.e., urban wildland interface) will be minimal resulting in increased 

risk of large, high severity wildland fires. 

Among the other action alternatives (2 through 7), strategically situated mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments will allow reductions in the most hazardous fuel accumulations. 

Wildland fire use is allowed under all alternatives (although limited in some alternatives), but it 

will not be the best tool for reducing hazardous fuel accumulations due to the unpredictable 

nature of lightning-caused ignitions. 

Prescribed Fire 

The potential for prescribed fire for ecosystem restoration and maintenance is dependent upon 

management area prescriptions and desired future conditions, the type of vegetation, and 

priorities for funding. The amount to be treated annually is difficult to predict due to a myriad of 

factors that must be considered. The WCNF’s inexperience in undertaking large-scale, stand 

replacement prescribed fires in the forested cover types, unreliable prescriptive windows during 

the late summer/early fall, and the availability of adequate resources to complete these projects 

may influence the activities completed on an annual basis over the several years. In all 

alternatives (except Alternative 1, but emphasized in Alternative 2), the intent is to build 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 414 

experience in prescribed burning over the planning period so that as skills are gained, learning 

can be used to increase the acreage treated in later years. 

Alternatives that include substantial amounts of prescribed fire will result in trends leading 

toward properly functioning conditions and reduced hazardous fuel conditions. No prescribed 

fire is allowed in Alternative 1. Although Alternative 1 does not include prescribed fire, the use 

of fire on the landscape may result in trends toward properly functioning conditions in that 

alternative. The most active and liberal prescribed fire program is in Alternative 2, followed by 

Alternatives 3, 6 and 7. Alternative 2, and Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 to a lesser degree, would most 

quickly achieve trends toward proper functioning condition and reduced risks of unwanted 

wildland fires. Alternatives 4 and 5 limit prescribed fire in timber emphasis areas (prescription 

5.2). 

Wildland Fire Use 

Prediction of acres of wildland fire use by alternative is not possible. Seasonal weather and 

climatic factors, combined with budgetary and organizational constraints, would make any 

comparison generic and invalid. Across all alternatives, wildland fire use is also not allowed in 

the following management prescriptions: 4.5 (developed recreation areas); and 8.1 (oil and gas 

or other mineral production sites). 

Other than the above-mentioned areas, wildland fire use will be considered across the rest of 

WCNF. Site specific plans for wildland fire use events are developed as events take place. Once 

wildland fire use is approved in the Fire Management Plan for an area, that does not mean that 

every natural ignition will managed in that way. For each ignition, a decision will be made 

whether to suppress or manage as wildland fire use. It is unlikely that ignitions that have 

potential to become large, high severity fires that threaten public safety or private property will 

be managed as wildland fire use. 

A general assumption is that wildland fire use will be greatest in Alternative 1 (since it is a 

natural process in vegetation). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 will equally allow wildland fire use 

on most areas of the WCNF. Alternative 5 also limits wildland fire use in management 

prescription 5.2 (timber emphasis). As stated previously, it is impossible to assign acres of 

wildland fire use across alternatives. 

Wildland fire use implementation will result in conditions moving toward PFC and reduced 

hazardous fuels accumulations. The negative effects may include: increased erosion potential 

following fire, displaced recreation, displaced grazing, noxious weed invasion, and smoke. 

Fire Suppression 

The effects of fire suppression are generally long-term. The problems associated with years of 

fire suppression policies went unperceived for many years. Forest managers and researchers 

now have realized that suppressing fires has resulted in many undesirable vegetation changes 

that eventually lead to even more uncontrollable wildfires or undesirable changes in vegetation 

patterns in the future. Aggressive fire suppression is essential where life, safety and valuable 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 415 

resources are at risk, however, there are trade-offs in terms of future fire suppression efforts and 

ecosystem health. 

Under all alternatives, fire starts that are not managed as wildland fire use will be managed using 

the appropriate management response based on safety and values at risk. All non-lightning 

caused fires will be managed as unwanted wildland fires, even in areas identified for wildland 

fire use. Alternative 1 may result in less aggressive fire suppression actions in situations where a 

wildland fire poses little risk to life or property. Alternatives 2 through 7 are similar in terms of 

fire suppression. 

Special Problems Associated with Development in the Wildland-Urban Interface 

Increased development near the Forest boundary, often referred to as the wildland interface, 

affects the fire management program in several ways. The need for fire suppression resources 

increases due to the high values at risk (i.e., densely populated subdivisions) from a fire burning 

out of the Forest onto private lands. The need for fuels management (primarily mechanical 

treatment) along the Forest boundary increases both to reduce the risk of a fire leaving the 

Forest, and to reduce the risk of a fire on private property entering the Forest. Using prescribed 

fire or wildland fire use to reduce fuels may be severely constrained near the interface due to the 

relatively high risk of an escape onto private property and high values at risk. Wildland fire use 

opportunities will be limited near the populated areas along the Forest boundary. 

Increased urbanization along the Forest boundary presents many challenges for fire management. 

However, increased urbanization does not vary among the presented alternatives and the effects 

on fire management will likely be similar for all alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 416 

Heritage Resources 

Introduction 

Heritage resources are both the physical remains of, and knowledge about, past human activity 

on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. They include archaeological sites, artifact and historic 

document collections, rock art, Forest administrative buildings, traditional plant gathering and 

ceremonial places, and human-altered landscapes (including tie hacking and mining districts). 

Heritage resources are managed within the context of overall Forest management for the longterm benefit of all Americans. This benefit can be realized through such things as scientific 

study of past human activities and past environments, traditional use by American Indians, and 

development of interpretive sites where people can see, and appreciate, the diversity of past 

Forest use. Most fundamentally, public benefit comes through maintenance of the sites 

themselves. Absent any land management conflicts, preserving important sites in place, in good 

condition, is the overall goal of heritage resource management. This can be achieved by 

protecting them from adverse management activities (or mitigating adverse effects, to the 

greatest public benefit), vandalism, weathering, alteration of their settings, and other processes 

that cause them to deteriorate to the point of losing their value. In this way, they stand as a 

legacy for the future. 

People have been using the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and adjacent valley areas for over 

8,000 years. The story of this use is important for many reasons. American Indian sites are 

valued for both their ability to teach us about how these past peoples lived, and to help Indian 

peoples today connect with their ancestors and to maintain cultural and religious traditions. 

Historic sites (which date to about the last 150 years) constitute the most visible connection to 

past peoples on the Forest, and are valued both for their ability to enrich local family and 

community history, and for their contribution to our understanding of environmental change 

since European-American settlement. For example, past activities, such as water diversion, 

exclusion of fire, logging, and over-grazing around the turn of the century, have caused changes 

to Forest biotic communities that continue today. Knowing when and how these changes 

occurred helps to create more effective management actions today. 

Heritage resources may be affected by activities that adversely affect (either directly or 

indirectly) the character-defining features of significant (National Register Eligible) sites. 

(These features can include its soil matrix (containing artifacts and features such as hearths, trash 

deposits, etc.), standing structures, surface artifact scatters, etc. In general, this means the greater 

the extent of ground disturbing management activities, the greater the potential for adverse 

effects. However, other activities on the Forest, such as illegal off-road vehicle use, can 

adversely affect sites as well.) The potential for ground disturbing activities varies some by 

alternative and will be addressed in this analysis. 

Management activities may also be conducted which benefit the long-term preservation and 

appropriate use of heritage sites. (These activites include locating, documenting, and evaluating 

the importance of sites (most commonly through determination of their eligibility for the 

National Register of Historic Places). We cannot effectively manage sites unless we know 

where, and what, they are. They also include actions such as stabilizing log structures, moving 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 417 

trails or roads that run across sites, and appropriately using sites. These uses include enhancing 

visitor’s understandings of the past (through research or interpretation), saving sites as protected 

features for the future, or ensuring that American Indians can continue traditional uses of sites.) 

This section addresses the potential of alternatives to benefit our use and understanding of 

heritage resources. 

Laws, Policy and Direction 

• The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) is the primary law that guides 

management activities (36 CFR 800). It requires Agencies to take into account the affect of 

other management activities on heritage resources (Section 106). It also requires 

development of long-term management plans that locate and protect heritage sites, and then 

integrate sites and information into overall agency programs and goals (Section 110). The 

implementing regulations for Section 106 were amended in 1999 (and revised in 2000), and 

require higher levels of consultation with Tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, and 

communities. 

• The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 protects the rights of American Indians 

to access and use religious sites, and directs federal agencies to consult with Tribes on ways 

to ensure this use. 

• The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 imposes civil penalties for unauthorized 

excavation, removal, damage, or defacement of archaeological resources (36 CFR 296). 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, passed in 1990, requires an 

inventory of existing artifact collections, return of human remains, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony to appropriate Tribes. It also calls for consultation with tribes 

to develop procedures for use in the event that human remains are discovered either by 

intentional excavation or inadvertent discovery. 

Affected Environment 

The affected environment includes both known sites, and those that will be located in the 

decades to come as more of the Forest is surveyed. By the end of September 2000, less than 4% 

of the Forest (44,058 acres) had been surveyed for archaeological and historical sites and 318 

sites documented. Most of these surveys (and site documentations) have been done in order to 

evaluate the affect of other projects (such as timber or recreation) on heritage resources. In 

addition, some areas of the Forest have higher site densities (based on their history as mining, tie 

hacking, or logging districts; topography, vegetation, and/or access to water) and we can make 

some predictions about the effects of alternatives on these areas and the sites they contain. 

Thirty-eight percent (122) of the previously recorded sites date to the era of American Indian 

settlement that pre-dates European settlement (c. 8,000 B.C. to the mid-1800’s). Most of these 

sites are relatively short-term campsites and/or places where people processed plants, butchered 

animals, created rock art, or carried out other activities as part of their cycle of life. These sites 

probably represent upland activities by people who were otherwise based in nearby valleys. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 418 

Several of these sites are outstanding for their ability to teach us about the specific role that 

upland areas played in people’s lives. We know that many more American Indian sites exist on 

the Forest, and will continue to locate and document them. One type of site that we have yet to 

identify is a traditional cultural property, but we know that they probably exist on the Forest. To 

date, none have been brought to our attention by local tribes. Their identification and long-term 

protection depends primarily on consultation with Goshute, Northwestern Shoshone, and Ute 

traditional practitioners. 

Sixty-two percent of the sites documented on the Forest (196 sites) date from the historic 

European-American settlement era (after the 1840’s), and include such sites as mines, tie 

hacker’s camps and dams, logging camps, water control features, livestock grazer’s camps, and 

Forest management facilities. The North Slope of the Uinta Mountains was the scene of 

intensive railroad tie cutting (or, hacking) and logging from 1869 through the 1940’s. Only a 

small percentage of the cabins, dams, roads, fences and other features created by this effort have 

been documented (46 sites). The Kamas District also experienced intensive logging in the late 

1800’s, when numerous mine props, construction lumber, and railroad ties were cut. Only a few 

of the logging sites from this era have been documented. The Big and Little Cottonwood 

Canyon area was part of intensive mining from 1870 through the turn of the century, but many of 

the mines in this area are on patented (privately owned) mining claims. Only 19 mines and 

quarries have been documented across the Forest generally. 

Other important historic sites on the Wasatch-Cache include two small pieces of the DonnerReed/Mormon Pioneer Trail, the High Lakes Dams above Kamas, various CCC-constructed 

bridges and campgrounds, and the Temple Quarry area at the mouth of Little Cottonwood 

Canyon. All of these are significant for their role in the development of local communities. 

Both Tony Grove Guard Station (in Logan Canyon) and the Howe Flume Historic District (built 

by tie hackers and loggers on the North Slope) are on the National Register of Historic Places, as 

well as the Wasatch Mountain Club, which exists under a special use permit at Brighton. Many 

more European-American sites will be documented in the decades to come. For example, most 

of the known mining, logging, and tie hacking districts are only partly documented. 

Environmental Consequences 

Management Activities that Affect the Condition of Heritage Resources 

Management actions that can adversely affect heritage sites include anything that might 

significantly change the important features of a heritage site, and include any kinds of ground 

disturbing activities, historic building maintenance, and so on. Under all alternatives, there is a 

potential for management actions to lead to adverse effects to heritage sites. This would be 

identified on a project-by-project basis, as part of the process of meeting the requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act, 

and would be done under all alternatives, as well. When effects are analyzed as part of project 

planning, there is also the opportunity to redesign the project to avoid those sites or those adverse 

effects, or if necessary, mitigate them. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 419 

Non-project specific effects (such as illegal use of off-road vehicles, or wildfire) have the 

greatest potential to adversely affect heritage resources in the long run because they are not as 

easy to anticipate and/or mitigate. There is also the potential for management decisions to 

positively affect heritage sites, through such things as interpretation, reduced access to sensitive 

sites, and general watershed health. 

Resource Protection Measures 

Applicable laws, policy, and direction provide protection for heritage resources. These require 

evaluating the effects of projects on heritage resources in partnership with the State Historic 

Preservation Office and Tribes; resolving any adverse effects; actively locating, documenting, 

and protecting sites; and producing long-term management plans that will maintain significant 

sites into the future. 

The specific ways in which the laws and regulations can be carried out include a broad range of 

tools, which cover a wide range of site types and their differing preservation needs, and a wide 

range of management prescriptions. Traditionally, compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act has been the main way that heritage goals have been accomplished. 

Other tools for locating and then protecting sites include conducting education programs that 

encourage site protection by Forest visitors (such as site stewardship programs), and programs 

that involve Forest visitors directly in research (such as Passport in Time). Sites can also be 

protected through signs that describe proper site visitation etiquette, moving or closing roads or 

trails that bring too many visitors near sites, stabilizing site features (such as cabins), hardening 

site surfaces, active law enforcement, site monitoring (to detect sources of damage to sites), etc. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects to heritage resources include actions that would immediately affect the condition 

of the site. These actions include outright destruction during a ground-disturbing activity, severe 

soil erosion, wildfire (for sites that have features susceptible to fire, such as a cabin), transfer of a 

site out of federal management (as during a land exchange), and so on. Many of these kinds of 

effects can be avoided through project designs that avoid impacts to the sites themselves. For 

example, a timber sale can be designed to avoid cutting on or near an archaeological site, or 

prescribed fire can reduce fuel loading around a site and thus reduce the threat of wildfire. If 

they cannot be avoided, these direct effects can potentially be mitigated by actions that save as 

much information as possible about a site (through documentation or excavation), and then make 

that information available to Forest visitors (through publication of reports, interpretive signs, 

etc.). Direct effects to some types of heritage sites (such as sacred sites) are very difficult to 

adequately mitigate, and some Forest users would consider their loss irretrievable. 

 

Indirect effects to heritage resources include a variety of activities that may result from other 

actions, but later in time. Many of these are the result of easier access to sites (either by road or 

trail), and/or higher concentrations of recreational activities in a particular area containing sites. 

A common indirect effect on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is destruction of site surfaces 

by off-road vehicles and livestock (and/or wildlife) concentrations. This leads to soil erosion, 

which includes the soils that also make up archaeological sites, and destruction of site features 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 420 

(such as building foundations). Soil erosion can also occur after a wildfire, when soils are 

vulnerable to runoff erosion. 

Examples of other indirect effects include burning historic buildings for firewood, collecting 

weathered wood, and collecting surface artifacts from both ancient American Indian and historic 

sites. Some of these indirect effects have resulted from management decisions made before the 

1970’s (when the Forest began implementing the National Historic Preservation Act), when 

some roads, trails, and livestock features were placed near important archaeological sites. Others 

are the result of general increases in recreational use on the Forest, or specific recreational 

activities (such as climbing in areas that also contain archaeological features). 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Watershed/Soils Management 

Generally speaking, a stable watershed is necessary to the long-term maintenance of 

archaeological sites, since many of these consist of a soil matrix containing accumulated layers 

of artifacts and features. Specific projects intended to improve watershed conditions through 

ground disturbing means (such as planting seeds with heavy equipment or chaining juniper and 

pinyon) can adversely affect any archaeological sites by damaging the upper layers of the sites 

(see also the Vegetation Management section below). Past projects have shown that these 

adverse effects can be avoided through project design (such as seeding areas on or near sites by 

hand or through aerial distribution). 

The best way to maintain or improve soil stability on archaeological sites is through management 

that maintains or improves the amount of vegetation on those sites (such as following grazing 

Standards and Guidelines). These benefiting actions would occur less under Alternative 1, and 

would be most active under Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7. Sites within the areas of the Forest with 

more erosive soils are already suffering from erosion, so any management actions that might 

help stabilize them (without adversely affecting them) are a positive move toward maintaining 

those sites into the future. 

Minerals management that seeks to remove or bury tailings and other mining features that are 

adversely affecting water quality can adversely affect historic mining sites, since the tailings 

themselves can be a character-defining feature of the sites. In these cases, adverse effects can be 

mitigated, but contribute to a general eroding of the historic mining landscape. On the WasatchCache National Forest, tailings piles, concrete foundations, and other features that can adversely 

affect water quality are also the most visible remains of the mining history that produced them. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Vegetation Management 

As with watersheds, a healthy vegetative cover is advantageous to archaeological sites by 

providing soil stability. Tree roots and trunks can adversely affect structures, but these threats 

can often be eliminated through removal of a particular tree, if there are no other vegetative 

issues or concerns. Specific vegetative treatment projects, whether they employ burning, cutting, 

or seeding, are all analyzed for their effects to heritage resources, and any potential adverse 

effects can generally be avoided through project design, or if necessary, mitigated. Healthy and 

diverse vegetation also stands to provide American Indian traditional practitioners with the range 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 421 

of plants that they need. Alternative 2 has the most vegetation management activities and 

Alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 7 have about half the vegetation management activities as Alternative 2. 

Alternative 5 has the least amount of vegetation management activities besides Alternative 1, 

which has none. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Wildlife and Fish Management 

On-the-ground features (such as guzzlers) have the potential to directly or indirectly affect 

heritage sites, but in most cases, direct impacts can be avoided by placing the features away from 

sites. Other direct effects can come from vegetation treatment projects (see the Vegetation 

Management section below). Indirect effects include concentrated herbivore (mainly elk) 

trampling, which can damage the surface and upper soil layers of sites. Ground squirrel and 

badger burrowing can also extensively churn subsurface archaeological deposits, but these 

effects are very difficult to manage. 

 

Many fish management activities take place within active floodplains, which rarely contain 

significant archaeological sites because of constant sediment movement. One exception is 

historic bridges, but fish management projects generally avoid these features. Generally, most 

wildlife and fish projects can be designed to avoid heritage resources, or adverse effects 

mitigated. This would be done for any new projects under all alternatives. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Recreation Management 

Developed recreation has the potential to adversely affect heritage sites through construction of 

campgrounds, parking areas, and other features. However, these effects can generally be 

avoided through project design, site interpretation etc. Indirect effects include trampling of sites 

outside developed recreation sites, but many of these can also be dealt with as part of overall 

project planning, by anticipating potential indirect effects. All alternatives continue existing 

developed recreation sites, and allow opportunities to resolve any indirect effects. All 

alternatives except Alternative 1 allow for some new developed recreation sites, and the affect of 

any new sites on heritage resources would be analyzed, avoided, or mitigated if necessary. 

Undeveloped recreation also has the potential to directly impact heritage sites through 

construction of trails, hardening of undeveloped camping sites, and other ground disturbing 

activities. Some direct effects also occur from the use of old roads and trails that happen to run 

over archaeological sites. Many of these direct effects can be anticipated, and managed through 

road and trail placement (or mitigated, if necessary). However, undeveloped recreation has more 

of a potential to create indirect effects to heritage sites. These include such things as modern 

campers and hunters modifying historic tie camper’s cabins to meet their own camping needs, 

vandalism of rock art, undeveloped camping on archaeological sites, and illegal artifact 

collection. Illegal off-road vehicle use tends to occur in areas that are open and relatively level; 

these same areas contain higher concentrations of archaeological sites. As a result, this activity 

has the potential to adversely affect large numbers of sites. Winter recreation has less potential 

to adversely affect sites, so varying levels of snowmobile use proposed in the different 

alternatives do not stand to significantly affect heritage sites. The affects of ski area 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 422 

management on heritage sites is analyzed each time a new operating permit is issued, and this 

would continue under all alternatives. 

Many indirect effects can be resolved through management actions that monitor sites, restrict 

certain kinds of activities in caves (such as digging fire pits), and motorized trail designs that 

encourage users not to stray from them illegally. This could continue under all alternatives, but 

those alternatives that involve greater amounts of recreation in general, and summer motorized 

recreation in particular, create more opportunities for both direct and indirect adverse effects to 

heritage sites. Alternative 4 has the highest potential to affect heritage sites while Alternatives 1 

and 2 have the lowest potential. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Roads and Trails Management 

 

There are both direct and indirect effects to heritage resources from the current system of roads 

and trails. Direct effects include compaction and/or churning of archaeological deposits from old 

roads and trails that were placed over sites long before the National Historic Preservation Act 

required that these effects be identified and avoided or mitigated. There are a number of sites on 

the Forest that have these kinds of native soil roads or trails on top of them. Indirect effects 

include the ease of access that roads and trails provide to archaeological sites. As with many 

forms of vandalism, there is a strong correlation between road and trail access and illegal artifact 

collection. 

Another indirect effect to sites comes from illegal use of off-road vehicles away from designated 

roads and trails. This creates new disturbances on archaeological sites by damaging their 

surfaces and upper layers. This can also lead to destruction of site features (such as hearths and 

trash scatters). These illegal roads and trails are far more difficult to manage than the designated 

road and trail systems. We cannot predict, nor as easily control, all of the places along the 

system where people might choose to leave the designated travelways and impact archaeological 

sites. This is already occurring on the North Slope and Stansbury Mountains, where there are 

sites susceptible to this kind of illegal off-road vehicle use. Alternative 5 could potentially 

increase the number of trails (including motorized summer trails). 

New road construction creates potential direct effects from new ground disturbance through 

archaeological sites. It can also create the kinds of indirect effects that the existing road system 

creates. Both kinds of effects from any new roads and trails will be analyzed under all 

alternatives that allow for these activities, and adverse effects avoided through final placement of 

the roads or trails, or if necessary, mitigated. Indirect effects are more difficult to manage, but 

can be reduced through actions such as signage, putting roads/trails in areas with lower numbers 

of sites that can be accessed directly from the new features, designing roads/trails in such a way 

that leaving them illegally is more difficult, etc. All alternatives except 1 allow for new road 

construction, but Alternatives 3, 4 and particularly 5 could increase road construction levels, and 

thereby increase the need for management of indirect effects. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Wilderness Management 

Many of the issues related to recreation in general apply to Wildernesses on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Reduced road access means that outright vandalism to sites might be less in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 423 

Wildernesses, but because of fewer other management activities within Wilderness, our 

knowledge about sites in these areas is limited. Visitor use tends to be concentrated in a few 

areas (along trails and in clearings), and any sites in these areas could be adversely affected by 

trampling and illegal artifact collection. Wilderness management encourages minimization of 

human features, and does not encourage (or in some cases allow) maintenance of historic 

features. There are few known archaeological sites in the areas proposed for Wilderness. 

Designation of additional Wilderness, under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 has the potential to 

restrict maintenance activities on both known and undocumented sites, to the point of potentially 

eliminating those sites as interpretive features. This could be mitigated through special 

language in the legislation that designates potential Wilderness, which acknowledges historic 

sites as an appropriate part of that Wilderness, or through mitigation of site loss generally 

through site documentation and other research. This could be particularly beneficial in the 

Lakes, Stansbury, and High Uintas Inventoried Roadless Areas. Wilderness designations are 

therefore sometimes a two-edged sword for archaeological and historic sites. They can mean 

more isolation, and therefore protection, for some sites, but they also mean reduced management 

options for important sites that would otherwise be maintained as part of the heritage legacy to 

the future. 

 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Special Areas Management 

Several Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest has outstanding heritage 

values, and these will be protected from adverse direct and indirect effects through design of any 

trails, parking areas, or other features that might be constructed for use by visitors. Some 

significant heritage sites exist in the Red Butte Research Natural Area, and because of the high 

levels of recreation that occur in that area, these sites are experiencing some indirect impacts 

which can be addressed as part of long-term management of this area. These actions can occur 

under all Alternatives. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Roadless Area Management 

Since heritage sites can be directly affected by road construction, and indirectly affected by the 

access to them that roads provide, Roadless areas can potentially benefit the overall condition of 

heritage sites. On the other hand, Roadless protection also means that maintenance, monitoring, 

and/or other management actions are more expensive to carry out. In addition, trails 

(particularly motorized trails) lead to the same direct and indirect effects to sites as roads, and 

these could continue to exist in Roadless areas. The overall level of Forest management activity 

would be reduced in Roadless areas, and under the current budget structure (wherein heritage 

surveys are done mainly to provides NEPA input to other projects), this would mean that very 

few new archaeological sites would be found in these areas. Very little heritage site inventory 

work has been done in any of the proposed Roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache. 

Roadless management is another arena in which there are both potential positive and negative 

affects to sites. The positive affect is that the condition of some sites might remain the same 

with Roadless protection; the negative affect is that few sites would probably continue to be 

found in these areas, adverse impacts associated with trails could continue, and management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 424 

actions (such as site stabilization) which might otherwise benefit the sites would be expensive to 

carry out. This would occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 6 and 7. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Timber Management 

Timber harvesting activities can adversely affect heritage resources through road construction or 

heavy machinery movement, skidding, tree felling, new or renewed road access into an area 

(even if only temporary), burning, and/or alteration of the current setting of a site through tree 

removal. However, under all alternatives most of these adverse effects can be avoided through 

project design, or if necessary, mitigated. There is still a chance that these adverse effects cannot 

be avoided, so in general more logging means a potentially greater chance for the loss of heritage 

sites. As such, Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 provide less of a chance for adverse effects to heritage 

sites and landscapes than alternatives 3, 4, and 5 through lower levels of timber harvest. 

 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing can produce adverse effects to heritage sites through both direct and indirect 

means. Construction of troughs, access roads, fences, pipelines, and corrals can directly impact 

sites, as can weed and other range treatments that disturb the ground. Any new livestock 

features are inventoried for sites, and the projects re-designed if significant sites are present. 

Livestock behaviors, such as trailing, congregating, and rubbing against structures can lead to the 

indirect effects of erosion, altering the distribution of surface artifacts, or outright destruction of 

features. Some of the Forest’s sites that have been most heavily impacted by illegal surface 

collection occur in areas that are routinely stirred up by livestock (which exposes the artifacts). 

The same effects can be made by wild herbivores, but these animals tend to concentrate in the 

same areas as domestic animals (near water sources). Some important Forest sites are near old 

livestock features (such as troughs built before the 1970’s), and are experiencing these kinds of 

impacts from trampling, etc. 

All alternatives allow for livestock grazing, but differ in the degree to which management actions 

might be taken to remedy any existing livestock impacts to sites. Alternative 1 might see fewer 

new structures, which would not benefit these sites. Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 7 would provide 

some opportunities to resolve resource damage with more livestock structures, while Alternative 

3 would more aggressively use structures to restore riparian areas (which is where many of these 

sites occur). Overall livestock grazing impacts could be greatest under Alternative 5, which 

would probably lead to increasing indirect effects to heritage sites, and increase the chances of 

direct effects (which could be mitigated, if necessary). All in all, Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 have 

the lowest potential adverse affects by livestock grazing on heritage sites. 

 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Minerals and Oil and Gas Management 

Mining has the potential to adversely affect archaeological sites, in part due to the fact that many 

mining claims have the remains of previous mining activities on them. They can also affect sites 

through construction of roads, machinery housings and other features, and through final site 

clean up and rehabilitation measures. The use of valid claims would continue under all 

alternatives, and the affects of any new operating plans would be analyzed and adverse effects, if 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 425 

any, mitigated. New claims would also be analyzed, although not many of these are anticipated 

in the next 10 years because of the depressed metals market. 

Oil and gas management can also produce adverse effects to heritage resources through road and 

pad construction, etc., but adverse effects from these kinds of activities can be avoided through 

project design. Currently, most energy development occurs on the North Slope of the Uinta 

Mountains in areas that contain an extensive historic logging and tie hacking landscape. Oil and 

gas exploration has provided more access to specific areas. The Historic Preservation Act will 

be applied to all lands and are included in the standard lease stipulations. If objects of historical 

or cultural value are encountered during construction, all work affecting the resource will stop 

and land management agency will be contacted. Surface-disturbing operations that would 

destroy or harm these resources are prohibited. These stipulations apply to all alternatives. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Fire Management 

Sites that are susceptible to fire include sites with flammable elements (such as cabins) and/or 

rock features that are subject to rock spalling (such as rock art). The effects of both prescribed 

and wildland fire on susceptible sites within proposed burn areas will be analyzed as part of fire 

planning. Any adverse effects from prescribed fire can be avoided through the design of those 

projects; in wildland fire use situations heritage sites could almost always be protected, but some 

more risk is present than during prescribed fires. Susceptible sites on the Forest are always in 

danger of being lost during wildfires, particularly in areas where there is heavy fuel loading. In 

these cases, there is a reduced chance of being able to protect the sites during fire suppression. 

As a result, active fire management can benefit many heritage sites in the long run, by reducing 

the chances of losing sites during wildfires by reducing the chance of wildfire itself. All 

Alternatives except 4 allow the use of wildland fire, and all Alternatives include fire as an 

appropriate tool for vegetation management. 

 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Lands Management 

Transfer of National Register Eligible heritage resources from federal management is an adverse 

effect, since those sites would loose their protection under federal law. No state laws in Utah 

offer protection to sites on private land except the Burial Desecration Law, which only applies to 

human remains. Covenants protecting transferred sites have been attempted on some Federal 

land exchanges, with very mixed results. Under all alternatives, each proposed land exchange 

will be evaluated for its potential to affect sites, and if necessary, adverse effects to sites 

mitigated before they leave Federal management. Transfer of sites into Federal management is 

potentially a positive effect, since those sites would then receive protection under federal law. 

Trespass onto Forest Service system lands can adversely affect heritage sites, if sites are present 

in the trespass areas, and could constitute an Archaeological Resources Protection Act violation. 

Any adverse impacts would be mitigated as part of resolution of the trespass case. 

Effects on Heritage Resources from Facilities Management 

Tony Grove Guard Station is already on the National Register of Historic Places. Twenty other 

Guard Station complexes on the Forest are potentially eligible for the National Register. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 426 

Facilities management that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 

would have a very positive effect on these buildings, and maintain them long into the future. 

However, facilities management that does not follow the standards, and that makes decisions that 

would remove these buildings, would create adverse effects. These could be mitigated through 

site documentation, but since these facilities are such a visible symbol of Forest Service 

administration, the loss very many buildings could be considered irretrievable by some Forest 

users. All alternatives provide the opportunity to use the Secretary’s Standards, and to continue 

to maintain the existing facilities, either as Forest administrative sites, or as facilities used in 

partnership with other organizations. 

Cumulative Effects 

The potential area of impact for heritage resources is defined both geographically, and culturally, 

and includes the mountains and adjacent mountain valleys and lowlands for the ten counties of 

northern Utah and southwestern Wyoming that include National Forest system lands. It includes 

the mix of upland and valley areas that were used by past peoples to procure all of the resources 

needed for successful lives. 

Adverse cumulative effects to heritage resources on and around the National Forest result from 

the advances of time (such as weathering), inadequate or inappropriate maintenance, outright 

destruction, and the steady loss of sites through repeated mitigation of adverse effects that leaves 

very few of that particular type of site in existence. As a result, the research value of heritage 

resources can disappear. Sites themselves can become so invisible that they no longer have 

potential as interpretive sites, and in general cease to be a source of enrichment for present and 

future generations. 

 

Indirect effects can lead to significant cumulative alterations to individual sites, or all of the sites 

that represent a particular type of Forest use. For example, illegal surface collection of timesensitive artifacts from most of the Native American sites on the Forest has compromised our 

abilities to date many of these sites without expensive excavation techniques. Extensive surface 

collection, illegal digging, and vandalism can lead to complete destruction of a site. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest manages a significant portion of the total upland ecosystems 

that border the Wasatch Front north of Point of the Mountain, to the Idaho border, and the 

northern and western Uinta Mountains. It also manages large portions of the mountains around 

Cache, Bear River, Ogden, and Kamas Valleys, and west of Tooele Valley. As a result, the 

Forest manages the majority of the archaeological and historical record of upland American 

Indian use, and Euro-american logging, grazing, and water diversion in Northern Utah. One 

exception is that many mines in the Big and Little Cottonwood area are on private land, where 

historic preservation laws do not apply. This increases the public value of those mining sites that 

are on public land. 

Many of the upland areas adjacent to National Forest system lands are privately owned, and 

subject to the steady urbanization that has destroyed many of the archaeological sites that occur 

in Northern Utah valley bottoms. A significant number of sites in northern Utah generally have 

been lost to development, and this will continue at an increasing pace. The relatively 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 427 

undisturbed, and legally protected sites on National Forest land will be of increasing value to our 

visitors. 

Other reasonably foreseeable actions that might affect heritage resources include population 

growth and increasing numbers of visitors to the Forest. This could create additional direct and 

indirect effect from recreationists. As the number of visitors increase, so will the agency’s need 

to inform and involve people in Forest management. Forest history itself may provide a useful 

context for expanding that dialogue. Another foreseeable action will be heritage budgets that 

may not significantly increase, or instead decrease. This will create a need for further 

partnerships with local and national organizations and individuals to care for heritage resources. 

This will be particularly the case with historic Forest Service facilities, such as Guard Stations. 

Ultimately, as public land management becomes increasingly complex, conflicts over resource 

values will increase. 

The cumulative effect to heritage resources of Alternative 4, which is management under the 

existing Forest Plan, could potentially be little change. The existing Forest Plan identified a goal 

of completing a full survey of all areas on the Forest with moderate to high site potential, 

nominating additional sites on the Forest to the National Register of Historic Places, and 

completing an overall plan to interpret, protect, and maintain significant sites. Complete survey 

of National Forests was a common goal in many Forest Plans from this era, and the Agency 

would continue to lack the resources to complete this massive task. Tony Grove Guard Station 

has been placed on the National Register, and other sites could continue to be added to the 

National Register. A Heritage Management Plan has not yet been completed, but despite this, 

progress has been made in the last two decades in heritage site interpretation and protection. 

The current Forest Plan also makes specific site preservation and treatment recommendations for 

some Management Areas, some of which have not been undertaken. These may not now be the 

highest priorities, since more is known each year about sites in these areas. In addition, the 

existing plan also does not acknowledge Tribes and local communities as participants in heritage 

program development. 

An overall Heritage Management Strategy (Heritage Objective) would be an important tool for 

verifying or updating these priorities, developing partnerships with Tribes and other interested 

parties, and for identifying and achieving even more long-term heritage program goals. It could 

also help anticipate, and resolve, at least some of the challenges of potential increases in resource 

conflicts. This Strategy could be implemented under any alternative, but its particular activities 

would be tailored to reflect overall Forest management priorities. For example, under 

Alternative 1, little proactive maintenance and long-term protection of sites might occur, and the 

natural erosion of sites deemed acceptable. On the other hand, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

involve more active program support for vegetation treatment and other restoration activities. 

Alternative 5 might lead to a heritage program whose main emphasis is in dealing with the direct 

and indirect effects of increased levels of commodity and recreation activities on the Forest. 

Alternatives 6 and 7 might create a more balanced heritage program that would also need to 

potentially address more indirect effects from undeveloped recreation. 

 

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule will apply under Alternatives 1, 2, and 6, and may have a 

positive effect on the long-term protection of heritage resources because of the link between road 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 428 

access to sites, and such indirect affects as illegal surface artifact collecting. However, other 

types of public access to sites, such as motorized trail use, can produce the same types of indirect 

affects as road access. These can continue with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule 

does reduce the possibility of direct effects to heritage sites from road construction, but generally 

these types of effects can be avoided through project design. As a result, Roadless Area 

Conservation does provide some additional protection for sites, but does not alone resolve 

indirect resource impacts possible from the access that motorized and non-motorized trail use 

produces in Roadless Areas. 

 

In conclusion, Alternative 5 has the greatest chance of creating more direct and indirect adverse 

effects to heritage sites, through potential increases in road and trail access to sites, greater 

numbers of ground disturbing activities, and general increase in recreation activities. 

Alternatives 2, 6, and 7 would create the least potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) 

from ground disturbing activities. Alternative 2 might produce the healthiest vegetation 

communities, which would benefit American Indian traditional practitioners in their acquisition 

of plant materials. 

 

None of the alternatives differ substantially for their potential to facilitate active management of 

sites. On the other hand, it is possible under all alternatives to develop a heritage management 

strategy that works to minimize adverse effects, and to protect and preserve sites into the future. 

Perhaps the biggest cumulative effect, either positive or negative, to heritage resources on the 

Forest will come from how well the heritage resource management strategy is integrated into 

overall Forest goals, and then implemented. This includes how well adverse effects from 

specific projects on heritage resources are resolved, to either avoid those sites, or mitigate their 

loss through products that benefit Forest users. This will be resolved through site-specific 

decision-making. In this way, positive treatment of heritage resources is possible under all 

alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 429 

Locatable and Salable Minerals 

(Including reference to recreational mining and paleontology) 

Introduction 

Locatable minerals and salable minerals are natural resources that exist within the WasatchCache NF. Like leasable mineral resources, locatable and salable mineral resources are a finite 

resource rather than a renewable commodity. They are difficult to inventory, explore, and 

develop. Interest in these commodities ebbs and flows as economic conditions change. 

 

Locatable minerals (also known as “hard rock” minerals) include gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, 

and many other minerals. Salable minerals, which are sometimes referred to as mineral materials 

or “common variety” minerals, include sand, gravel, stone, clay, and a host of other ordinary 

minerals. 

 

Laws, Policy and Regulation 

• Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. This Act states that the continuing policy of the 

federal government is to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of 

economically sound and stable domestic mining and minerals industries and the orderly and 

economic development of domestic mineral resources. 

• Energy Security Act of 1980. This Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to process 

applications for leases and permits to explore, drill, and develop resources on National Forest 

System lands, notwithstanding the current status of any management plan being prepared. 

• 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart E. Complete description of the Forest 

Service’s policy on Oil and Gas Resources. 

• 36 CFR Part 212, et al. Administration of the Forest Development Transportation 

System; Prohibitions; Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest Service Roads; Final Rule, 

January 12, 2001. Road management policy to provide a road system that is safe, 

responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, affordable, and efficient to manage.

• The Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule (FEIS), November 2000, Volume 

1. Prohibits road construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas within 

National Forest System lands, unless roads are needed for following: 1) to protect public 

health and safety, 2) to honor existing valid permits, reserved or outstanding rights or 

statutes, 3) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 (CERCLA) activities, or 4) to respond to irreparable resource damage. 

• General Mining Law of May 10, 1872. This law allows prospecting and development of 

valuable minerals on public lands. This includes locating various types of claims, specifying 

work required, and patenting under specific circumstances. 

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, as amended. This Act established the 

national forests and the specific uses thereof and initial regulation. It extended the right to 

conduct mining activities under the General Mining Law of 1872 if in compliance with rules 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 430 

and regulations covering National Forest System lands. The law authorizes the use of 

National Forest System lands to qualified parties for collection of vertebrate and invertebrate 

fossil resources. 

• Materials Act of July 31, 1947. This act gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to 

dispose of mineral materials (common variety minerals) deposits by sale or free use. 

• Multiple Use Mining Act of July 23, 1955. This Act requires the disposal of common 

varieties of sand, gravel, stone, and other mineral materials under provisions of the Mineral 

Materials Act of July 31, 1947. 

• 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A. Describes how locatable mineral 

activity will be managed on lands open to operations under the General Mining Law of 1872. 

• 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228 Subpart C. Describes how the Forest Service 

will manage salable minerals. 

• Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964. This act is subject to valid existing rights; 

wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation and disposition under the 

mining and mineral leasing laws. 

• Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988. Authorizes use and protection of pale 

ontological resources found in caves on National Forests. 

• Archeological Protection Act of 1979. Authorizes the use and protection of National Forest 

lands for paleontological resources associated with archeological resources. Allows 

collection of rocks, minerals, and fossils for non-commercial use without a permit. 

• 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 251, Subpart B. Provides direction for managing 

special uses including paleontological resources. 

• 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 261, Subpart A. Defines paleontological resources 

and describes prohibited activities. 

The laws authorizing the method of disposal for locatable and salable minerals differ 

considerably in the degree to which they allow the Forest Service to manage impacts associated 

with developing either type of mineral. The General Mining Law of 1872, and the Forest 

Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 that extends application of the mining laws to 

National Forest System lands, authorize qualified parties to enter lands open to mineral entry and 

locate mining claims for locatable minerals. Neither Act allows the Forest Service to prohibit 

mining. 

The General Mining law and Forest Service mining regulations establish a process whereby the 

Forest Service evaluates mining proposals in the context of its responsibilities as steward of 

National Forest System lands. The Forest Service prepares reasonable mitigation and 

reclamation measures to address any significant associated surface disturbance. Though 

reasonable access and occupancy must be granted to conduct mining activities, the scope of these 

activities will dictate the nature of approved access and occupancy. Access, for example, 

depends on the stage of exploration or development. It can range from unimproved access by 

foot through unimproved temporary road access for prospecting or drilling to a more permanent 

improved road for full-time mine operations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 431 

The Forest ensures that exploration and development of locatable minerals is conducted in an 

environmentally sound manner and is integrated with planning and management of other natural 

resources. Where national forest land is not explicitly withdrawn from mineral entry, 

exploration for locatable minerals under the General Mining Law of 1872 will be permitted 

under all alternatives. However, site-specific environmental considerations must be addressed 

when mining activities may cause significant disturbance to surface resources. Additionally, 

where there may be significant disturbance, the viability of a mineral deposit may have to be 

assessed before prospecting, exploration, and development would occur. 

Salable minerals, which are sometimes referred to as mineral materials or “common variety” 

minerals, include sand, gravel, stone, clay, and a host of other ordinary minerals. 

In contrast to how mining activities must be addressed under the 1872 Mining Law, Congress 

gave to the Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, the discretion to dispose of 

salable minerals by sale or by free use permit. In this context, the Forest Service has complete 

discretion over whether such disposals are made. 

Affected Environment 

Locatable Minerals 

Historically, locatable minerals have been mined and removed from the Forest in years past. The 

discovery of silver ore in 1860 led to the settlement of the Town of Alta. Mining activity 

continued through the late 1800’s and early 1900’s with the last operation of appreciable size 

closing in 1967. Most of the activity occurred in mining districts in Little Cottonwood Canyon 

and Big Cottonwood Canyon. This Forest Plan revision does not affect the quantity or quality of 

locatable minerals, but it will affect the number of acres where exploration and development are 

allowed. 

In 1985 there were over a 1,000 mining claims on the Forest recorded with the BLM. Since then 

method by which a claim is maintained has changed and the number has significantly dwindled. 

The availability of lands open to operations under the 1872 Mining Law can be affected by 

several factors including withdrawals, special legislation, and outstanding or reserved mineral 

rights (National Forest Surface, but state or private minerals rights). Currently there is an 

estimated 44,500 acres of reserved mineral rights within the proclaimed national forest boundary. 

Areas withdrawn from mineral claims include developed recreation sites, administrative sites and 

wilderness. A total of 329,000 acres are currently withdrawn from mineral entry. Special 

designations allow mining entry but restrict certain types of mining activity. These include the 

Salt Lake City municipal watershed Red Butte and Morris Creek Research Natural Areas. 

Most of the locatable metaliferous minerals were mined from Big Cottonwood Canyon and Little 

Cottonwood Canyon on the Salt Lake Ranger District. There are no known locatable mineral 

deposits of economic value on the forest and there are no known valuable deposits known on 

patented mining claims that now appear as private land in-holdings on the forest. Presently, 

there are no significant mining activities on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 432 

Salable Minerals 

Salable minerals are abundant and have been extracted from various locations across the Forest 

from designated sites or from broad, general areas. Salable minerals are managed at the sole 

discretion of the Forest Service as far as management and disposal is concerned. The Forest 

Service is generally the principal user of material from borrow sources on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. The Forest develops pits for construction and maintenance of forest roads and 

other facilities. Some salable minerals have been used in the past, and are expected to again be 

in demand, by oil and gas lessees, primarily on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. 

 

Presently, the Forest does have 25 active rock quarries/sand and gravel pits that are in operation. 

These are used for in-service purposes and provide valuable sources to assist in improving water 

quality on many Forest roads near stream courses. These pits are scattered across the Forest. 

In the next planning cycle it is anticipated that the demand for common variety minerals can be 

met from off-Forest commercial sources or from private lands within the Forest boundary. 

Historically, the demand for this mineral has been minimal and it is expected to remain the same. 

Recreational Mining 

Public interest has increased in casual prospecting for gold using suction dredges and sluice 

boxes. The public often views this type of activity as “recreational” and it can be authorized 

under a cooperative recreational permit issued by the State of Utah. When a nominal threshold of 

disturbance is exceeded, the State permit does not apply and any mining activity is conducted 

under Forest Service mining regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. In effect, what the public 

sees as a “recreational” activity is actually an activity covered by federal mining law and 

regulation, particularly when impacts become significant. Consequently, “recreational mining” 

is deemed to be a locatable mineral activity that is managed under federal mining regulations 

when impacts to surface resources become significant. 

Under a cooperative Forest Service/BLM/Utah State permit issued by the State of Utah, Division 

of Water Rights, there are three stream segments open to recreational dredging, sluicing, and 

panning. The segments are Three-Mile Creek (Perry Canyon), North Willow Canyon, and 

Davenport Canyon. 

Paleontology 

There is essentially no Federal law that mandates the protection of invertebrate fossils but 

specific federal regulations do cover protection of vertebrate remains. All vertebrate and 

significant invertebrate fossils can only be removed from National Forest System lands for noncommercial uses with a Special Use Permit. Casual collection of invertebrate and plant fossils 

does not require a permit. Future inventories may identify individual sites needing specific 

management direction. 

The quality and quantity of paleontological resources that may be present on the Forest is not 

known. Generally speaking, there are geologic formations containing rocks that may contain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 433 

evidence of either invertebrate or, very rarely, vertebrate remains. Rock formations exposed on 

the forest range in age from Precambrian through Paleozoic and Mesozoic to Cenozoic. They 

include a variety of rock types but are composed predominantly of sandstone, shale, limestone, 

and quartzite. Most the Paleozoic age rocks and Mesozoic age formations of marine origin may 

contain invertebrate fossils that may be of interest to hobbyists. Mesozoic, Tertiary, and 

Quaternary age strata of continental, lacustrine, or fluvial origin may contain scientifically 

important vertebrate fossils but extensive inventory would be necessary to identify areas of 

highest interest needing management direction. 

Environmental Consequences 

Management Activities That Affect the Condition of the Resource 

Any locatable mining activity shall require approval from the Forest Service before any 

significant ground disturbance occurs. This would include activities at any stage including 

prospecting, exploration, development, production, or abandonment and reclamation. Also 

covered, are “recreational mining” activity when impacts associated with that activity exceed the 

threshold described in the Utah State permit for Recreational Dredging and Sluicing. 

It is essential to ensure that all mining activities that may cause significant surface disturbance 

are in compliance with law (including NEPA), federal regulations, policies, and site-specific 

requirements as identified in a Plan of Operations. Any approved Plan of Operations that is not 

administered to standard can affect the environmentally sound extraction of the mineral resource 

and could result in less recovery that would otherwise be the case. 

Existing commercial mineral material sources outside the Forest provide a readily and 

economical supply to the consumer. Currently, there are no designated public-use sources on the 

Uinta National Forest. Under all alternatives, it is anticipated that no sources will be identified in 

the near future. 

The distribution of potentially significant paleontological resources on the Forest is unknown. 

Generally speaking, any activity disturbing the surface could impact that resource. 

 

Resource Protection Measures 

Under all alternatives, the General Mining Law of 1872 and Forest Service mining regulations at 

36 CFR 228 Subpart A allows prospecting and development of valuable minerals. All 

regulations require that environmental issues be addressed. The biological standards and 

guidelines included in the Forest Plan and any legal requirements would apply and be 

incorporated into a Plan of Operation submitted by the proponents and approved by the Forest 

Service. This Plan of Operation will cover site-specific environmental issues and be in 

compliance with NEPA. 

In addition, under all alternatives, a surface use determination by a Certified Mineral Examiner 

may be required to ensure that a proposed mineral exploration or development activity be 

reasonably necessary and conform to reasonable industry standards. If the mineral examiner 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 434 

concludes that the proposed activity is not reasonable, it would not be approved under 36 CFR 

228, Subpart A. 

Where they are identified, the Forest Service manages paleontological resources for their 

scientific, educational, and recreational values. Existing law and regulations provide different 

direction on managing all vertebrate and some invertebrate fossils. Qualified parties can obtain a 

Special Use Permit, to include proper resource protection provisions, to collect vertebrate and 

significant invertebrate fossils for non-commercial purposes. No permit is needed for casual 

collecting of invertebrate and plant fossils for personal use. 

General Effects 

Presently, there are no significant mining activities on the Forest. There is a scattering of mining 

claims recorded with BLM across the Forest. Most are along the Wasatch Front and on the 

Kamas District. Beyond casual prospecting, there is no significant level of activity on any of the 

claims. It is anticipated that locatable mineral activities will not increase above present levels on 

the Forest for the foreseeable future. 

The alternatives may affect the quantity of locatable minerals available for development and they 

will affect the number of acres where mineral exploration and development is eventually 

allowed. Until such time as the selected alternative is identified and any lands included in that 

alternative are segregated from mineral entry, all lands will remain open to operations under the 

General Mining Law of 1872. The management prescriptions identified in Table LO-1 show the 

possible eventual result of prohibitions on mining on withdrawn lands. 

Areas presently withdrawn from mineral entry include all of the designated wilderness areas on 

the Forest as well as developed recreation sites and administrative sites. Reasons for 

recommending that additional lands are withdrawn from mineral entry could include laws, 

legislative direction, agency policies, capital investments, long-term permits, administrative use 

to conduct day-to-day Forest duties, and potential for adverse displacement of permit tees and 

recreationists. In addition, withdrawals may be recommended due to environmental and sitespecific issues such as geological features (e.g., caves and landslides), municipal watersheds, and 

animal and plant species as per laws, biological opinions, and conservation agreements. Table 

LO-1 shows those National Forest System lands by management prescriptions under each 

alternative that would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and disposal of salable 

minerals. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 435 

Table LO-1. Acres Proposed for Withdrawal from Mineral Entry 

Acres by Alternative 

Management Prescription 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 Recommended 

Wilderness (1.5) 387,000 145,500 51,100 0 0 69,000 73,300 

 Research Natural 

Areas (2.4) 5,600 5,600 4,500 6,100 5,300 5,600 5,600 

TOTAL ACRES 392,600 151,100 55,600 6,100 5,300 74,600 78,900 

Over the next decade, it is anticipated that the demand for salable minerals can be met from 

commercial sources on private lands. Historically, the demand for these minerals has been 

minimal on National Forest System lands and it should remain the same. Disposal of this 

resource is by sale contract or free use permit at the discretion of the Forest Service. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Locatable mining activities could have significant adverse impacts on other resources, depending 

on the scope of the activity. Some impacts could be unavoidable while others may be mitigated. 

The analysis of the level of impacts and possible mitigation measures would be presented in a 

site-specific environmental analysis prepared before any Plan of Operations were approved. 

Reasonable mitigation and reclamation measures would have to be incorporated into the final 

approved Plan of Operations. Administering the plan to standard would ensure that impacts to 

other resources are within the scope of those described in the environmental analysis. The 

operator is also responsible to ensure that mining operations are in conformance with standards 

established in the Plan of Operations. 

As new technology develops, more opportunities to extract locatable minerals from the Forest 

may occur; however, economics and environmental issues may create limitations such that 

technology may not be able to overcome such constraints. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area (RHCA) Management 

The management of these resource areas would have impacts on mining activities, such as 

constraints on road construction and reconstruction. RHCAs include limits on mining activities 

such as no embankments and/or tailing dumps within any water/riparian areas. 

Any salable mineral proposal that would have adverse effects on aquatics would be prohibited 

because the opportunities for mitigation measures are anticipated to be limited in scope. Any 

proposed locatable mineral activity would be evaluated through a site-specific analysis whereby 

alternatives are evaluated to address the range of possible impacts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 436 

Other constraints would apply to fueling locations, access roads (minimal in locations and 

numbers), waterway crossings, cleaning of equipment, timing restrictions, issues of 

sedimentation transport and related abatement measures, potential degradation of affects to 

aquatic organisms, and passage for and impacts on species-at risk. The potential locatable 

mineral operation impacts to RHCAs may be significant if measures are not in place to protect 

aquatic habitat. It is essential that if a mining activity is permitted, the Plan of Operation 

addresses biological issues, and any mitigation measures are in place. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management 

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) would restrict road construction and 

reconstruction in roadless areas in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 and in over 95% of roadless areas in 

Alternative 7. However, under the General Mining Law of 1872, reasonable access must be 

provided, and access standards must be commensurate with the proposed activity. All proposals 

for locatable mineral exploration or development would be subject to 36 CFR 228, Subpart A. 

Significant ground disturbance to National Forest System lands would require site-specific 

NEPA analysis and a detailed Plan of Operation would be developed. Access rights will be 

recognized to those claims but the standard of access across National Forest System lands will be 

commensurate with the level of activity proposed on those claims. 

Under all alternatives, the Forest would be open to locatable mineral development, except for 

those areas withdrawn from mineral entry. Additional areas, identified by alternative in Table 

LO-1, could be eventually withdrawn from mineral entry. However, it is anticipated that for all 

alternatives over the next decade very few new mining claims would be located due to low 

commodity prices, higher environmental and permitting costs, and apparent lack of public 

support for exploration and development on public lands. 

In Alternatives 1, 2 and 6 exploration and development for salable minerals within inventoried 

roadless areas will be limited due to the prohibition of road construction and reconstruction 

except for outstanding rights. In all other alternatives while some development is allowed in 

inventoried roadless areas, development of sources would be incidental to new road construction 

or reconstruction activities. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Noxious Weed Management 

Management of noxious weeds may have a small impact on locatable and salable mineral 

development. Similar to the requirements applicable to RHCAs, equipment would require 

inspection and cleaning before entering and movement within the Forest. These requirements 

would assist in the isolation, eradication, and control of invasive non-native plant species. The 

requirements of certified weed-free hay, straw, and seed in rehabilitation of disturbed sites are 

essential to ensure that noxious weed propagation is abated. Additionally, the importation of 

topsoil would be prohibited due to the potential of importing noxious weeds and seeds. The 

effects of a noxious weed program on mining activities would be increases in costs for abatement 

and monitoring to ensure that the proliferation is limited. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 437 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Fish and Wildlife 

Management 

Effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) fish, wildlife and plant species, 

including bats and raptors such as goshawk, would require restrictions and mitigation measures 

for protection. Complete avoidance of sensitive plant habitat would be required and identified in 

a Plan of Operation. Fisheries habitat for Colorado River and Bonneville cutthroat trout and 

other fish will require some limitations and be site-specific. Winter range timing limitations 

would apply where appropriate. 

Effects on Locatable and Salable Minerals from Managing Other Resources 

Effects of managing other resources such as watershed, water quality, and air quality would 

require compliance with the standards and guidelines for managing these resources found in the 

Forest Plan. Impacts would depend on the complexity of the proposed project and its location. 

Site-specific issues and mitigation, if any, would have to be addressed in a Plan of Operation, 

which would be binding on the proponent/operator. 

Managing other resources such as recreation and grazing would also require the impacts of 

locatable and salable minerals activities to be implemented in an orderly manner. Fire 

management, heritage resources, and scenery management will require compliance of laws and 

agency policies for any mineral activities. Restoration and mitigation measures of mineral 

activities would be required to ensure that these resource activities continue as identified in their 

respective management prescription objectives. Locatable and salable mineral activities would 

generally not be allowed in Research Natural Areas, thus the reason for these areas to be 

withdrawn as identified Table LO-1. 

Management prescriptions 2.6 and 3.1 and RHCAs would not be recommended for withdrawal, 

but would require specific mitigation measures to ensure laws, policies, and aesthetic values 

would be met. The revised Forest Plan contains standards and guidelines that outline specific 

direction on resource values pertaining to these (and other) prescriptions. Decisions to withdraw 

additional National Forest System lands as shown in Table LO-1 would preclude prospecting, 

exploration, and developing any potential locatable minerals. This would displace mining 

activities elsewhere on the Forest or onto non-forest lands. 

Cumulative Effects 

Mineral and energy resources in Utah support a viable industry. Although alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, 

and 7 would eliminate mineral development in areas newly recommended for wilderness 

designation, most of the Forest would remain open to mineral development. Whether any 

minerals are present and the economics of exploration and extraction will govern any decision by 

the public to actually explore for and develop minerals on the Forest. 

The one impact that could affect the Forest would be honoring existing rights to access private 

mining property, such as that in Big Cottonwood Canyon and Little Cottonwood Canyon. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 438 

Access into and out of these areas is limited and not readily available without significant costs 

associated with the reconstructing of several Forest roads. 

No significant cumulative effects are anticipated with salable mineral materials or with 

paleontological resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 439 

Social and Economic Analysis 

Introduction 

This section contains information on the legal and administrative framework within 

which decisions must be made, a section on the affected social and economic 

environment to set context, an analyses of economic impacts by alternative, a financial 

efficiency analysis (present net value (PNV), distribution analysis (includes effects on 

employment and labor income for two modeled areas), social impact analysis, and a 

discussion and estimate of cumulative effects. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 identifies guiding principles for 

managing the resources of the National Forest System. The direction to manage these 

resources for the greatest good over time necessitates the use of economic and social 

analysis in determining management of the National Forest System. 

• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that before any agency of 

the federal government may take actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, that agency must examine not only the potential impacts of that 

action on physical and biological resources, but also the socioeconomic consequences 

(40 CFR 1508.14). 

• The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as 

amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, establishes the 

requirement to consider economic effects in the land management planning process. 

• Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 219 implements sections 6 and 15 of the 

National Forest Management Act. It provides guidelines for evaluating alternatives in 

forest plans and requires consideration of economic and social factors. 

• Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 (revised March 27, 1972) 

provides guidelines for evaluating the economic efficiency of federal agency 

programs and projects. 

• Office of Management and Budget Circular A-116 (issued August 16, 1978) 

requires executive branch agencies to conduct urban and community impact analyses 

of major initiatives and to conduct long-range planning.

• The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 requires economic analysis of 

grazing use on Forest Service administered lands, fee formulas, and funding of 

rangeland programs and identification of associated economic impacts on the 

livestock industry. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 440 

• Executive Order No. 12898 on Environmental Justice (issued February 11, 1994) 

requires that each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Affected Environment 

Regional Overview 

Over the last 25 years the economy of the Intermountain West has become more 

diversified, more urban or suburban, and less dependent on agriculture and resource 

extractive industries on national forest lands (timber harvest, livestock grazing, oil and 

gas production, and mining). In general, the economy of the area surrounding the 

Wasatch-Cache has prospered and grown substantially over the last generation, and 

especially during the 1990’s. This growth mirrors, but also has surpassed some national 

economic measures of growth. The Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget and 

the State of Wyoming’s Division of Economic Analysis both have abundant statistics for 

the last several years that show substantial statewide and county growth. 

In 1999, the economy in Utah showed continued expansion, recently however, the rate of 

expansion has slowed (Isaacson, July-August, 2000). At the beginning of the year 2001, 

there were growing concerns about a downturn in national economic trends. The stock 

market in 2000 had its first down year in nearly a decade, and some measures of overall 

economic activity show a slowing of the economy during the latter half of the year (BEA, 

2001). The Federal Reserve Board, after earlier concerns for inflation in 2000, recently 

cut interest rates to stimulate flagging conditions and avoid recession (February, 2001), 

and the new Bush administration implemented a tax cut, in part to revive the economy. 

Over the past two decades the intermountain west has fared comparatively well when 

compared to other regions of the country. Nevertheless, while many observers suggest 

recent sluggishness is only a short-term correction in an otherwise expanding economy, 

others have more concern about the future. 

The importance and extent of social and economic impacts vary based on the perspective 

of the individual. On one extreme, there are those who would make social and economic 

needs of the local community, or an even smaller segment of society, of paramount 

importance above all else. Others would advocate that social and economic factors are of 

no importance and should be completely disregarded in favor of environmental concerns. 

The challenge for the Forest Service is to find an acceptable balance between resource 

use and preservation. Even then, there will be those who will resist acceptance of a final 

decision. 

Study Area 

In describing the social and economic environment that may be affected by the WasatchCache Forest Plan, each county is described in terms of lifestyle and quality of life as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 441 

well as the level of interest and issues highlighted in Forest Plan revision processes. 

Following these general descriptions of the individual counties within the study area, a 

general review of the regional social and economic environment at the county level will 

provide a basis for context and comparisons. 

The counties included in the analysis, Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Morgan, Rich, Salt Lake, 

Summit, Tooele, Weber, and Uinta, will be referred to collectively as the regional study 

area. Wasatch and Duchesne counties have not been included in the analysis, the acreage 

of Wasatch-Cache National Forest within these county boundaries are small, 21,173 and 

29,709 acres respectively, and the culture and lifestyle of the counties are associated with 

the Uinta National Forest. For more information on these counties and their relationship 

to forest planning, refer to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan documentation. 

The following descriptions of counties in the study area are presented to provide social 

and economic context for this analysis. Information presented is largely from interviews 

with county planners, but also comes from impressions gathered during scoping, and 

other published sources (See Appendix B11 and project records for more details.) 

Box Elder County 

The lifestyle in Box Elder County is small town or rural. Urban expansion and 

development influences from the Wasatch Front (Salt Lake and Ogden) are beginning to 

reach Brigham City. Lower land values in the area and more available open space may 

see more urbanization of the area over the next two decades. The Standard Examiner 

recently covered stories in which concerns for rural and agricultural preservation were 

expressed which opposed suburban development proposals. 

 

Generally, there have been few Forest Service activities proposed in Box Elder County 

on the Wasatch-Cache. The Wellsville Mountains are mostly designated Wilderness, and 

the Willard Peak and Ben Lomond areas are steep, rocky and unsuited for most 

development activities. Traditionally, these areas have been used for watershed and 

backcountry recreation. Box Elder County has recently been interested in interacting 

with the Forest Service on trails and roads management, especially as it affects wildland 

resource values. During Forest Plan scoping, Honeyville community leaders expressed 

the need to maintain quality watershed for the town. 

Cache County 

This once rural agricultural county now has significantly more national chain restaurant 

and store franchises, shopping centers, and other suburban amenities than it had 20 years 

ago. There is substantial new light manufacturing in the county, a bigger hospital has 

been built, county buildings are proposed for improvements, and other growth related 

symptoms are apparent. Traffic in the Logan areas is noticeably more congested than it 

was a few years ago. The recent improvement of U.S. 89 from Brigham City and future 

improvements to the Logan Canyon Highway provide speedier and safer access to other 

areas for commercial and personal uses. While development pressures continue, most 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 442 

people in the county appreciate the high quality of life that they have, and ready access to 

wildland recreation is a very important component of the lifestyle. 

Several forest plan-related public meetings that were held in the Logan area had the 

largest attendance of any area where these meeting were held. Interest in the proposed 

action and alternative development was broad, and interactions with the Forest Service 

and between community members has been considerable and vocal. A broad range of 

opinions regarding future Wilderness proposals, Wild and Scenic River proposals, 

motorized and non-motorized access opportunities, snowmobile use, management of 

roadless areas, and livestock grazing have been voiced. 

Davis County 

Most of the people in Davis County have a suburban lifestyle. Those who live next to the 

forest often enjoy hiking directly out of their neighborhoods onto the public lands, where 

they use planned and developed trails. Sometimes the foothill vegetation and watershed 

are impacted by inappropriate use of ATVs, creation of haphazard trails, or trash 

dumping. These activities are not allowed, but are often difficult to enforce even though 

Davis County and the Forest Service have posted the area. Most of the water from small 

streams that run off the Forest is used to supply culinary water to towns in Davis County. 

While no public meetings were held in Davis County during scoping, for the Preliminary 

AMS and Proposed Action, a number of respondents commented on these two documents 

from a variety of perspectives. Davis County has indicated that while watershed is a 

critical concern for communities at the base, maintaining and improving outdoor 

recreation access and fire protection in the foothills are also increasingly important 

management needs. 

Morgan County 

People in the Morgan County still live in small towns or in the countryside on small 

acreage non-commercial home sites. Some agriculture is practiced, but it is an important 

economic activity for only a few residents, as most commute to jobs on the Wasatch 

Front. Only a small section on the western edge of Morgan County is within the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This part of the Forest is steep and undeveloped. 

Access to this portion of the Forest is very poor or non-existent, yet this main ridge of the 

Wasatch Front provides critical watershed for the county, and backcountry recreation 

activities for people who mainly access it from the Salt Lake and Davis County areas. 

The majority of people attending forest plan meetings held in the Ogden area in 1999 

were from Morgan County. Some of these users expressed an interest in maintaining 

traditional motorized (winter and summer) recreation access on the Forest. In a Forest 

Plan scoping meeting held in Morgan County in the spring of 1999, concerns for 

potential deterioration of watershed conditions by possible development above Mountain 

Green were expressed. County planning and zoning personnel noted that sustainability of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 443 

national forest watershed, and water supply and water quality issues were among the 

more important that were facing the county. 

Maintaining a rural or small town atmosphere for the county is an important value held 

by many residents. Transportation planning to meet the needs of an increasing 

population was also an important issue. 

Rich County 

Rich County has a rural, agricultural lifestyle, much of which relates to public lands uses. 

More traditional values regarding land use on public lands are commonly held. Many 

people still make their living in agriculture (mostly livestock grazing), and work closely 

with the land on a daily basis. Hunting, fishing, riding and other rural and outdoor 

recreation activities are common. For most shopping and dining, or social opportunities, 

people go to Evanston, Ogden, or Logan. Raspberry farming is still carried on in the 

Bear Lake area, but production is not as large as it was 20-30 years ago. The economy of 

the Bear Lake area is more active in the summer with increased seasonal recreation. 

Often young people must leave the county after high school or college graduation to find 

desirable employment. 

One public meeting regarding forest plan revision was held in Randolph. The turnout for 

the meeting at the courthouse was small, therefore not a large number of local opinions 

have been heard on forest plan issues and decisions. However, there have been other 

recent projects and grazing permit related work done in the county offering public 

opinion on general Forest issues. The county planner and commissioners have been 

consulted regarding the forest plan revision. The desire to continue existing land use 

opportunities has been stressed in these interactions. 

Salt Lake County 

Salt Lake County is the largest urban center in the Intermountain Region, and functions 

as the transportation, cultural, political, and economic center. Its citizens, Salt Lake 

County and local governments recognize the vital role National Forest lands and the 

canyons east of Salt Lake Valley play in adding to the quality of life for the area. The 

proximity of cooler high elevation forested lands, internationally renowned ski areas, 

developed camping and undeveloped recreation opportunities, three designated 

Wildernesses, and a spectacular scenic backdrop are not taken for granted by residents. 

Employers often use outdoor recreation proximity as a lure to attract new residents to the 

area. 

The Forest Service, county and city officials recognize that as costs of government 

escalate, it is mutually beneficial to share expertise and resources for public benefit. One 

example is the cooperation between Salt Lake County and the Forest Service over the 

past decade to improve stream habitat, riparian environment and recreation facilities in 

Mill Creek Canyon. It is expected that similar cooperative projects will follow in this 

county and across the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 444 

Several public meetings have been held in the Salt Lake area on forest plan revision and 

they have been well attended. A broad spectrum of public opinions was represented. 

Over the past several years, interest in local Forest Service activities has centered on ski 

area expansion proposals, helicopter skiing, undeveloped and developed recreation and 

Wilderness management issues. Watershed protection and water quality have also been 

ongoing concerns. 

Summit County 

People whose families have lived in Summit County for several generations, as well as 

the many new arrivals to the area are both enamored with Summit County. The area’s 

rural and small town lifestyles, year-round outdoor recreation opportunities, good 

schools, and prosperous economy make it a great place to live and raise a family. Most 

citizens of the area have benefited from its recent economic prosperity and their 

proximity to a major urban area for services beyond what the local area provides. 

Summit County government has expressed an interest in close involvement with the 

Forest Service as the forest plan is revised. The county is interested in the economic and 

social effects of national forest management as it relates to its citizens, and want to 

emphasize cooperative planning to help reach a desirable future. KPCW, a public radio 

station in Park City, often airs programs highlighting national forest issues, helping to 

involve and inform the community. 

Public meetings held in the Kamas City Hall over the past year on the forest plan topics 

have added to the Forest Service’s understanding of public sentiment. Individual citizens 

have commented during Forest Plan scoping and proposed actions from a broad range of 

perspectives. 

Tooele County 

Many people have found that living in Tooele County and commuting to work in Salt 

Lake County or Utah County, is a very reasonable alternative to living directly on the 

Wasatch Front. In Tooele County, home and real estate prices tend to be lower for 

similar homes to those in Salt Lake, and commuting time and costs are not much 

different. The smaller town and/or rural lifestyle possible in the county is also attractive 

to those who have chosen to live in the area. While the county generally serves as a 

bedroom community for those who commute to the Wasatch Front, many do work 

locally. These people are employed in the local support service and retail work 

mentioned above, as well as at Tooele Army Depot and Dugway. The County is actively 

seeking other industrial and commercial development, so that the area can be more standalone in respect to its economy, employment and tax base. 

Tooele County planners and elected officials have expressed interest in forest planning 

and its potential for land allocations since the planning process began more than a year 

ago. The County is interested in engaging with the Forest Service in watershed 

protection and development projects (and has in the recent past – Clover Creek), and in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 445 

coordinating and ensuring trail use opportunities for its citizens across county, private 

and federal lands. Letters from interested citizens have indicated similar interests. One 

public meeting held in Tooele at the release of the Preliminary AMS was lightly attended. 

Weber County 

In general, local people make up the majority of national forest users east of Ogden. 

Hiking on trails on the east bench and up canyons out of Ogden is a popular pursuit, as is 

boating at Pineview Reservoir, fall hunting, and the use of developed campsites. 

Snowmobiling in the Monte Cristo area and skiing at Snowbasin are popular winter 

activities. Ogden and Weber County residents are supplied by water from captured 

stream runoff from the mountains, artesian wells, Pineview Reservoir (also a major 

Forest Service recreation use area) and the Weber River basin. 

Recent results from the 2000 census show that the Hispanic population of Ogden City has 

grown to 24% of the population. (Buchta, March 22, 2001). This is approximately a 

doubling of Hispanic people in Ogden over the last ten years. Other urban complexes 

along the Wasatch are also experiencing this trend, but in somewhat lesser percentages. 

These potential new users of the Wasatch-Cache perhaps bring with them somewhat 

different use patterns and interests as they related to the Forest. 

Public meetings and work sessions on the Preliminary AMS and Proposed Action were 

held in Ogden at Weber County Library branches (Huntsville and Ogden) and at Ogden 

High School. These meetings received a moderate attendance of users with a variety of 

viewpoints regarding the issues that were presented. Interest in the land exchange 

process and development of Snowbasin over the past decade has been major. There is a 

continual interest and community participation in trail development project on the front 

and in Pineview Reservoir recreation issues. 

Uinta County, Wyoming 

People with long-term ties, as well as newcomers to the area value the rural lifestyle and 

environment that Uinta County provides. The idea of creating conservation easements as 

is occurring in other parts of the West is actively talked about. Access to public lands is 

an important value. Most people work locally, but a growing number commute to Salt 

Lake City or Park City for jobs, as access is relatively quick down I-80. Some airline 

employees and pilots who work out of the Salt Lake International Airport commute from 

Evanston. Lower income and sales taxes in Wyoming, lifestyle preferences, and 

somewhat lower property prices also provide an incentive for some to live here. The City 

of Evanston has a diverse and well-developed public recreation and parks program. In 

addition, the population can enjoy outdoor activities on public lands including; hunting, 

fishing, horse use, camping, hiking, cross-country skiing, use of ATVs and snowmobiles. 

Many have significant investments in time and/or dollars in these recreation interests. 

There is increasing public demand for year-round access to the Forest. The growth of 

winter recreation activities (snowmobile and skiing use) translates to higher winter 

management costs for the Forest Service than in the past. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 446 

Uinta County requested cooperating agency status from the Forest Service for the 

purposes of forest planning, and has been given that status. Local ranching, timber 

harvest, oil and gas, and recreation users are very interested in long term planning and 

project activities on the Wasatch-Cache. Many long-term residents are concerned that 

possible changes to general multiple-use opportunities will deleteriously affect desirable 

traditional lifestyles and the local economy. It is a strongly held belief among these 

people that there are trends towards restriction of ongoing land-uses. It is thought that 

this trend has been apparent over the last 20 years, and the trend is undesirable and 

threatens their interests. 

American Indians 

American Indian people have occupied areas in northern Utah and southwestern 

Wyoming for thousands of years. Archeological evidence and historical and 

ethnographic accounts attest to the diversity, longevity, and importance that American 

Indian groups have had in this area. Descendants of these historic groups occupy areas of 

northern Utah, southeast Idaho, and Wyoming. 

American Indians today retain inherent rights based on provisions of the United States 

Constitution and treaties with the United States that obligate the United States to maintain 

government-to-government relationships with federally recognized tribes. Numerous 

laws, forest planning regulations (36 CFR 219.7) and Forest Service policy (Forest 

Service Manual 1563) all speak to the recognition of American Indian governments and 

require consultation with tribes regarding decisions that have the potential to effect treaty 

and traditional and cultural values. In general, these laws and policies recognize tribal 

sovereignty, and treaty rights where they exist, and support traditional economic, cultural, 

and religious practices. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is very interested in cultivating good relationships 

with American Indian groups. National Forest lands and resources represent significant 

cultural and economic values to American Indians and to the other citizens of the United 

States. Several land management issues and concerns are of mutual interest to tribes and 

the Forest Service. 

In Utah, Forest Supervisors have the responsibility for implementing government-togovernment communications and coordination with federally recognized tribes. District 

Rangers also interact with Tribes on day-to-day matters, under the authority of the Forest 

Supervisor. In the past year the Forest Supervisor, Deputy Forest Supervisor, and District 

Rangers have met directly with tribal leaders to develop understanding of their interests 

or concerns regarding national forest lands. 

Three American Indian tribes are closely related to land areas of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. These are the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, the Northwestern 

Band of Shoshoni, and the Northern Ute. While these tribe’s reservations are within 

areas where they lived historically, Shoshonean and Ute groups used to range freely over 

much larger areas covering millions of acres of land that is now in federal, state, local, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 447 

and private ownership. As sovereign governments, American Indians have status equal to 

or above that of state and county governments. Because of the unique trust relationship 

between the federal government and tribes, Indian Nations and tribal members are 

distinguished as different from the general public. Treaties, statutes and executive orders 

often reserve off-reservation rights and address traditional interests relative to the use of 

federal lands. Maps estimating the extent of the tribes’ historic use areas are on file at the 

Forest. 

 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians 

The Skull Valley reservation is adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest along the 

southwest slopes of the Stansbury Range. Their reservation occupies over 17,000 acres 

and the Skull Valley Band maintains an office in Salt Lake City. The reservation 

population is about 25, while total tribal enrollment is over 100, with most members 

living off the reservation (USDA Forest Service 2000k). 

The Treaty of Tooele Valley was signed on October 12, 1863. No land was set aside as a 

reservation until 1912. The band does not have a constitution or charter, but is governed 

by a tribal council and executive committee. 

Discussions between the Wasatch-Cache (the Forest Supervisors and Salt Lake District 

Ranger) and the Skull Valley Band indicate that the American Indians are interested in 

the protection of cultural sites and human remains, Wilderness protection and 

designation, problems with public or agency access across the reservation to the national 

forest, and developing more economic opportunities for tribal members. 

Northwestern Band of Shoshoni 

The Northwestern Band of Shoshoni reservation occupies 187 acres of land in northern 

Box Elder County, and the tribe maintains an office in Brigham City, Utah. In 1996 there 

were 383 enrolled members in Idaho and Utah who maintained residences over a large 

area reservation (USDA-Forest Service 2000k). 

The Treaty of Box Elder of 1865 was the first signed by members of this band. 

Subsequent treaties and ratification dates related to the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni 

are 1872, 1874, 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1889. A constitution for the tribe was approved in 

1987. 

The Forest Supervisor and Logan District Ranger have interacted with the Northwestern 

Band of Shoshoni during 2000. Discussions with the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni 

indicate that they are interested in protection of American Indian sites on the Forest, 

Wilderness designation, acquisition of more sovereign lands for their reservation (not 

specifically related to national forest lands), and continuance of cultural integrity and 

traditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 448 

Northern Ute 

The Uinta and Ouray Indian Reservation (of the Northern Ute Tribe) is large, occupying 

about 4,500,000 acres in eastern Utah within Uintah, Duchesne, Grand and Wasatch 

Counties. A tribal office is maintained at Ft. Duchesne, Utah (See the Northern Ute 

Webpage at www.ubtahnet.com). The Northern Utes are governed by six council 

members, two each from the three bands that make up the tribe: Uncompahgre, Uintah, 

and Whiteriver. Tribal enrollment is over 3,000. 

Primary working relations with the Forest Service are maintained through Ashley and 

Uinta National Forest leadership, rather than by the Wasatch-Cache. This arrangement is 

practical, as the reservation is contiguous with those two Forests and at some greater 

distance from the Wasatch-Cache. The Wasatch-Cache recognizes that traditional and 

historical tribal interests also extend onto lands managed by it, but that most Forest 

Service interactions with the tribe are better served by dealing with the other two Forest 

offices. 

The Northern Utes are interested in numerous issues related to the national forests in the 

area, including maintaining access to traditional gathering sites and ceremonial areas, 

maintenance of cultural lifeways, issues relating to access and roads, passage of 

recreationists across tribal lands to national forest lands, and water rights (H. Jay Groves, 

Northern Ute Tribe, personal communication, 11/15/2000.) 

Land Ownership 

The Wasatch-Cache administers National Forest System lands in all counties within the 

regional study area. The acreages of National Forest System lands and total county acres 

are displayed in Table SE-1. The amount of National Forest System lands in each county 

varies significantly. Other federal lands (lands managed by the Department of Defense, 

the BLM, Caribou, Sawtooth, Ashley, and Uinta National Forests) also make up 

substantial portions of Box Elder, Tooele, Rich, and Uinta counties. 

Table SE-1. Area figures for counties within the regional study area 

County 

County total 

land base** 

National Forest 

lands* 

Wasatch-Cache 

Forest lands 

- - - - - - - area in acres- - - - - - -- percent of total

Box Elder, UT 3,592,960 24,328 <0.1 

Cache, UT 749,440 267,827 35.7 

Davis, UT 171,520 37,580 21.9 

Morgan, UT 385,920 13,996 3.6 

Rich, UT 661,760 49,398 7.5 

Salt Lake, UT 488,960 95,533 19.5 

Summit, UT 1,183,360 501,871 42.4 

Tooele, UT 4,430,720 150,234 3.4 

Uinta, WY 1,336,417 37,762 2.8 

Weber, UT 412,160 67,805 16.5 

Sources: Land Areas of the National Forest System, 1998. www.dced.state.ut.us/history/history 

facts/uhcounty statistics.com. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 449 

Demographics 

The population in the area of the Wasatch-Cache’s direct influence is growing at a rapid 

rate. Overall in the State of Utah, the population has grown from 1,729,100 in 1990, to 

about 2,172,513 in 2000, and is projected to reach over 2.7 million by 2010 (Utah, State 

of 1998). Most of the growth has been and is projected to be in areas surrounding the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The majority of this population increase is due to births 

in the state, however, a substantial percentage is also due to recent increases in 

immigration. 

The State of Utah and local associations of governments (Mountainland AOG, Bear 

River AOG, and Wasatch Front Regional Council), counties, and cities all recognize the 

major changes that population increases have had and will continue to have on life in 

northern Utah. Planning efforts within and between all these entities consider population 

growth related questions among the most important that need answers. Similarly, the 

Forest Service in northern Utah has seen user demand continue to rise mostly as a simple 

response to the growing number of people in the area. 

On the eastside of the Wasatch Range (Heber Valley, Summit County, Morgan County, 

Ogden Valley, and Cache Valley) growth rates and development are faster than on the 

more populous front. More detailed discussions of each county are developed below. 

County planners (Summit, Uinta, Tooele, Weber, Cache) recognize that there is a trend 

toward transition of rural agricultural landscapes to suburban or urban development, and 

some county zoning direction is beginning to protect and preserve rural areas. National 

Forest System lands continue to be looked to for providing open space, recreation 

opportunities, and quality of life aspects people associate with the area. 

Map SE-1 shows the distribution of structures adjacent to the boundaries of the WasatchCache. Structures shown by the dots are dwellings, commercial buildings, Forest Service 

administrative sites, and other constructed features. Not surprisingly, structures abut the 

forest nearly continuously along the Wasatch Front, and are heavily distributed in the 

Cache Valley near national forest lands. Even at the west end of the Uinta Mountains in 

the Kamas and the upper Weber River area structures are densely distributed, and 

becoming more common in the interface between private lands and the forest. While the 

Stansbury Range and north slope of the Uinta Mountains currently do not have the same 

density of structures on nearby lands seen elsewhere, it is expected that over the next 10-

20 years this density should increase substantially. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 450 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 451 

The magnitude of growth across northern Utah and southwest Wyoming vary somewhat 

and are displayed in table SE-2 and discussed below in some detail for counties that 

contain land administered by the Wasatch-Cache. (No discussion is provided for Wasatch 

or Duchesne Counties, as the acreage of Wasatch-Cache Forest system lands in these 

counties is relatively small. Most national forest lands in the county are within the Uinta 

National Forest, and effects to the counties are more related to management of that 

forest.) 

Table SE-2. Population for Analysis Area and States, 1991-2000. 

Area 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Change 

1991-2000

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -people - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Box Elder, UT 36,864 37,317 37,882 38,541 39,077 39,802 40,751 41,571 42,378 42,872 16% 

Cache, UT 72,924 75,794 78,390 81,134 84,006 86,326 88,002 89,866 90,299 91,625 26% 

Davis, UT 193,773 199,199 204,936 210,164 214,622 219,687 224,871 230,937 235,912 240,259 24% 

Morgan, UT 5,613 5,762 6,015 6,251 6,487 6,664 6,747 6,852 6,991 7,165 28% 

Rich, UT 1,669 1,678 1,739 1,805 1,832 1,860 1,828 1,866 1,924 1,966 18% 

Salt Lake, UT 751,023 774,408 798,049 819,039 836,008 853,076 871,580 881,840 891,116 899,698 20% 

Summit, UT 17,124 18,406 20,247 22,044 23,902 25,297 26,634 27,970 29,004 29,976 75% 

Tooele, UT 27,284 27,852 28,572 29,578 30,345 31,364 33,048 35,351 38,079 41,641 53% 

Uinta, WY 19,101 19,476 19,581 19,927 19,884 19,936 19,935 20,029 19,901 19,707 3% 

Weber, UT 162,186 166,479 171,055 176,032 180,546 184,584 188,334 190,846 193,697 197,264 22% 

Analysis area 1,287,561 1,326,371 1,366,466 1,404,515 1,436,709 1,468,596 1,501,730 1,527,128 1,549,301 1,572,173 22% 

Utah 1,779,780 1,836,799 1,898,404 1,960,446 2,014,177 2,067,976 2,119,784 2,165,960 2,203,482 2,241,555 26% 

Wyoming 459,260 466,251 473,081 480,283 485,160 488,167 489,451 490,787 491,780 494,001 8% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Economic Information System, 2002. 

Table SE-3 highlights the racial characteristics for comparison of the analysis area. As is 

common in counties throughout the rural west, county populations are not as racially 

diverse as the general population of the United States. Over the last decade there has 

been a net immigration from other states, and some foreign immigration, which has 

markedly increased ethnic diversity in the area, mostly in people of Hispanic or 

Asian/Pacific origins. Most of the counties make up very little of the total population of 

their State total with the exception of Salt Lake and Davis counties. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 452 

Table SE-3. Population Characteristics Compared for the United States, Utah, Wyoming 

and Analysis Area in 2000. 

Area 

2000 

Population 

Percent of 

State 

Population White 

Black or 

African 

American 

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native 

Asian, 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Some 

other 

race(s) 

Latino or 

Hispanic, 

any race

people percent percent of total population 

Box Elder, UT 42,745 1.9 92.9 0.2 0.9 1.0 5.0 6.5 

Cache, UT 91,391 4.1 92.2 0.4 0.6 2.2 4.6 6.3 

Davis, UT 238,994 10.7 92.3 1.1 0.6 1.8 4.3 5.4 

Morgan, UT 7,129 0.3 98.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.4 

Rich, UT 1,961 0.1 98.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.4 1.8 

Salt Lake, UT 898,387 40.2 86.3 1.1 0.9 3.8 7.9 11.9 

Summit, UT 29,736 1.3 91.8 0.2 0.3 1.0 6.6 8.1 

Tooele, UT 40,735 1.8 89.2 1.3 1.7 0.8 7.1 10.3 

Uinta, WY 19,742 4.0 94.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 4.4 5.3 

Weber, UT 196,533 8.8 87.7 1.4 0.8 1.4 8.7 12.6 

Utah 2,233,169 na 89.2 0.8 1.3 2.3 6.3 9.0 

Wyoming 493,782 na 92.1 0.8 2.3 0.6 4.3 6.4 

U.S. 282,124,631 na 75.1 12.3 0.9 3.8 7.9 12.5 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. 

na = not available. 

Total percentages for each county may add to more than 100 percent as people can select more than 

one race.

Table SE-4 highlights additional demographics of the analysis area. The median ages of 

county residents in the analysis area are significant lower median age in Utah as compared 

with the general population. All the analysis area counties have higher populations over 65 

than state or national averages indicating the communities around the forest are attractive for 

retirees, or that people who live in the area, prefer to continue living in the area after they 

retire. The percent of homes used as second or vacation homes indicates that Rich and 

Summit counties attract part-time residents to the area. Family sizes are also larger in Utah 

than Wyoming or the US average. Part of the tendency for larger family sizes may be 

associated with the culture of members of the Church of Jesus Christ - Latter Day Saints that 

is prevalent in the state. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 453 

Table SE-4. Demographic Characteristics Compared for the United States, Utah, Wyoming and Analysis 

Area in 1989 and 2000. 

Area 

Average 

family size 

Median 

age 

Population 65 

and over 

Persons at or below 

poverty level, 1989*

Second or vacation 

homes 

 people years percent of total percent of total percent of total

Box Elder, 

UT 3.63 28.0 10.4 7.2 2.2 

Cache, UT 3.59 23.9 7.1 13.3 1.1 

Davis, UT 3.67 26.8 7.3 7.1 0.3 

Morgan, UT 3.81 28.5 8.7 8.6 2.5 

Rich, UT 3.44 34.3 14.1 13.8 59.6 

Salt Lake, 

UT 3.53 28.9 8.1 9.7 0.7 

Summit, UT 3.30 33.3 4.8 7.1 35.0 

Tooele, UT 3.51 27.1 7.1 11.3 1.2 

Uinta, WY 3.31 31.4 7.0 8.5 3.0 

Weber, UT 3.42 29.3 10.3 9.9 1.4 

Utah 3.57 27.1 8.5 11.2 3.9 

Wyoming 3.00 36.2 11.7 11.6 5.5 

U.S. 3.14 35.3 5.1 12.8 3.1 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. 1990 Census. 

*2000 poverty statistics not available at this time. 

Employment 

With population changes and growth, employment within the analysis area has also been 

changing. Figure SE-1 highlights the change in employment by sector for between 1991 

and 2000, for all counties in the analysis area combined (each counties separate analysis 

is available from the planning record). Individual counties within the analysis area show 

some degree of variability, but several trends are consistent. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 454 

Figure SE-1. Employment change by major industry between 1991 and 2000 for the 

Wasatch-Cache Analysis Area. 

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Government

Services*

F.I.R.E.*

Trade*

T.P.U.C.*

Manufacturing

Construction*

Mining*

A.F.F.*

Industry sector

Percent change in employment, 1991-2000

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Economic Information System, 2002. 

* Figures were estimated for Box Elder, Morgan, Rich, Tooele, Weber, and Uinta Counties due to 

disclosure regulations of employment and income data. 

Sectors defined according to Standard Industry Classification Manual, 1987. 

A.F.F. (Agricultural, forestry, and fishing services) includes all farming activity as well as 

businesses engaged in agricultural production, forestry, commercial fishing, hunting and trapping, 

and related services. 

Mining includes the extraction of minerals occurring naturally, quarrying, well operations, milling, 

preparation at the mine site, and exploration and development of mineral properties. 

Construction includes new work, additions, alterations, reconstruction, installations, and repairs of 

structures. 

Manufacturing includes the processing of materials (products of agriculture, forestry, fishing, 

mining, and quarrying) into new products. Examples include food, textiles, mineral processing, 

lumber, wood products, furniture, paper, machinery, and appliances. 

Trade includes all wholesale and retail trade. Wholesale trade includes the selling of goods to 

retailers or other wholesalers. Wholesalers maintain inventories of goods, extend credit; physically 

assemble, sort, and grade goods in large lots, break bulk goods into smaller lots and advertise. 

Retail trade includes the selling of goods for personal or household consumption and rendering 

services incidental to the sale of the goods. Examples include groceries, hardware, drug store, and 

other specialty stores. 

Services include businesses engaged in providing a wide variety of services for individuals, 

business, government, and other organizations. Examples include hotels; health, legal, engineering, 

and professional services; and educational institutions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 455 

F.I.R.E. (Finance, insurance, and real estate) includes business that operate in the fields of finance, 

insurance, and real estate, such as banks, investment companies, insurance agents and brokers; real 

estate buyers, sellers, and developers. 

T.P.U.C. (Transportation, public utilities and communications) includes passenger and freight 

transportation, communications services, electricity, gas, steam, water and sanitary services and all 

establishments of the United States Postal Service. 

Government includes all Federal, state, and local government employees involved in executive, 

legislative, judicial, administrative and regulatory activities. 

Construction is the largest growth sector in the analysis and was increasing in all counties 

included in the analysis. This sector is associated with increasing population and overall 

growth of the area, residential and commercial buildings being constructed, as well as 

infrastructure required to accommodate the influx of people. In several counties the 

growth in second and vacation homes also increases the demand for construction activity. 

Also associated with growth, the trade and services sectors increased in the last 10-years. 

All counties in the analysis area had increases in these sectors. Increasing population and 

construction also leads to increases in F.I.R.E. and T.P.U.C activity. Rich and Summit 

counties saw large increases in F.I.R.E. likely associated with second home construction 

and sales. 

 

Manufacturing includes logging, sawmills and wood production, which are associated 

with outputs from the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Processing of food and other 

production is also accounted for within this sector. Most counties in the analysis area 

show some increases in manufacturing employment. 

Agricultural, forestry and fishing sector shows some increase in employment. Recent 

trends toward smaller operations being bought up and brought under management of 

larger corporations may account for some of the changes in employment. The figures 

highlighted do not account for seasonal trends or part-time labor within the agriculture 

sector. 

The majority of government employment increases throughout the study area occurred 

within state and local education. In general, large increases have not occurred in this 

sector in any of the analysis area counties. 

The only sector to show an employment decline within the analysis area is mining. 

While there is some mineral activity within the study area, most is not occurring on 

Forest lands. These changes seen within this sector are likely due to larger market forces 

impacting individual mineral and oil and gas industries. For more information 

concerning mining and drilling activity, refer to the minerals section of this FEIS. 

Personal Income 

Total personal income is comprised of non-farm income, farm income, property income, 

and Non-labor income. The largest component is generally non-farm income, which 

includes all wages and salaries that are not directly associated with farming activity. 

Farm income includes proprietors net farm income, wages and payments-in-kind for farm 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 456 

labor, and salaries of officers of corporate farms. Non-labor income includes retirement 

and disability, income maintenance, and unemployment, property income made from 

rent, dividends, and interest from investments. Figure SE-2 highlights the percent change 

of total personal income by major sectors between 1991 and 2000 for the analysis area in 

2000 dollars. 

Figure SE-2. Total personal Income change in real 2000 dollars between 1991 and 2000 by 

major sector for the Wastach-Cache analysis area. 

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

Non-labor income

Government

Services*

F.I.R.E.*

Trade*

T.P.U.C.*

Manufacturing

Construction*

Mining*

A.F.F.*

Industry sector

Percent change in labor income 1991-2000, nominal dollars

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Economic Information System, 2002. 

* Figures were estimated for Box Elder, Morgan, Rich, Tooele, Weber, and Uinta Counties due to 

disclosure regulations of employment and income data. 

All dollars in Figure SE-2 have been converted to 2000 dollars to allow for direct 

comparisons without interference from inflation. Similar to the employment comparison, 

several trends are consistent across the counties of the analysis area. All counties show 

an increase between 1991 and 2000 in real non-labor income, generally associated with 

retirement payments. Retirees in a community can have a significant social and 

economic contribution. Economically, their income is an import of money into the 

community, there is not an associated job or export of product for wages. Retirees also 

have time and other resources to become involved in a community in terms of leadership, 

building community capacity, or other social programs that improve the well-being of the 

entire community. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 457 

The F.I.R.E. sector had the largest increase in labor income between 1991 and 2000 for 

the entire analysis area. The construction sector also had a large increase between 1991 

and 2000. Similar to the employment trends, the increase in demand for housing and 

infrastructure related to increasing population is likely driving the growth in these 

sectors. 

This agriculture, farming and fishing sector fluctuates year to year depending on various 

market conditions and prices so often trend analysis over short periods are difficult 

depending on if the beginning and end points were up or down years for the industry. In 

the case of this 10-year period, the analysis also includes a trend from many small farms 

toward a few larger corporate operations. Mining income, unlike the employment 

analysis, shows an increase in income between 1991 and 2000. 

The remaining sectors show some growth in labor income, but in many cases the growth 

in income is smaller than the growth in employment. This highlights the lower wages 

and seasonal or part-time positions often associated with many sectors, especially trade 

and services jobs. 

Per Capita Income 

Annual per capita personal income (PCPI) in Utah in 2000 was $23,436 slightly lower 

than the national average of $29,469. Table SE-5 below displays the 2000 per capita 

personal income and average annual growth rate between 1990 and 2000 and the change 

between 1999 and 2000 for counties and states in the analysis area. Because per capita 

income is a measure of both income and population, smaller counties in Utah often show 

a lower change or growth than either the state or national average due to large family 

sizes. Summit County has a per capita income much higher than other counties in the 

analysis area, the state of Utah, and the national average. 

Table SE-5. Per Capita Personal Income and percent change for the Analysis Area, 2000. 

Area 

2000 per capita 

Personal Income 

1990-2000 

change 

1999-2000 

change 

dollars percent 

Box Elder, UT 22,321 3.9 5.8 

Cache, UT 18,714 3.5 2.0 

Davis, UT 24,100 4.9 5.6 

Morgan, UT 21,995 4.9 5.9 

Rich, UT 17,447 3.5 3.0 

Salt Lake, UT 27,330 5.1 5.6 

Summit, UT 40,528 5.7 4.5 

Tooele, UT 18,542 2.2 4.8 

Uinta, WY 22,042 4.1 4.1 

Weber, UT 22,757 3.5 4.5 

Utah 23,436 4.6 5.1 

Wyoming 27,372 4.3 5.3 

United States 29,469 4.2 5.8 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Economic Information System, 2002. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 458 

Poverty 

In 1997, 8.9 percent of Utah’s population was in poverty with only 3.6 percent receiving 

public assistance. Only six other states had lower poverty rates. Utah has the eleventh 

highest percentage of homeowners in the nation at 72.5 percent (Utah, State of 2001b). 

Both these conditions indicate a relatively high standard of living. 

Forest Resource Related Industries and Resources 

This section focuses on industries that use forest –related resources: wood products, 

mining/processing, recreation and tourism, and grazing. These are the four industries that 

are directly dependent on forest-related resources and are the most likely to be impacted 

(positively or negatively) by Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management. These 

industries’ production activities occur inside and outside the Forest, and in many cases, 

the Forest is not the only source of the forest-related resources. 

Data for the following analysis is from IMPLAN Pro models (MIG 2000). This data 

allows for the separation of specific sectors and includes information not available from 

other state or Federal data sources. The trade-off is that the latest data available is for 

1999. Other sources of 2000 data are available and were used in earlier descriptions of 

the economic conditions. Figure SE-3 displays employment by sector with forest-related 

employment summarized separately as the ‘forest-related’ category. The forest-related 

category includes employment in grazing (Forest agriculture), oil and gas drilling (Forest 

mining), logging and sawmills (Forest manufacturing), and visitor industry activities such 

as outfitter and guides, hotels, retail trade, and services that are supported by WasatchCache resources or outputs (Forest tourism). For more information, individual sectors 

selected to represent each industry see Appendix B11. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 459 

Figure SE-3. Estimated Forest Service-related employment contributions within the 

analysis area, 1999. 

Mining

1%

Construction

Manufacturing 9%

9%

TCPU

3%

Trade

12%

Services

17%

FIRE

7%

Government

24% Forest agriculture

1%

Forest mining

1%

Forest tourism

11%

Forest manufactu

0.1%

Agriculture

5%

Forest related

14%

Source: MIG, 2002. 

Within the analysis area, the employment estimated to be directly related the WasatchCache National Forest activity is about 14 percent. The majority of forest-related 

employment is within tourism related activities. It is difficult to estimate all impacts 

specifically related to Forest management, this analysis is likely a conservative estimate 

of employment. Those counties with infrastructure for support and processing forest 

outputs are more likely to be impacted by changes in management. Summit County in 

terms of mining and recreation/tourism facilities, Uinta County in terms of grazing and 

wood production on the Forest, and counties with developed tourism opportunities will 

also have specific interests in Wasatch-Cache Forest management. 

Figure SE-4 displays the contribution of Forest-related activities to the labor income of 

the analysis area economy. The outputs provided on the Forest are important to 

individual businesses and local communities, but in terms of the functioning economy 

surrounding the Wasatch-Cache, Forest-related outputs account for about 10 percent of 

the labor income. As discussed before, the difference between the employment portion 

and labor income is likely the differences in wages associated with the sectors. The 

recreation/tourism industry opportunities tend to be more seasonal and part time in nature 

with lower wages, accounting for less of the labor income than employment. The mining 

and manufacturing sectors tend to be the opposite, contributing the same portion or more 

labor income than employment due to higher wages and full time, year-round 

employment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 460 

Figure SE-4. Estimated Forest Service-related labor income contributions within the 

analysis area, 1999. 

Agriculture

2%

Mining

1%

Construction

11%

Manufacturing

11%

TCPU

5%

Trade

10%

Services

16%

FIRE

5%

Government

29% Forest agriculture

1%

Forest mining

3%

Forest tourism

6%

Forest manufacturing

Forest related 0.1%

10%

Source; MIG, 2002. 

The following analysis describes some historical trends and current situation of the four 

forest resource-related industries within the analysis area. 

Timber 

Today’s national forest timber sale program differs dramatically from the program that 

existed only a decade ago (www.fs.fed.us/land/fm/tspirs/changing.html, 6/25/98, USDAForest Service, 1999). These differences have changed the role that timber production 

from national forests has played in national and regional economies. Closer to home and 

at a smaller scale there have also been reductions in the amount of timber available for 

sale and harvested (See Topic 6 – Timber Suitability). 

Considerable new information on the local timber industry has recently been put together 

in a study entitled “Wyoming Timber Market Analysis: The New Western Timber 

Economy” (Rideout and Hesseln, 2000). The report includes the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest in its study area. The study finds that restrictions based on pressures supporting 

amenity values on local forests, international market events, flatter domestic demand, and 

market conditions that favor highly capitalized processing are selecting against smaller 

and family owned mills. This condition is not unique to the local area, but is commonly 

found throughout the West. 

The timber industry in northern Utah and southwest Wyoming is not a big contributor to 

the regional economy, but it has existed for a long time and is integral to local 

communities and those individuals directly employed within the industry. In northern 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 461 

Utah, especially near the Wasatch-Cache Forest, there are few direct timber- related jobs 

as a percentage of total employment. A few small logging companies and mills are 

located in Evanston and Mountain View, Wyoming and in Kamas, Utah near the Forest. 

Timber harvest on the Wasatch-Cache and related mill activities have been conducted for 

many years. In the past several years, bidders from outside the local areas have also 

begun to look at the Wasatch-Cache as a source for timber, and timber is being sold 

outside the local area and sometimes transported to mills as far away as Belgrade, 

Montana and Saratoga, Wyoming. Timber harvest levels have declined over the past 

decade, but have been relatively stable for the past three years (See Timber Affected 

Environment for specific analysis of timber harvest trends). 

The most recent TSPIRS (Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System) report 

available for the Wasatch-Cache was completed for fiscal year 1998. This report 

highlights results of the timber program on the Forest. Based on information supplied to 

the TSPIRS reporting system, timber harvest from the Wasatch-Cache in fiscal year was 

7.73 million board feet sold and awarded, with 2.56 million board feet harvested. This 

activity supported 64 annual average jobs and 3.2 million in labor income within the 

logging and sawmill sectors. 

Figures SE-3 and SE-4 display the limited contribution of the wood products in the 

analysis area. Those jobs within the industry do tend to be higher paying, but subject to 

both the price swings in the wood-products industry and the swings in supply from local 

sources, including Forest Service. 

Grazing 

According to State of Utah Agricultural Statistics Service (Gneiting and Albert, 1999) 

overall cattle production in the State has been relatively stable since 1992. For sheep, 

lambs, and wool a general decline in production is noted over the same period, which 

reflects the broader economic situation for this sector of the economy.

Range use and demand for forage on the Wasatch-Cache have varied 10 to 20 percent 

over the last 15 years, but no clear trend in demand is recognized on the Forest (See 

Livestock Grazing/Range Management Affected Environment.) Cattle head months 

actually grazed on the Forest were 85 percent of the number authorized for the five years 

from 1995-1999, while for sheep for the same period the average head months grazed 

were at 80 percent of what was allowed. The Forest has more than 100 permits for range 

use, one of the most common permitted uses. 

Because there has been a long tradition of grazing on the Forest and relatively large 

numbers of people have permits to graze, possible economic and also social/lifestyle 

effects to livestock grazing of Forest Plan alternatives are of considerable interest. 

Receipts collected for livestock grazing use on the Forest in FY 2000 were $89,959. In 

2000 the value for the AUMs for cattle on the forest was $248,175 and the value for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 462 

sheep AUMs was $163,455. Grazing fees on the Forest have not increased per animal 

unit in the last four years. 

Similar to the wood products industry, grazing is a small portion of both the regional 

economy and the local area. But to specific ranchers operating under permit on Forest 

Service lands, the continued opportunity to graze is important and can be vital to their 

year round operations. The livestock industry is also subject to the prices and supplies 

within a larger United States market. The relatively small operations within the analysis 

area do not influence these larger trends. 

Leasable Minerals, Mineral Materials and Other Minerals 

Oil and gas and coal are the most common minerals managed under leases, rather than by 

claims or sales. Oil and gas production companies bid to lease areas on the WasatchCache National Forest that are made available for mineral leasing. Rental fees collected 

vary on the bids that are made, and the demand is sensitive to the potential of the area to 

produce as well as current markets. In 1999 the Wasatch-Cache collected rental fees on 

72 oil and gas leases of 69,848 acres. The number of these leases does not vary much 

from year to year, but demand can vary as noted before. The fees collected from these 

leases amounted to $104,772 in 1999. 

When a leased property produces oil or gas products, the federal, state, and local 

governments share royalties based on the value of the leasable minerals that are 

produced. In the five years from 1995 to 1999, the average value of the oil and gas 

produced from these leases was $11,060,035. Royalties paid to the federal, state, and 

local governments on this production averaged $1,549,230 for the same period of time. 

The federal government retains one-half of these royalties, and the other half is paid to 

the states to redistribute within the state and to the counties. 

Mineral materials include sand, gravel, and rock. Year-end reports for the WasatchCache National Forest show that the Forest rarely sells any common variety minerals, and 

therefore there is no local economic value to these resources. These materials are 

commonly purchased from local private sources. The Forest Service uses a small amount 

of mineral materials obtained from on Forest sources for roads and campgrounds for fill 

and maintenance. In 1999, the total value of these products used by the Forest Service 

was $3,858. Receipts to the government for these minerals on the Forest in FY 2000 

were $372. The Wasatch-Cache has no producing mines for mineral ores or other hard 

rock minerals. For more information concerning general mining and oil and gas activity 

on the Forest, see the Minerals Affected Environment chapter. 

Figures SE-3 and SE-4 attempt to separate out the oil and gas activity that occurs outside 

Forest Service lands, and that activity within Forest System lands. In this analysis, only 

crude oil is included. The figures highlight the importance of this mineral activity in the 

analysis area, whether on National Forest lands or private lands. The level of 

employment is relatively small, but the income associated with those jobs is significant. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 463 

Recreation and Tourism 

There are a wide variety of recreation and tourism activities on the Wasatch-Cache (See 

Recreation and Tourism Affected Environment for specific details). The direct economic 

collections of developed recreation activities are relatively easy to derive as the Forest 

Service, concessionaires, or special use permits account for these dollars. However, the 

direct economic contribution and value to the economy of recreation and tourism 

activities are not easily derived and often have to be estimated. As discussed earlier, 

Figures SE-3 and SE-4 combine several sectors related to recreation and tourism activity, 

but because residents of the area also purchase similar goods and services, the amount of 

employment and income that can be allocated to tourism and recreation activities is 

difficult to estimate. The figures do not attempt to separate out local contributions from 

nonresident spending. The figures to indicate that the visitor industry is a large portion of 

the potential contribution of the Forest to the local economy, although the jobs are 

associated with lower wages and seasonal employment. The following describes trends 

and current situations of general recreation activities that occur on the Forest 

Developed Recreation – Concessionaires currently operate most Forest Service 

campgrounds in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest under special use permits. These 

permits authorize concessionaires to operate and maintain these facilities, including 

collecting use fees that are used to cover costs of the operation and maintenance. The 

Forest Service charges concessionaires a fee for this private use of government-owned 

facilities, and special use permits generally allow costs attributable to landlord 

maintenance to be offset against fees owed to the Forest Service. 

Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Viewing – The wildland backdrop of the Wasatch-Cache 

is heavily used for these activities. All national forest lands are attractive for these 

activities due to the availability of habitat and the wildlife populations that use them, but 

the Wasatch-Cache is closer to large populations of users than any other forest. For this 

analysis estimations of the jobs related to these activities and their economic impacts 

have been calculated based on information provided in two documents: The Economic 

Values of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Viewing on National Forest Lands (TRCA, 

2000) and 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

(USDI, 1997). Estimates for the amount of use on the Forest are highlighted in the 

recreation section of this document. 

Snowmobiles and ATVs - Counts of snowmobiles and ATVs in Utah are done by the 

Utah Department of Motor Vehicles. In the year 2000, nearly 70 percent of Utah’s 27,440 

snowmobile registrations were counted in the nine Utah counties that have generally been 

described in this document as those most closely related to the Wasatch-Cache; similarly 

41,026 ATVs were registered in the same counties, or 59 percent of ATV registrations in 

Utah. 

Utah’s Division of Parks and Recreation completed a survey (prepared by Utah State 

University, Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism) that assesses economic and 

social aspects of snowmobiling in Utah. This survey reports that the Hardware Ranch, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 464 

Logan Canyon, Monte Cristo area is the most popular in the state. (Appendix Q1) These 

sites are either on or immediately adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache, highlighting the need 

for management of motorized uses. 

Annual expenditures for snowmobile activity by Utah residents in 2000 were estimated 

by the study to be $52.6 million. Mean expenditure per snowmobile was $1,621, while 

new purchasers (24.7 percent of the last year’s snowmobile population) spent an average 

of $6,555 on their new machines. Expenditure and trip information from this survey was 

used to estimate the jobs and income impacts of alternatives within the analysis area and 

is documented in the planning record. While no similar information exists for ATV 

operation, a recent survey highlights that in Utah ATV owners paid about $4.8 million in 

property taxes in 2000. These survey results highlight motorized recreation as an active 

user group of public lands and an important contributor to local businesses. 

Developed Ski Areas – About 52 percent of downhill skiers in Utah come from outside 

the state, while 48 percent are local customers (Wikstrom, 2000). The portion of the use 

that comes from outside the local area brings new dollars to the local economy and is 

important from an economic perspective. These non-resident skiers spend $207 per day 

when coming to ski; resident skiers spend much less on all categories of expenditures. 

Non-residents spend money on lift tickets, rentals, hotels and restaurants, and other 

miscellaneous items. Last year total spending by ski visitors in Utah reached $740 

million, with additional indirect impacts of $436 million in increased earnings 

(Wikstrom, 2000). 

The five ski areas on the Wasatch-Cache accounted for about half the total number of 

downhill skiers in the state and have about 1,240 permanent employees and 2,625 

seasonal employees. From 1994-1999 annual receipts to the government from these five 

ski areas that currently have permits to operate on the Wasatch-Cache averaged 

$762,245. Details on skier visitation trends and ski area development projections on the 

Wasatch-Cache and adjacent ski areas are available in the Recreation Affected 

Environment of this document. 

Revenues to the State 

Under the 25 Percent Fund Act of 1908, counties receive payments from the federal 

government equal to twenty-five percent of all receipts taken in from National Forest 

lands within that county. The funds were to be spent on public schools or roads in the 

county. In October of 2000, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 

Determination Act of 2000 passed which changed the amount of these payments. 

Recognizing recent losses to many counties of income from reduction of traditional uses 

on federal lands and fluctuating payment amounts, the law allows counties to select a 

stabilized payment levels (their full payment amount based on the average of the three 

highest 25 percent payments made to the state between fiscal years 1986 and 1999), or 

continue the traditional 25 percent payment. All of the counties receiving funds from the 

Wasatch-Cache have selected the stabilized payments except for Rich County Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 465 

Table SE-6 displays the full payments made to counties based on the Secure Payment 

language and the payments related to Wasatch-Cache National Forest receipts under Title 

I, II and III of the act and Rich Counties fiscal year 2001 payment. Title I funds are to be 

used for education and roads. Title II and III funds are required when counties receive a 

full payment of $100,000 or more. These counties are required to reserve no less than 15 

and no more than 20 percent of the distribution for forest restoration, maintenance, or 

stewardship projects. Title II funds are to be spent on special projects and are intended to 

foster cooperation and consensus among a wide array of forest users. Title III funds are 

to be spent on county projects. 

Table SE-6. 25 Percent Fund Payments to Counties from Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, 2001. 

Wasatch-Cache 

Payment Title I Title II Title III 

Box Elder, UT 6,076 6,076 0 0 

Cache, UT* 87,654 

Davis, UT 16,512 16,512 0 0 

Morgan, UT 6,179 6,179 0 0 

Rich, UT* 15,735 

Salt Lake, UT 41,938 41,938 

Summit, UT 217,877 185,196 0 32,682 

Tooele, UT* 32,437 

Uinta CO, WY 16,107 16,106 0 0 

Weber, UT 29,579 29,579 0 0 

Source: USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. 2001. 

*Cache, Rich, and Tooele counties in Utah did not select secure payments, so payment amount shown is fiscal year 2001 

payment made based on Forest revenues.. 

Payments to Duchesne and Wasatch County from Federal Government not shown as counties are considered out of the 

analysis area. 

Under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act of 1976, counties receive payments 

from the federal government for having federal lands within their counties to make up for 

lost revenues. Congress appropriates PILT payments based on a complex formula 

developed at a national scale using population and acreage of federal lands and the value 

of other federal revenues as key factors. The final annual PILT appropriation is not only 

based on the formula but is also sensitive to politics and other national funding priorities 

from year to year. Due to the complexity of the development of PILT payment values, 

past PILT payment amounts should only be used as a general indicator of possible future 

PILT values, and never as a guarantee of future revenues to counties. For the preceding 

reasons, changes in individual forest plans may not be good predictors of local PILT 

payments (Bill Howell, WO-BLM, personal communication, July, 2000). Table SE-7 

displays the amounts of PILT payments to counties in fiscal years 1996 - 2001. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 466 

Table SE-7. PILT payments to counties from Federal Government, fiscal year 1996-01. Fiscal year Box Elder, UT Cache, UT Davis, UT Morgan, UT Rich, UT Salt Lake, UT Summit, UT Tooele, UT Uinta, WY Weber, UT 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nominal dollars- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

1996 913,117 181,113 22,131 10,817 82,822 63,267 342,193 729,890 423,299 43,253

1997 853,087 172,860 21,468 10,214 83,343 60,008 324,470 712,895 403,938 41,415

1998 864,414 179,324 24,582 10,630 84,764 59,528 323,752 726,699 403,554 45,903

1999 887,078 164,699 19,770 10,303 84,332 64,874 345,816 747,505 419,356 36,592

2000 938,662 188,351 25,407 11,765 92,313 71,236 380,674 828,955 443,216 45,225

2001 1,345,476 274,719 34,960 16,212 142,611 97,951 523,941 1,360,622 631,772 69,696

*Payments to Duchesne and Wasatch County from Federal Government not shown as considered out of analysis area. 

For counties in the Wasatch-Cache analysis area, funding from PILT and 25 percent fund 

payments are used as part of funding for county budgets. Table SE-8 shows to what 

extent these revenue sources supported county governments in 1999, an example of a 

recent year. A very low percentage of county funding in urban counties is provided from 

these revenues. In all cases PILT and 25 percent payments made up less than 9 percent 

of total county revenues in 1999. 

Table SE-8. County Budgets and Federal Payments from PILT and 25% Fund (1999) 

County 

Total County 

Budget PILT 

25% Fund 

Payments 

Total budget 

from Federal

Funding 

County Budget 

from Federal 

Funding 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dollars in 1999- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - 

Box Elder, UT 10,111,314 887,078 9,111 896,189 8.86 

Cache, UT 12,059,059 164,699 104,873 269,572 2.24 

Davis, UT 28,802,782 19,770 14,945 34,715 0.12 

Morgan, UT 4,274,664 10,303 5,616 15,919 0.37 

Rich, UT 1,705,819 84,332 18,323 102,655 6.02 

Salt Lake, UT 223,979,905 64,874 37,819 102,693 0.05 

Summit, UT 16,865,528 345,816 198,117 543,933 3.23 

Tooele, UT 21,086,738 747,505 62,801 810,306 3.84 

Uinta, WY 15,091,065 419,356 15,292 434,648 2.88 

Weber, UT 28,144,463 36,592 25,334 61,926 0.22 

Source: County budgets in Utah from Utah State Auditors Website, 

www.lgr.sao.state.ut.us/1999%20County%20Budgets_1. Uinta County Website, 

www.webcom.com/ucedc/county/budget99. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 467 

Environmental Consequences 

The impacts of the alternatives are projected based on Forest Service expenditures and the 

estimated outputs in five program areas of forest management: recreation/tourism, range, 

wildlife and fish, timber, and minerals. The output levels used for this analysis represent the 

projected 10-year average for the planning period. Resource specialists have provided 

estimates based on the best available information and professional judgment. Additionally, 

because complete information about the area economies was not available, it was necessary to 

make a number of assumptions in order to conduct the analysis. Where pertinent to the 

discussion of effects, some of these assumptions are explained below. More information 

about the assumptions and processes used to conduct the analysis is provided in Appendix 

B11, Forest Plan Revision Process. 

The nine-county scale of analysis represents the region of economic and social 

relationship and interaction with the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and its management 

policies. The analysis model incorporates county level data into the regional scale and 

generates results at the regional level. Because of this, economic effects at any smaller 

combination of counties, or an individual county, were not generated and cannot be 

inferred from the analysis results. 

Because of limited data, the need for modeling assumptions, limits to the model itself, 

and other factors, the most important use of the results is to compare relative economic 

effects among the seven alternatives analyzed in detail (the current condition is also 

displayed in addition to the seven action alternatives). The results should not be viewed 

as absolute economic values that accurately portray the infinitely complex economic 

interactions of the regional economy, but as an estimate of potential effects. 

The economic sections of the analysis consider the potential effects to market-related 

goods and services that are traditionally related to national forests, for which monetary 

values are available, and for which analysis tools are generally accepted. Passive use 

values have not been quantified. Therefore, the analysis considers the possible economic 

impacts of alternatives to timber, livestock grazing, mining, and recreation. It does not 

consider many other “amenity” values for which monetary values and analysis techniques 

are less clear. These are mainly comprised of existence, bequest, option and quasi-option 

values. 

Existence values refer to the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve an 

old-growth forest stand, for example, even if they had no intention of ever visiting it. 

Bequest value refers to the amount individuals would be willing to pay to preserve the 

stand for the enjoyment of their children or future generations. Option value refers to the 

premium risk-adverse individuals would be willing to pay in excess of their expected 

surplus to ensure the future availability of the stand in an environment of uncertainty. 

Quasi-option value arises because there is uncertainty about the future value of a natural 

resource. Information about the value of the resource is revealed only with the passage of 

time. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 468 

While the passive values associated with the Forest as a whole are no doubt considerable, 

and the Forest Service recognizes the tremendous value of these kinds of items, they are 

extremely difficult to accurately measure, particularly on the per acre basis, which would 

be needed in order to make a comparison among alternatives. Analysis methods to 

quantify them in an economic analysis are also not readily available or agreed upon. 

Such values are described and considered qualitatively within the social and other 

individual resource sections of this document. Additional assumptions and the derivation 

of value estimates by alternative are included in Appendix B11. 

Financial and Economic Efficiency 

Financial and economic efficiency are analyzed in this section. Financial efficiency examines 

revenue and cost implications from the perspective of the Forest Service. It could also be said 

that this is the perspective of the taxpayer. Only those revenues and costs that are recorded in 

financial records are included in this analysis. 

When considering quantitative issues, financial efficiency analysis offers a consistent measure 

in dollars for comparison of alternatives. This type of analysis does not account for nonmarket benefits, opportunity costs, individual values, or other values, benefits, and costs that 

are not easily quantifiable. This is not to imply that such values are not significant or 

important – but to recognize that non-market values are difficult to represent with appropriate 

dollar figures. The values not included in this part of the analysis are often at the center of 

disagreements and the interest people have in forest resource projects. Therefore, financial 

efficiency should not be viewed as a complete answer but as one tool decision makers use to 

gain information about resources, alternatives, and trade-offs between costs and benefits. 

Economic efficiency examines a broader definition of benefits by including values for national 

forest uses that are not captured in the marketplace. Many non-market and passive use values 

are excluded from the economic efficiency analysis completed here. Some outcomes of 

effects, such as biological diversity, visual amenities, and some social impacts have no 

monetary values or costs that have been established by USDA or the Forest Service. While 

some research studies have explored the development of such values, this analysis has 

considered these items in a non-monetary fashion in the other resource sections of this EIS. 

Willingness-to-pay values for recreation use are the primary additions over a financial 

analysis. Estimated market value for meat gained by grazing livestock on public land is also 

included. See Appendix B11 for a description of values used in the economic analysis. 

Net public benefit is an important concept in the current regulations for carrying out a forest 

plan revision. Net public benefit is defined as the overall value to the nation of all outputs and 

positive effects (benefits) minus all the associated Forest Service inputs and negative effects 

(costs) for producing those primary benefits, whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. 

Thus, net public benefits conceptually are the sum of this economic analysis plus the net value 

of non-priced outputs and costs. It is not the results of an economic analysis alone. This 

concept is the basis upon which the Regional Forester selects an alternative for 

implementation. Net public benefits are discussed in the Record of Decision. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 469 

The main criterion used in assessing financial and economic efficiency is present net value 

(PNV), which is defined as the value of discounted benefits (or revenues) minus discounted 

costs. A PNV analysis includes all outputs, including timber, grazing, and recreation, to 

which monetary values are assigned. As noted above, the monetary values include both 

market and non-market values received by the public. In deriving PNV figures, costs are 

subtracted from benefits to yield a net value. "Future values" (i.e., benefits received in the 

future) are discounted using an appropriate discount rate to obtain a "present value." The PNV 

of a given alternative is the discounted sum of all benefits minus the sum of all costs 

associated with that alternative. PNV, as required by NFMA (36 CFR 219) estimates attempt 

to condense a large amount of information into a single value, they must be used with caution. 

Table SE-9 displays the economic and financial PNV for each alternative. All dollars are in 

constant dollars with no allowance for inflation. A four percent discount rate was used over a 

period of 50-years (2002-2051). While the planning horizon for the forest plan is 10-15 years, 

the PNV analysis considers costs and benefits into the future to account for long-term benefits 

and discount costs. While the question of the appropriate discount rate to use is debatable, the 

four percent level is consistent with what is commonly used in evaluation of public policy. 

Revenues are not reduced for payments made to states and counties. The reduction of PNV in 

any alternative as compared to the most financially or economically efficient solution is the 

economic trade-off, or opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative. 

Forest Service budgets have been held constant over the planning horizon. Specific 

allocation differences between resource programs were made based on each alternative’s 

emphasis. Based on estimated resource outputs by alternative, the level of revenues to 

the Forest Service change by alternative. 

Table SE-9. Economic and financial efficiency (PNV) estimated by alternative for 50-year 

planning horizon, in millions of dollars. 

Alternative 

Value Current 

No 

Action 1 2 3 5 6 7 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - present value, million of dollars- - - - - - - - - - - - 

Forest Service revenues 172 173 158 163 137 174 139 140 

Public benefits 14,135 14,867 14,779 14,820 14,851 15,089 14,860 14,868 

Costs -417 -417 -417 -417 -417 -417 -417 -417

Financial PNV -245 -244 -259 -254 -280 -243 -278 -277

Economic PNV 13,718 14,450 14,362 14,403 14,434 14,672 14,443 14,451 

Source: USDA Forest Service 2002b, Quick-Silver. 

As shown in Table SE-9, the financial PNV (Forest Service revenues minus costs) for the 

budget level varies little between the alternatives, with alternative 3 being the most 

negative, -$280 million to Alternative 5 with a total of -$243 million. All alternatives do 

show negative financial PNV, indicating that costs of Forest Service management are 

estimated to be greater than the revenues taken in over the next 50 years. What appears 

to make Alternative 5’s financial PNV the highest is the higher levels of timber harvest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 470 

and grazing associated with the alternative. Alternatives with preservation emphases such 

as 1 and 6 show the highest net cost to the taxpayer, because there are fewer agency 

revenues associated with these activities associated with the alternatives while expenses 

remain the same. 

The economic PNV (public benefits minus costs) is positive for all alternatives. The net 

value ranges from a low $14,362 million for Alternative 1 to a high of $14,671 million 

for Alternative 5. There is only a 2 percent difference between the lowest and highest 

PNV—a difference that may be indistinguishable given estimated accuracies for value 

and output estimates. The net economic benefits are orders of magnitude larger than the 

financial gross revenues. This suggests that even with the limited monetary values 

available for the analysis, society benefits greatly from implementing any alternative 

fully considered in this document.

Distribution Analysis 

Distribution analysis is not concerned with costs and benefits directly, or with direct 

values of resources, but with the equity in which resource are distributed. In essence, it is 

the balancing of local, regional, and national uses. By identifying local impacts and 

being aware of national values, decision makers can balance the benefits and costs among 

geographical, political, social, ethnic, and economic sectors of society. In this analysis, 

the distribution of potential impacts within the analysis area is considered from several 

perspectives, impacts of employment and labor income by alternative, and environmental 

justice. The following analysis is one of the many tools decision makers will use to compare 

the relative difference among alternatives. 

Employment and Labor Income 

The following analysis and discussion examines the potential effects of alternatives on 

employment and labor income opportunities within the analysis area. Although in many cases 

the differences between the alternatives are relatively small, the impact may be considerable to 

individual communities, persons, families, or businesses. Within small communities, the loss 

of a single job can be very important, even though the impact across the analysis area is 

negligible. 

The IMPLAN model was used to estimate complex economic relations in order to 

approximate the effects of each alternative on the economy as a whole. The IMPLAN 

model is an input output model that estimates and uses multipliers as a means to estimate 

the change in direct, indirect, and induced effects as a result of an adjustment in the level 

of final demand for the goods or services provided by a given sector of the economy. 

These multipliers also take into account the effects of leakage and imports. 

The employment and income estimated should be viewed as resource opportunities, not 

as actual jobs the alternatives will provide. The impacts estimated are based on the 

assumption of full implementation of each alternative. The actual changes in the 

economy will depend on individuals taking advantage of resource-related opportunities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 471 

supported by each Forest plan alternative. If market conditions, or trends in resource use 

are not conducive to developing some opportunities, the impact on the economy will be 

different than estimated here. The results highlighted below only account for jobs and 

income related to Forest Service outputs, the figures do not represent total industry 

participation or activities associated with other resources outside the Wasatch-Cache. 

Leakage occurs when money must be spent outside the analysis area in order to fulfill 

production needs – if a local restaurant requires seafood for production of dinner, the 

money spent in Washington or Oregon for fresh salmon is considered a leakage. The 

money has left the analysis area and is no longer available for circulation within the local 

economy. Imports to the local area are basically someone else’s leakage – when nonresidents enters the analysis are for a weekend of skiing, all the money spent is 

considered new money, or an import to the economy. 

The following tables estimate the potential impact of each alternative on the employment 

and labor income in the analysis area. The model estimates how many jobs and 

associated income would be necessary in each sector to fulfill the resource demand of 

each alternative within the analysis area. The jobs estimated are not necessary new 

employment – the tables display the total employment (direct, indirect, and induced) 

needed to produce each alternative’s resource output. The current situation highlights the 

level of employment and income that is currently associated with Forest activities, so the 

difference between alternatives can be compared to current operations. 

It is also important to note that in the IMPLAN model, jobs can be part-time, full-time or 

seasonal. In this analysis, jobs are not the same as a Full Time Equivalent (FTE). This is 

important to consider when looking at these job figures that only the portion of an 

industry related to forest outputs will be accounted for in the analysis. For example, if 

there were 350 grazing permittees within an area, those jobs may be represented by only 

75 jobs in the Forest Planning model because these operations do not graze solely on 

Forest Service lands. The analysis only accounts for that grazing output on the Forest 

and then adds all jobs together so the 75 jobs represents the employment of the 350 

permittees while operating on the Forest. 

Table SE-10 displays the estimated annual average employment within the analysis area. 

All alternatives show similar results with a change of 305 potential jobs between the 

highest and lowest alternative. Alternative 5, emphasizing traditional commodity 

production, estimates the largest increase in jobs from the current situation, and 

Alternative 1 estimates the least increase. A portion of the potential increase is due to the 

assumption of full implementation of all alternatives, while the current situation is 

reflective of actual budget and personnel limitations encountered annually by all Forest 

Service offices. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 472 

Table SE-10. Average Annual Employment 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%

Source: MIG 2002. 

The majority of all jobs estimated for the alternatives are within the recreation and 

tourism program. Most of these jobs are likely to be seasonal and associated with the 

retail or service sectors. The differences between the alternatives in the 

recreation/tourism program are due to management prescriptions allowing for developed 

recreation such as ski areas and ski area expansion or other facilities that increase the 

number of users within an area. 

The grazing program outputs are based on averages of actual use over a ten-year period 

adjusted by alternative based on suitable acres and forage utilization allowances. 

Alternative 2 assumes the least suitable range resulting in total AUMs of 84 percent of 

the current average, and a potential decline in associated jobs. Although actual AUMs 

are projected to change by Alternative, permitted AUMs will not change as a result of 

Forest Plan Revision. Adjustments to permitted numbers depend on site-specific 

monitoring, analysis, and decisions. 

Timber harvesting is an important component of each alternative. Alternatives 5 and 7 

manage timber as a commercial resource while other alternatives highlight timber harvest 

as a tool used in achieving forest health and restoration goals. Employment associated 

with timber harvesting includes logging of the trees and local milling. In some cases, 

such as urban interface fuels reduction projects, the trees harvested are often too small to 

be used in sawmill operations so employment is limited to logging of the material. 

Available lands for mineral exploration and continued oil and gas drilling vary depending 

on the emphasis and management of each alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 minimize the 

level of activity and thus the associated jobs while Alternatives 5 and 7 expand mineral 

opportunities and jobs. For individual resource, see the resource section in this document 

for specific output information and descriptions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 473 

Table SE-10 displays the estimated annual average labor income within the analysis area 

by resource program. The labor income differences by alternative show similar trends as 

the employment figures with limited variability between alternatives. The largest portion 

is within the recreation/tourism program. Alternative 5 estimates the largest change, 14 

percent, from the current level of labor income associated with higher outputs and 

activities. Alternative 1 estimates lowest labor income when compared to the current 

level. Again, because of the assumption of full implementation of the alternatives, all 

show positive change from the current situation, which is constrained by actual budget. 

Table SE-11. 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. 

Environmental Justice – Civil Rights 

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decision-making is 

encompassed in the issue of environmental justice and civil rights. As required by law 

and Title XI, all federal actions will consider potentially disproportionate effects on 

minority or low-income communities. Potential impacts or changes to low-income or 

minority communities within the study area due to the proposed action should be 

considered. Where possible, measures should be taken to avoid negative impacts to these 

communities or mitigate the adverse affects. 

As highlighted in the Affected Environment of this section, there are few minorities 

within the study area and no communities are considered low-income. While there are 

individual households that are either minority or low-income, the communities as a whole 

are not. 

Payments to the State 

As highlighted in chapter 3 of the social and economic analysis, 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 474 

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 SE-11 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, contributing a 

similar amount to the county payment; since all alternatives have allotment use similar to 

current this trend will continue. Current land uses, power lines, and special uses are not 

significantly impacted by any of the alternatives, but several limit future ski area 

developments and expansions that may limit future county payments. Finally, the fees 

from recreation have been declining and will likely continue to do so under all 

alternatives as the Forest Service moves toward concessionaries and Fee Demo. These 

collections are not included in payment calculations. 

Table SE-12. 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. 

Economic Cumulative Impacts 

The revision process estimates potential economic effects of alternatives in the short 

term. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the analysis area that 

would significantly impact current uses of the area in the future. In some cases, jobs and 

income related to one type of resource development may be forgone in order to 

emphasize or manage an area for a different resource output; other types of jobs and 

income will be associated with this alternative management. Individuals may be 

adversely impacted by selection of one alternative over another, but in the larger, regional 

economy, each alternative offers a different mix of opportunities to the area. 

Social Impact Analysis 

This section covers social impacts that more often occur off national forest lands. 

Effects of alternatives to recreationists and other users that occur directly on the Forest 

(in recreation, from other commodity development activities, through Wilderness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 475 

designation, vegetation management, wildlife habitat management, fire management, and 

watershed management) are described in sections devoted to these topics. 

The social impacts section has three parts. 

First, effects related to Issue 4. This issue was developed to deal with economic and 

social values. The effects of alternatives on several kinds of uses (livestock grazing, 

timber harvest, oil and gas leasing, and ski areas, and recreation), as portions of the 

economy, and use interactions have been described previously. Aspects of these uses, 

which have a social effect on lifestyles of people involved in livestock grazing, timber 

harvest, oil and gas work and recreation will be addressed in this section. A narrative 

discussion of the effects of alternatives is provided for these affected forest users. We 

recognize that the public has a broad range of values and interests in how national 

forest lands are managed, and that this section cannot likely meet every individual’s 

or group’s expectations or concerns. What is provided are some general observations 

on the probable effects of the alternatives to relatively intangible social values 

described in Issue 4. 

Second, effects related concerns raised by individual counties. A narrative is provided 

which describes effects to concerns raised by individual counties that were voiced 

during information gathering for this analysis. Effects to American Indians in the 

vicinity are also discussed. 

Third, a discussion of potential cumulative effects is provided for an interpretation of 

the longer-term general effects of population changes, demographic shifts, increasing 

diversity, and social issues related to forest plan decisions. 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions related to Livestock 

Grazing 

While projected AUMs are not grossly affected for cattle and only moderately 

affected for sheep, suitable acres do change by alternative, having implications for 

how livestock grazing is to be managed and distributed. Depending on current 

conditions of an individual allotment and how suitable acres are distributed, actual 

AUMs may change and management requirements may affect permittee 

operations. Increased needs for riding and fence construction and maintenance 

apply to all alternatives that reduce suitable acres. In Alternative 7, the 30-40% 

forage utilization guideline for lands in unsatisfactory condition will require 

additional diligence on the part of permittees to keep use levels within the 

allowable. This may mean more time spent managing livestock on the forest 

making less time available for other pursuits. 

Those permittees whose allotments are in areas recommended for Wilderness for 

example can expect that any existing motorized access under their Term Grazing 

Permit for proper management of livestock can continue at least until such time as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 476 

Congress acts. However some recreationists may complain about this access 

because it is not available to the general public. 

 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 close all or some currently vacant allotments. As 

these allotments are not currently used, there should be no short-term social 

effects associated with this change from current status. Long-term, closed 

allotments will provide ungrazed areas for those who enjoy recreating in areas 

lacking the influence of domestic livestock grazing. 

 

Those groups or individuals who do not favor the use of national forests for livestock grazing 

could be more satisfied with alternatives that reduce suitable acres and/or projected AUMs. 

However the differences in terms of presence of livestock grazing and accompanying 

environmental effect are expected to be minimal from a recreation setting or aesthetic 

perspective. 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions related to Timber Harvest and 

Vegetation Management 

Projections for timber harvest levels vary by alternative as presented in the Timber section. 

While most local mills have adapted to decreasing or intermittent supply from federal lands by 

increasing purchase from other suppliers, further adaptation might be required under 

alternatives all alternatives except 4 and 5. Similarly, if decreased supply projections equate to 

some effect on social patterns associated with those people employed by mills or in logging, 

then alternatives that show reductions in harvest might have some minor effect on related 

social patterns. 

Emphasis on the forestwide subgoal for vegetation composition and structure (trending toward 

historic range of variability through increased prescribed burning, wildland fire use, or 

mechanical treatment) may also affect local social conditions. Alternatives 2, and 3, 6 and 7 to 

a lesser extent, increase forest vegetation management efforts by increasing the acres treated by 

the techniques mentioned above. Some new Forest Service jobs or some contract opportunities 

to accomplish these vegetation management goals could be created. The economic modeling 

has included higher values for Forest Service budget in these alternatives related to these 

activities. 

Those groups or individuals who do not believe the Wasatch-Cache should be open for 

commercial timber harvesting might be more satisfied Alternatives 1 and 2 that limit harvest to 

restoration related activities. 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions related to Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

Alternatives, 3, 5, 6, and 7, provide for some additional oil and gas leasing with differing 

stipulations on the roadless areas of the North Slope. Projections for production differ by 

alternative (See Oil and Gas section.) For Summit County, additional county revenues would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 477 

be realized on royalties, taxes and other income, but few additional jobs are actually projected 

(See Economics section.) Uinta County would probably also see a few additional jobs, but 

might see less county revenue increases, as much of the producing area is in Utah. 

Socially, any changes to the makeup of communities in Summit or Uinta County or from the 

selection of any alternative, would be very minor. No major oil boom or bust will result from 

any alternative; there will be no substantive increase in population, jobs, or diversity as a result 

of any alternative related to oil and gas leasing. 

Those groups or individuals who do not believe that roadless areas on the North Slope should 

be leased will be aggravated if a decision to lease part or all of the area is made. These people 

will likely protest or appeal a decision to lease in roadless, believing that irretrievable losses of 

ecosystem will be made. 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions related to Recreation 

For recreation, the Alternatives largely vary on the amounts of motorized versus non-motorized 

recreation available, particularly as relates to winter snowmobile access. 

Businesses dependent on motorized recreation (ATV and snowmobile dealers, gas stations) 

and segments of society whose lifestyles are related to motorized recreation use will favor 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7. These alternatives maintain acres and trails available for motorized 

access and uses about where they are today, or try to expand motorized uses where possible, 

which would appeal to these people. Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 limit snowmobile use in roadless 

areas and recommended wilderness, which may be offensive to the motorized group of users. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and, 7 which provide protection for roadless areas, and limit the use of 

snowmobiles in these areas, will appeal to segments of society who (as a rule) do not favor the 

use or expansion of motorized recreation, but prefer non-motorized, small-group outdoor 

recreation activities or protection of ecosystem components from what they perceive as threats 

to their uses or the natural system. 

For outfitter-guides, all alternatives except the No Action Alternative provide new criteria for 

assessing the need for outfitter guides. Most individuals or groups that have an interest in 

outfitting and guiding on the Forest ought to be pleased with the specificity provided in these 

criteria for assessing proposals. Some individuals and groups do not favor providing outfitting 

and guiding services on the Forest; while they may have preferred that any potential for new 

outfitting and guiding be closed off, these individuals may also be pleased to find the criteria 

provided for assessing proposals. 

Socially, various user groups have strong preferences for different kinds of recreation, and their 

acceptance or rejection of the adequacy of any alternative to meet their needs seems relatively 

straightforward. Predicting individual responses to these alternatives is very difficult. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 478 

Effects of Alternatives on Social Conditions related to Ski Areas and 

Heliskiing 

Alternative 5 is the only alternative that allows increased acreage for ski resort permits. The 

other alternatives do not. Because of this, Alternative 5 ought to appeal to the ski resorts, or to 

those groups or individuals who support more opportunity for developed ski resorts and 

businesses. For individuals or groups who do not want additional allocations for ski area 

expansion (for ecosystem, other recreational opportunity, simply maintaining the status quo, or 

a variety of other reasons) other alternatives would seem more socially acceptable. 

Alternatives 3-7 allow heliskiing, in about the same locations where it is currently allowed. 

Individuals who enjoy heliskiing and the owners of this business will find these alternatives in 

their favor. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not allow the continuance of heliskiing on the forest, after 

the current permitted use expires. Opponents of heliski use will probably support a decision 

that would choose Alternative 1 or 2. 

Effects of Alternative Wilderness Recommendations on Social 

Conditions 

In Utah, as in much of the west, the issue of whether to have more Wilderness or not is 

most often polarizing. The actual physical merit of an area (its “capability”) is often not 

the major question at hand. Rather, the historical context in which former battles over 

Wilderness have been waged and the intrenched positions of key individuals bear equally 

as heavily on the question. Any Wilderness recommendation is perceived as too much by 

some, while smaller recommendations are thought to be environmentally irresponsible by 

others. An attempt to find some middle ground is difficult. It is likely that the choice for 

any alternative will be unsatisfying to many. 

Wilderness advocates tend to prefer Alternative 1 with the largest Wilderness 

recommendation; conversely, those opposed to more Wilderness (motorized use and 

access enthusiasts, advocates of timber, oil and gas, and livestock grazing use) are highly 

opposed to these recommendations. At the other end of the spectrum, Alternatives 4 and 

5 are preferred by those opposed to more Wilderness, as none is recommended; advocates 

for more Wilderness are highly opposed to these alternatives. In between these two 

extremes are Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7, at least with respect to Wilderness 

recommendation. Each of these alternatives can be said to be more or less acceptable to 

opposing segments of society depending on the amount of Wilderness recommended, or 

not, and the choice for any of these alternatives would carry with it acceptance or 

discontent by different affected groups. 

Effects of Alternative Roadless Area Management on Social Conditions 

How roadless areas should be managed in the future – to maintain their “natural” 

ecosystem functions, or to be more actively managed or developed - has been a key 

public issue in this forest plan revision. This forest plan revision effort has been 

contemporary with and heavily affected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule 36 CFR 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 479 

294 (RACR). See other sections of this document for more detailed information on 

implications of the rule. Public debate on roadless area conservation, both in this forest 

plan’s revision forums and at the national scale has been contentious and polarized. 

Different individuals and groups of people experience solitude, serenity, spiritual renewal 

and a variety of other positive emotions in different ways. The kinds of wildland settings 

and personal or group experiences that provide positive fulfillment to some users are not 

fulfilling for others. Families and groups with differing traditions about how they 

recreate, use, or otherwise see value in public lands are fervent about their desires to 

preserve those values they see as shrinking or threatened. This section is intended to 

disclose how the alternatives may affect or be perceived by groups with differing 

personal/social values. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 applied the RACR protections to all roadless areas (no timber 

harvest, no road building). Roadless area values are fully protected in Alternative 1, 

nearly as much so in Alternative 2, and to a lesser extent in Alternatives 6 and 3. The 

selection of any of these alternatives with larger Wilderness recommendations or more 

roadless acres maintained, reduced areas available for motorized use, emphases on 

ecosystem functions and restoration, setting aside additional wild lands for more 

primitive forms of use, as a refuge for species/wildlife, would appeal to segments of 

society where these values were held high. 

Alternatives 5 and 4 allow development (road construction, timber harvest, new 

recreation developments) in most roadless areas; within the parameters of forest plan 

standards and guidelines. The selection of either of these alternatives would appeal to 

segments of society that value these uses. These alternatives are probably more amenable 

to social groups who make a living through commodity production based on using 

national forest lands. Advocates for motorized use, winter and summer, would find these 

two alternatives better suit their personal needs. 

Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 tend to be more middle of the road with respect to societal values 

on roadless area management, resulting in neither full maintenance of identified roadless 

area values (See Appendix C-2), or in more developed uses in roadless areas. Alternative 

7 examined and evaluated roadless areas for unique and individual values and 

recommends management for each roadless area with more information and knowledge 

of environmental and social context than do the other alternatives. Because of this 

Alternative 7 might appear to have some advantage to others in terms of public support, 

however, it is unlikely that a choice for this alternative would satisfy a large majority of 

the public. 

Effects on Social Conditions from Fuel/Vegetation Treatment 

Alternatives that have more opportunities and acres identified for mechanical fuel 

treatment (Alternatives 3, 6 and 7) would have more of an impact on social conditions. 

Residents in the wildland-urban interface would be impacted by mechanical fuel 

treatment designed to mitigate fire behavior. Residents would be encouraged to complete 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 480 

fuel treatment actions on private land in areas adjacent to where fuel treatment occurs on 

public land. Some residents may not be supportive of fuels reduction actions because of 

reduced perceived scenic quality resulting from more open-growing vegetation. Using 

local contractors to complete mechanical fuel treatment work would positively impact the 

local economy. This impact would be greatest when local contractors are used in lesspopulated communities. 

Other effects on social conditions from fuel treatment in the wildland-urban interface are 

the reduced risk of severe wildland fire burning homes or causing landslides where fuel 

treatments have been accomplished. See section on "Effects on Social Conditions from 

Fire Management" for additional discussion. 

Effects on Social Conditions from Fire Management 

Fire management actions have the potential to greatly impact social conditions with the 

most impacts from large wildland fires. Since most communities surrounding the 

Wasatch-Cache NF do not heavily rely on timber production from federal lands, the 

impact of wildland fire burning suitable timber stands would be minimal. However, 

many residents surrounding the forest choose that location because of the scenic and 

remote qualities. Following a large wildland fire, perceived scenic quality is greatly 

reduced in the short-term. Additionally, risks of substantial erosion are greatly increased. 

This would affect home and property values, and may be costly or devastating to 

homeowners (in the event of homes burning and/or severe landslides). It is difficult to 

determine which Alternatives would have more risk of homes burning or severe 

landslides. Alternatives 1 and 4 have the least managed fuel reduction actions in the 

wildland-urban interface and therefore may have the highest potential risk and related 

impacts. In small communities, the use of local contractors for fire suppression actions 

(caterers, equipment rentals, drivers, etc.) may benefit local communities. 

The social impacts of prescribed fire and wildland fire use would be minimal and do not 

significantly vary across alternatives. 

Potential Effects on Concerns Raised by Counties 

Meetings with each county were conducted to assess what counties were interested in 

related to national forest management during the early stages of this analysis. Some of 

this information is presented in the Affected Environment section above. This section 

describes effects to counties based on what was said to be of interest during these 

information-gathering meetings. 

Box Elder County 

Under any alternative watershed for the community of Honeyville is protected. Ongoing 

travel management planning in eastern portions of the county adjacent to the Wasatch 

Range has been conducted with the Forest Service. Summer travel management planning 

for routes is separate from this Forest Plan; however, it is expected that further 

interactions between the county and the Wasatch-Cache will occur, and the Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 481 

Service is interested in county concerns for the area related to resource impacts, safety, 

and on and off road vehicle use. 

Cache County

Cache County planning personnel indicated (as heard in scoping meetings with the 

general public) that there was a broad range of opinions in the county on forest planning 

issues. Effects of alternatives on Wilderness proposals, winter and summer motorized 

and non-motorized use, roadless area management, livestock grazing, and protection of 

rivers eligible as Wild and Scenic Rivers are presented in those sections. 

As population grows and development continues in Cache County, demands on Forest 

lands will continue to rise. Socially, this may be contentious as users interact with 

competing demands; it is also possible that local users may see the need to come to terms 

with one another and help find common solutions. 

Davis County 

In Davis County watershed protection has been provided in every alternative to ensure 

protection of downstream uses. In Alternatives 3 and 5 the intent is to provide additional 

recreational opportunities for motorized and developed uses respectively, while 

continuing watershed protection. All action alternatives employ new fire management 

direction with more emphasis on the use of prescribed and wildland fire use. 

Morgan County 

All alternatives provide substantial protection of watershed conditions above Mountain 

Green on the southeast portions of Mt. Ogden. 

South of I-15 access from the east side to the Wasatch Front has been limited (across 

private lands). In the revised Forest Plan written to express Alternative 7 conditions the 

Desired Future Condition states that any existing access will be maintained, and if not 

present, that public access would be acquired. Providing new access to the backside of 

the Wasatch Range here would provide quicker access to undeveloped recreation 

opportunities in the area. It might also mean some increase in traffic during highest use 

periods through county areas to the forest. 

Rich County 

Few, if any, social effects will be noted in Rich County from any alternative. A 

continuance of existing land-use opportunities are provided. No changes in current 

allotment status are presented in any alternative. Timber harvest opportunities, while not 

available in Alternative 1 are present in other alternatives at or near the current low 

production levels. For the most part, local social and economic activities with 

dependency on the Forest have not been changed. 

Salt Lake County 

In Salt Lake County critical watershed values are protected under each alternative. The 

alternatives also provide for protection of scenic values (as the scenic backdrop is an 

important amenity for residents.) In the county there has been considerable controversy 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 482 

between those interested in continuing heliski opportunities and those who oppose this 

activity. Alternatives are presented which support either position. Attempts in project 

level analyses to resolve this conflict have not been successful. The Proposed Forest Plan 

provides an objective for Tri-Canyon planning refinement with a collaborative group, 

which is intended to address this need. 

Similarly, general social controversy has revolved around the extent to which new 

development in the canyon is appropriate. Alternative 5 allows for additional acreages 

for some ski-area permits and more allowance for recreational facilities development, 

while other alternatives do not. 

Continuance of cooperative ventures with local and county governments for fire 

protection, law enforcement, and recreation management (e.g. Mill Creek) are not 

decisions made in this plan. These arrangements are mutually beneficial to all agencies 

and governments involved to cut costs and increase services to the public, and no changes 

are projected for them. 

 

Summit County 

Protection of municipal watersheds above the Kamas Valley are provided under all 

alternatives, which has been a stated objective of town and county officials in Summit 

County. 

The county is also interested in the economic and social effects of forest management, as 

well as cooperative planning with the Forest Service. The Wasatch-Cache will be 

interested in engaging county in discussions under any alternative to consider mutual 

needs or the specific needs of the county. 

Summit County receives revenues (as do other counties) from royalties and receipts 

related to activities on the Wasatch-Cache. Under Alternatives 3, 5, 6, and 7 which 

support larger potential for oil and gas production these revenues have a higher 

probability for larger returns; while revenues approximately equal current revenues are 

probable under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. 

Under all alternatives Summit County will probably continue its rapid population growth 

and development. It is unlikely that a decision to implement any of the alternatives 

presented in this analysis would change this scenario. 

Tooele County 

Under any alternative county officials can expect continuing interaction and cooperation 

with the Wasatch-Cache. Continued interagency planning on watershed and fire 

management can be expected. 

Under Alternatives 3, 5, 6, and 7 some additional emphasis on developed recreation and 

controlling and channeling motorized recreation would occur, which would favor 

remarks that the county provided during interactions with the Forest. These alternatives, 

as well as the Desired Future Condition in the Draft Forest Plan, call for a more active 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 483 

recreation presence and management in the Stansbury Range. Tooele County is 

interested in expanding and coordinating with the Forest Service in providing outdoor 

recreation opportunities for its residents and other visitors. 

County officials might not favor Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 that recommend more 

Wilderness in the Stansbury Range. 

Weber County 

Weber County and its towns and cities recognize that watershed protection is a valuable 

component of the national forest management, which is provided for in all alternatives. 

Similarly, interactive fire planning will also occur, no matter which alternative is 

selected. Continuing cooperation in planning for urban front trails will also occur. 

The Monte Cristo and Curtis Creek areas are recognized as valuable winter snowmobile 

range, which is provided for in each alternative, in somewhat different amounts, 

dependent on the degree to which roadless areas and wildlife corridors are protected 

during winter. 

The Snowbasin area development is not a decision related to forest planning. No new 

allocations of land are planned for Snowbasin under any alternative. 

Uinta County, Wyoming 

Uinta County has been particularly interested in interacting with the Wasatch-Cache on 

forest planning. The County and its Resource Committee have cooperating agency status 

with the Forest Service for forest planning. (Also see section below on Consideration of 

plans of other federal agencies, states, local governments, and Indian tribes.) 

Uinta County’s position has been consistent that 1) Forest Plan decisions should not 

negatively affect current livelihoods that derive from the Forest, 2) that some 

enhancement of economic opportunity on the Forest can be accomplished while still 

providing responsible land stewardship, and 3) that current motorized access be 

maintained. The county has not been supportive of recommendations of additional 

Wilderness. 

Given these considerations, the County is not supportive of Alternatives 1 and 2, which 

provide for considerable additions to Wilderness. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, 

Alternatives 3 and 6 are also not favored. Alternative 5, which provides for some 

additional economic opportunity through timber harvest, no Wilderness recommendation, 

and continues existing access would seem to be most in line with the situation described 

as desirable by the Resource Committee. Parts of Alternative 7 may be acceptable to 

many in the county, as it identifies some areas for timber harvest and other vegetation 

treatments that had been recommended for roadless protection in earlier alternatives, but 

the county is not supportive of any recommendation for Wilderness. 

 

The County’s Resource Committee has expressed that existing lifestyles in the area have 

great value, and that Forest Plan decisions should not negatively affect this. While 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 484 

specific criteria were not developed to look at how current lifestyle is affected, it is clear 

that lifestyle in the county, as well as across the several county planning areas, is 

changing. Forest Plan decisions are not likely to change lifestyle nearly so much as other 

factors that are outside the realm of Forest Planning. The cumulative effects section, 

which follows addresses some of the larger forces that may affect Uinta County lifestyles. 

American Indians 

During scoping, no specific issues related to forest planning were raised by the American 

Indians described in the Affected Environment. Nevertheless, through discussions with 

line officers, some consideration of conditions generally favorable or not to American 

Indians are inferred. 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians 

Additional Wilderness is recommended for the Deseret Peak Wilderness in Alternatives 

1, 2, and 3, although in decreasing amounts with each alternative. As our line officers 

understand that additional wilderness is favored by the Goshutes, each of these 

alternatives would generally support their values. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and 7 have no 

additional Wilderness and probably would not be favored. Under each alternative 

cultural remains, sites and values are protected by federal law and proposed forest plan 

management direction. No reductions to current grazing are anticipated under any 

alternative in the Stansbury Range, maintaining current opportunities for economic uses. 

Northwestern Band of Shoshoni 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 all recommend additions to designated Wilderness. 

Discussions with the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni indicate that they are interested in 

Wilderness designation; therefore, these alternatives might support tribal intentions better 

than Alternatives 4 and 5. Under each alternative cultural remains, sites and values are 

protected by federal law and proposed forest plan management direction. Recently 

recorded prehistoric sites near the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni’ reservation, as well 

as others that have been known for some time, will be protected under any alternative. 

 

Northern Ute 

As with the aforementioned tribes, the Northern Utes are interested in maintaining access 

to and protecting traditional gathering sites and ceremonial areas, and sites. Under any 

alternative these uses and rights are recognized. Additions to all Wildernesses, but 

particularly to the Uinta Mountains are provided in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. It is 

likely that alternatives that support larger Wilderness additions would be more favorable 

to the Northern Utes than those that have little or none. Water rights, an item of 

expressed interest to the Northern Utes, are not affected by this Forest Plan’s decisions. 

Consideration of plans of other federal agencies, states, local 

governments, and Indian tribes 

36 CFR 219.7 requires that the results of a review of other plans be presented in the 

analysis of effects. The Forest Service has made various efforts during this forest plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 485 

revision process to understand and consider the policies and perspectives of other 

agencies and governments. As stated above, county planners for each county were 

consulted regarding their key concerns in the development of the forest plan revision, and 

these concerns were carried forward in the development of alternatives. 

 

The States of Utah and Wyoming, as well as several counties commented on the DEIS, 

and their letters are published in Appendix A. No comments were received from Indian 

Tribes, although some meetings were held with tribal leaders during the planning process 

to identify tribal concerns. In addition, for Uinta County, Wyoming and Summit County, 

Utah cooperating agency status was established by a Memorandum of Understanding. 

In general for all counties in the planning area, management direction in the Revised 

Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan is compatible with goals and objectives of these local 

governments. 

For Uinta County, Wyoming, a specific review of the County’s land use plan was 

conducted. The Forest Service’s plan and planning process is generally consistent with 

the County plan. Uinta County plan goals and objectives usually call for interaction with 

federal agencies in planning processes so that county concerns on any topic are aired, 

understood, and considered in federal decisions. On certain items (Wilderness 

recommendation, timber harvest levels, opportunities for oil and gas leasing in more 

areas, any further limitation of recreation access, restrictions on predator control, and the 

general effects of all preceding items on overall cultural patterns) the County is 

concerned that a forest plan written for Alternative 7 is not in the County’s best interests, 

even though the planning process has met most County plan goals for interaction. 

Social Cumulative Effects 

Population 

The rapidly expanding population will create more demands on the Wasatch-Cache over 

the next two decades. Population growth will further reduce the available open space in 

urban areas adjoining the Forest, increasing demand for opportunities to recreate and to 

escape urban environments. As urban areas expand, more and more people will 

experience lifestyle changes as rural environments recede. With expanding urban 

influences, residents are likely to experience higher levels of government influence in 

their lives, further exacerbating some current resentment toward governmental 

restrictions and their impacts. The growing list of management actions and restrictions 

on activities and uses within the Forest required by the Endangered Species Act, the 

Clean Water Act, and other Federal legislation may also serve to further agitate local 

governments who believe that too much local control has been lost. 

Demography 

Urbanization and development sprawl will occur over the next decade along the Wasatch 

Front, in the valleys on the backside of the Wasatch Range and adjacent to the north 

slope of the Uintas. While local urban, county, and regional planners and the public are 

making progress in refining the kinds of development that are desirable and recognize 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 486 

some of the inherent costs and effects associated with sprawl, nevertheless, growth, even 

if abated, will continue in some form, and overall density will increase. 

The interface of both primary homes with the Wasatch-Cache boundary will become 

more frequent along the Wasatch Front, and of ranchettes, trophy homes, and seasonal 

homes in sparsely populated areas. This development and filling in of open space will 

reduce universal access to these public lands. In addition, this interface of private homes 

with wildlands will create new threats from brush and forest fires and a demand for 

protection of lives and assets. 

Diversity 

Ethnic diversity will increase if current trends continue, and perhaps at an even faster 

rate. Different ethnic groups have been shown to have preferences for different types of 

recreation and use. But diversity in user demand, (not ethnically related) will also affect 

the Wasatch-Cache. Just as the previous Forest Plan did not anticipate mountain biking 

or snowboarding; we can be sure that new technology will develop that will increase the 

diversity of demands on the Forest. Legally and correctly, a responsive attitude will exist 

in the Forest Service in the near future to try to provide for the variety of cultural and use 

preferences stated by our public, while still sustaining underlying resources. 

“Second Paycheck” 

The “second paycheck” concept applies to the recognition that amenity and quality of life 

values associated with living near large tracts of well managed and attractive public land 

is a real benefit to many residents – in fact, a “second paycheck” (Dave Iverson, 

Intermountain Region, personal communication, 3/2001). A few people have moved to 

Utah or other parts of the West simply for these amenity values, while many others are at 

least attracted by these opportunities, among their other considerations. If current trends 

in American life continue, there will be a tendency to more competitive workplace 

situations, more complexity, and greater demands placed on individuals in their 

workplaces. For this reason, the “second paycheck” ought to increase in value over the 

next generation, and people will increasingly be interested in the management of public 

lands – as they see it in their own personal interests to be involved and attempt to direct 

the outcomes of public lands decisions. 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Alternatives currently under consideration would recommend the additions to all seven 

Wildernesses on the Forest, and add a new Wilderness. Other forests in Utah will begin 

their revisions in the coming years. Each will need to address recommendations for 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers. These wildland congressional designations have 

been among the most difficult for society to make regarding public lands. Political 

forces, emotions, and values are strong on either side of these allocations, and no clear 

outcome is yet on the horizon. The public, land management agencies, and politicians at 

every level have become weary with the debate. It is likely that efforts at forming 

coalitions of diverse interests will be attempted with hopes of resolving these questions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 487 

Roadless Areas 

The choice for how roadless areas on national forests will be managed is a key local, 

regional and national issue that has substantial importance in assessing cumulative effects 

on naturally evolving systems and human uses. For many people who seek to preserve 

the resource values they most treasure, protective designations and rules are a welcome 

change to current forest management policies. Cumulatively however, many of these 

changes may limit the region’s capacity to satisfy the rapidly growing population’s desire 

for some types of recreation opportunities and other uses. Frustrations may grow for 

individuals who prefer opportunities such as heliskiing or using ATVs as the 

opportunities they seek become crowded by other users and management attention turns 

to reducing user conflicts. It will become increasingly difficult to provide the same wide 

range of recreation opportunities that have been available in the past as the number of 

users increase and uses on the already limited space available are further constrained. 

Those with economic ties to forest resources will likely find it increasingly difficult to 

locate alternative sources on neighboring public lands. Growing numbers of forest users, 

conflicting objectives, and the overriding need to ensure ecosystem health and 

sustainability will require compromise on the part of all involved to resolve differences. 

Increased strain between user groups in many cases will be unavoidable. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 488 

Lands, Real Estate and Property Boundary Management 

Introduction 

Management of the landownership pattern of the Wasatch-Cache NF involves survey and 

marking of landlines and other boundaries, exchange of lands with private parties and nonFederal government entities, and acquisition of access rights-of-way. These activities would 

continue under all alternatives because they contribute to increase overall management efficiency 

regardless of alternative emphasis. 

Laws, Policy, and Direction 

• The Transfer Act (1905): transferred the Forest Reserves to the Department of Agriculture. 

• The Weeks Law (1911): Provides for land acquisition, exchange, condemnation and rights 

of way easements. Lands acquired by the United States under this act are reserved and not 

subject to appropriation under mineral law except as provided by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

• The General Exchange Act (1922): authorizes land adjustments within National Forest 

boundaries. 

• The Color of Title Act (1928): authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to recognize and 

adverse possession of public land under claim or color of title based on designated 

conditions.

• The Land Acquisition – Declaration of Taking Act (1931): provides condemnation 

authority to the United States. 

• The Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1956: provides additional land purchase 

authority. 

• The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): provides for funds for the 

acquisition of lands and interests in lands. 

• The Sisk Act (1967): provides for the exchange of lands with states and local governments. 

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: provides additional direction for 

land acquisition and exchange. 

• The Small Tracts Act (1983): provides for the sale, exchange, or interchange of certain 

parcels of minimal size. 

Acts Specific to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

• The Uintah-Wasatch Receipts Act (1935): provides annual funding for purchase of lands in 

a designated portion of the Ashley, Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests. 

• The Cache Receipts Act (1938): provides annual funding for purchase of lands in the old 

Cache National Forest. 

Three Purchase Units, previously designated, are in effect on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. A Purchase Unit Designation provides direction to the Forest concerning purchase 

opportunities within the designated boundaries. These are: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 489 

1. Davis County Purchase Unit - Salt Lake Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

2. Ogden Purchase Unit - Ogden Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

3. Tri-Canyon Purchase Unit - Salt Lake Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Affected Environment 

Purchases and Donations 

The Forest Service consults with other Federal, State and City governments on landownership 

adjustment planning. Table LN-1 displays the purchases and donations during the last decade. 

Past experiences show two or three land purchases are typically completed each year on the 

Forest. An average of between 40 and 80 acres per year are purchased. National policies and 

funding influence accomplishments. Local issues such as public access to NFS lands, wildlife 

habitat, watershed protection, Forest boundary management, and recreational opportunities have 

determined priorities and parcel selections. National initiatives such as the Great Western Trail 

and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail also establish priorities for land and ROW acquisitions. 

LA-1. Purchases and Donations 1990-2000 

YEAR CASE ACREAGE FINAL 

TITLE

1990 Lorna Cole 1 Land Purchase 13.25 1990 

1991 Lorna Cole 2 Land Purchase 25.00 1991 

1991 Lorna Cole 3 Land Purchase 15.00 1992 

1992 Naomi B. Hulse Land Purchase 36.27 1992 

1994 Wellsville Mountain/Hawkes Land Purchase 229.75 1995 

1994 Deaf Smith/Buningham/Pehrson Land Donation 41.32 1995 

1995 Taylors Cove/TPL I Land Purchase 37.40 1996 

1995 Alta/Sarah Daft Home Land Donation 33.98 1996 

1995 Taylor Canyon/Lorna Cole Land Donation 16.00 1996 

1996 Mt Naomi/Melville Land Purchase 20.66 1997 

1996 Mule Hollow/Wolfe Land Purchase 10.96 1997 

1996 Taylors Cove/TPL II Land Purchase 80.00 1997 

1997 Rice Creek Springs Land Purchase 134.11 1998 

1998 Albion Basin/Cummings Land Purchase 1.30 1999 

1998 Albion Basin/Murphy Land Purchase 0.31 1999 

1998 Silver King/Hunt Land Purchase 82.01 1999 

1999 Homestake/Olwell Land Purchase 45.82 2000 

1999 Heughs Canyon/Cannon Land Purchase 96.65 2000 

2000 Napoleon/Maghera Land Purchase 118.97 

2000 Timberwolf/Sanford Irrigation Land Purchase 10.00 

2000 Last Thance/Coupens Land Purchase 17.35 

 TOTALS 

1,066.12 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 490 

Land Exchanges 

Land exchanges have also resulted in changes in landownership patterns. LA –2 displays land 

exchanges completed from 1990 through 2000. 

LA-2 Land Exchanges 1990-2000 

YEAR CASE NAME FEDERAL 

ACRES

NONFEDERAL 

ACRES

FINAL TITLE

1990 Black Creek Associates 590.33 632.83 1995 

1993 Farmington City 0.94 59.50 1993 

1996 Chournos 440 440 1996 

1999 State of Utah 2,278.61 18,356.83 1999 

1999 Salt Lake Office 5.51 4.17 2000 

2000 Snow Basin 1.379.60 11,757.03 2001 

 TOTALS 4,694.99 31,250.36 

LA-3 Small Tracts Act Cases 1990-2000

YEAR CASE NAME FEDERAL 

ACRES FINAL TITLE

1992 Stirling Wood 0.03 1992 

1994 Gundy Chidester 0.05 1994 

1996 Gordon Owen 0.08 1996 

2000 Dickenson 0.06 2001 

 TOTALS 0.21 

Access to National Forests and Encroachments 

Rapid population growth in northern Utah has increased development within and along the 

Forest boundary. The result has been a loss of historical access to public roads and trails and 

increased encroachment. 

There are currently more than thirty identified and suspected encroachments (unauthorized use of 

national Forest System lands) cases on the Forest. Some of these encroachments include 

improvements such as buildings, recreation facilities, gardens, etc. The Forest is maintaining 

posted boundaries, and is identifying opportunities to use land exchanges and purchases to 

establish a more identifiable boundary along roads, trails and ridgelines. 

In 1995, the National Forest in Northern Utah completed a Rights-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition 

Plan identifying a need for 119 rights of way access on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

During the period since 1990, more than 54 ROW easements have been acquired, mostly through 

land purchases and exchanges. The Forest has also cooperated with and encouraged cities and 

counties to acquire ROWs within their jurisdictions, especially where a right has been 

established through prescriptive use under Utah State law. The Forest will continue to encourage 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 - 491 

maintenance of existing and acquiring new access to the National Forest. There are areas of the 

National Forest that do not currently have legal access. The Forest will continue to attempt to 

acquire access through those areas where it is not now available. 

Surface and Mineral Ownership Pattern 

In a number of areas on the Forest, especially where lands were re-acquired by the United States, 

a mixed surface and mineral estate ownership pattern has occurred. There are 78,734 acres 

within the Proclaimed National Forest boundary where the United States does not own the 

surface rights but does own the sub-surface rights (mineral estate). Federal Minerals under 

private surface are primarily located within the designated Forest Boundary on the southern 

portion of the Logan Ranger District, and the eastern portion of the Ogden Ranger District. 

There are 10,611 acres where the United States owns the surface estate and the State of Utah 

owns the mineral estate. There are 33,835 acres where the United States owns the surface rights 

and private citizens or corporations own the mineral estate. These areas occur throughout the 

Forest, but concentrations are found on the southern portion of the Logan Ranger District, the 

Eastern portion of the Ogden Ranger District, and the tri-Canyon Area of the Salt Lake Ranger 

District. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4 - 1 

CHAPTER 4 – LIST OF PREPARERS 

Over the several years of the forest planning process there have been changes in the make up of 

the interdisciplinary team and the forest leadership team. Individuals have moved to other jobs 

in other locations or local reassignments have been made as needed to enhance the forest 

planning effort or to address other forest work priorities. 

Contributors shown below are either currently contributing to the completion of the forest 

planning effort, or contributed meaningful input at some time to this planning process. 

Interdisciplinary Team 

Core interdisciplinary team members at time of the release of this document are shown with an 

asterisk (*). Other interdisciplinary team members were not on the core team, but played 

important professional or technical support roles now or in the past. 

Contributor Education/Experience Contribution 

Michael Barry 

Wilderness/Trails 

Salt Lake Ranger District and 

Supervisors Office 

B.A. Recreation, 

B.A. Forestry, 24 years in the 

Forest Service 

Roadless Evaluation for 

Wilderness, Recreation and 

Recreation Special Uses, 

Wilderness Management, GIS 

work 

*Melissa Blackwell 

Planning/Resources Group 

Leader 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Biology, 25 years in the 

Forest Service 

Planning Team Leader 

Alexandra Botello 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Supervisors Office 

(now reassigned to Pacific 

Southwest Region) 

B.S. Recreation 

Administration, Parks and 

Resource Management, 10 

years with the Forest Service 

Recreation, Scenery 

Management 

*Charlie Condrat 

Hydrologist 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Forestry, M.S. Watershed 

Science, 12 years experience 

with the Forest Service 

Watershed Health 

*Paul Cowley 

Fisheries Biologist 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Management M.S. Fisheries 

Management, 13 years 

experience with the Forest 

Service as a fish biologist. 

Aquatic Resources 

Mike Duncan 

Botanist 

Supervisors Office

B.S. Botany, 4 years 

experience with the Forest 

Service as a botanist. 

Botanical Resources 

Jennifer Eberlien 

Heritage Program Manager 

Supervisors Office 

B.A., M.A. Anthropology, 10 

years experience with the 

Forest Service as an 

Heritage Resources 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4 - 2 

archeologist 

Paul Flood 

Soil Scientist 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Soil Science, 23 years 

with Forest Service 

Range, Watershed Health 

*Dave Hatch 

Forest Landscape Architect 

Supervisors Office 

B.L.A. in Landscape 

Architecture Environmental 

Planning, 13 years with the 

Forest Service 

Scenery Management, 

Recreation 

*Julie Hubbard 

Environmental Coordinator 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Forest Recreation, 22 

years with the Forest Service 

Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis, 

Ski Area Analysis, Planning 

Coordination 

Kelli Green 

Planning/Admin. Assistant 

Supervisors Office 

5 years with Forest Service Mailing List Coordination, 

Planning Files, Public 

Meeting Coordinator 

*Kent O’Dell 

Vegetation Management Zone 

Leader 

Mt. View Ranger District 

B.S. Forest Management, M.S. 

Forest Ecology, 23 years 

experience in Forest Service 

forest management 

Vegetation Modeling, Timber 

Analysis 

*Wayne Padgett

Ecologist 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Biology, M.S. Rangeland 

Ecology, 2 years staff research 

associate in soils, 17 years 

with the Forest Service 

Biodiversity 

*Dave Ream 

Natural Resource Manager 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Recreation and Resource 

Management, 14 years with the 

Forest Service 

Recreation, Winter Recreation 

*Teresa Rhoades 

GIS Coordinator 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Environmental Studies, 

minor in Geography, M.A. 

Geography with emphasis in 

GIS and Remote Sensing, 9 

years with the Forest Service 

GIS Specialist 

*Tom Scott

Social Scientist 

Supervisors Office 

B.A. American History, 

M.A. Anthropology, 25 years 

with the Forest Service 

Social-Economics, Roadless 

Evaluation, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, Planning Coordination 

Ron Vance 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Logan Ranger District 

B.A. Psychology, 

M.A. Landscape Architecture, 

8 years with the Forest Service 

Recreation 

*Richard Williams 

Wildlife Biologist 

Supervisors Office 

B.S. Wildlife Management, 29 

years with the Forest Service 

Terrestrial Wildlife Resources 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4 - 3 

Other Key Contributors 

The following individuals are not on the full-time staff of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

but contributed to the forest planning effort.

Contributor Education/Experience Contribution 

Tom Abbay 

Mining Geologist 

Intermountain Region Office 

B.S. Geology, 33 years related 

experience, 18 years in the 

Forest Service in minerals 

Locatable and Salable 

Minerals 

Barry Burkhardt 

Regional Leasable Minerals 

Specialist 

Intermountain Region Office 

B.S. Geology, 24 years in 

Forest Service in leasable 

minerals 

Leasable Minerals (Oil and 

Gas) 

Doug Muir 

Realty Specialist 

Utah Land Adjustment Zone – 

Forest Service 

B.S. Agronomy, M.S. Soil 

Chemistry, 29 years with 

Forest Service, last 9 years in 

Lands 

Lands and Realty 

Jolie Pollet-Strohmeyer 

Fire Ecologist 

BLM - Utah State Office 

(former Wasatch-Cache 

employee) 

B.A. Geography, M.S. Forest 

Science, 9 years experience 

with BLM and Forest Service 

Fire Ecology, Fire 

Management 

Julie Schaefers 

Economist 

Rocky Mountain Regional 

Office 

B.S. Forest Recreation, 

M.S. Resource Economics, 11 

years with Forest Service 

Social and Economic Analysis

Charmaine Thompson 

Heritage Program Manager 

Uinta National Forest 

B.A., M.A. Archeology 

14 years with Forest Service 

Heritage Resources 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4 - 4 

Leadership Team 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Leadership Team at the time of the release of this document 

is provided in the following table. 

Leadership Team Member Position 

Melissa Blackwell Resources and Planning Group Leader 

Rob Cruz District Ranger – Logan Ranger District 

Tim Garcia District Ranger – Kamas Ranger District 

Loren Kroenke District Ranger – Salt Lake Ranger District 

Faye Krueger Deputy Forest Supervisor 

Larry Lucas Recreation, Wilderness, Heritage, Special Uses Group 

Leader 

Gloria McCabe Administrative Officer 

Steve Ryberg District Ranger – Evanston/Mt. View Ranger Districts 

Kay Shurtz Forest Engineer 

Chip Sibbernsen District Ranger – Ogden Ranger District 

Jim Thomas Fire Management Officer 

Tom Tidwell Forest Supervisor 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4 - 5 

Others 

Other Forest Service employees who helped in some way with the planning process through 

meetings or providing technical input are listed below. 

Name Location 

Bernard Asay Evanston/Mt. View Ranger Districts 

Anthony Botello Ogden Ranger District (now reassigned to 

Pacific Southwest Region) 

Larry Gillham Salt Lake Ranger District 

Mead Hargis Kamas Ranger District 

Tracy Hollingshead Evanston/Mt. View Ranger Districts 

Larry Johnson Evanston/Mt. View Ranger Districts 

Carol Majeske Salt Lake Ranger District 

Connie McCaughey Logan Ranger District 

James Merzenich Pacific Northwest Region 

Bob Piscopo Salt Lake Ranger District 

Devon Robinson Supervisors Office 

Evelyn Sibbernsen Logan Ranger District 

Rick Vallejos Ogden Ranger District 

Lynn Williams Kamas Ranger District 

Steve Schied Salt Lake Ranger District 

Rick Schuler Evanston Ranger District 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 5 - 1 

CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS 

AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE FEIS 

WERE SENT

Federal Agencies 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

National Agricultural Library 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Office of Environmental Project Review 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington Office 

Denver Office – Region VIII 

American Indians 

Skull Valley Goshutes 

Northern Ute Tribe 

Northwestern Band of Shoshoni 

State Governments 

State of Utah 

Governors Office of Planning and Budget 

Resource Development Coordinating Committee 

Department of Natural Resources 

State of Wyoming 

Office of the Governor 

Office of Federal Land Policy 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 5 - 2 

Utah Congressional Delegation 

Congressman Scott Matheson Jr. 

Congressman James Hansen 

Congressman Chris Cannon 

Senator Orrin Hatch 

Senator Robert Bennett 

Wyoming Congressional Delegation 

Congresswoman Barbara Cubin 

Senator Craig Thomas 

Senator Michael Enzi 

Universities 

University of Utah – Parks, Recreation, and Tourism 

Utah State University – College of Natural resources 

Utah State Extension 

County Governments 

Utah 

Box Elder County Commission 

Cache County Commission 

Davis County Commission 

Duschesne County Commission 

Morgan county Commission 

Rich County Commission 

Salt Lake County Council 

Summit County Commission 

Tooele County Commission 

Wasatch County Commission 

Weber County Commission 

Wyoming 

Uinta County Commission 

Others 

About 1000 interested or affected individuals, businesses, and organizations received 

hardcopies or CD ROMS of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, revised Forest Plan 

or other materials related to this analysis. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 1 

REFERENCES 

Andelman, S. J., et al. 2001. Scientific Standards for Conducting Viability Assessments under 

the Report and Recommendations of the NCEAS Working Group. National Center for 

Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. 

Anderson, D.C., K. T. Harper, and R. C. Holmgren. 1982a. Factors Influencing Development of 

Cryptogamic Soil Crusts in Utah Deserts. Journal of Range Management 35(2). 

Anderson, D.C., K. T. Harper, and S. R. Rushforth. 1982b. Recovery of Cryptogamic Soil 

Crusts from Grazing on Utah Winter Ranges. Journal of Range Management 35(3). 

Anderson, L. et al. 1990. List of the Mosses of North America, North of Mexico, and A 

Checklist of Sphagnum in North America North of Mexico, The Bryologist, Vol. 93, 

No.4, Winter 1990. 

Anderson, H. W., M. D. Hoover, and K. G. Reinhart. 1976. Forests and Water: Effects of Forest 

Management on Floods, Sedimentation, and Water Supply. Pacific Southwest Forest and 

Range Experimental Station. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW18/1976. 

Andrews, E. D. 1980. Effective and Bankfull Discharges of Streams in the Yampa River Basin, 

Colorado and Wyoming. Journal of Hydrology 46:311-330. 

Austen, D.J., D.L. Scarnecchia, and E.P. Bergersen. 1994. Usefulness of Structural and 

Condition Indices in Management of High-Mountain Stream Salmonid Populations. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:681-691. 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2000. Regional Economic Information System Cd-rom, 

1969-1997. [Place of publication unknown]. 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2001. Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter 2000.” 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

Available: www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp400a

Beedlow, P.A., J.G. Carter, and F.J. Smith. 1980. Primula maguirei L. Wms. (Primulaceae): A 

Preliminary Report on the Population Biology of an Endemic Plant. Logan, Utah: BioResources, Inc. 

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society: 

 Monograph 6. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 

Belnap, J. 1992. Potential Role of Cryptobiotic Soil Crusts in Semiarid Rangelands. In: 

Proceedings at the Symposium on Ecology, Management and Restoration of 

Intermountain Annual Rangelands, 18-22 May. Boise, ID. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 2 

Belnap, J., et al. 2001. Biological soil crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 

1730-2. Denver, CO: USDI Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey. 

Belnap, J. 2002. Personal communication. 

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138. 

Blahna, D. J., K. Smith, and J. Anderson. 1995. Backcountry Llama Packing: Visitor 

Perceptions of Acceptability and Conflict. Leisure Sciences 17(3):185-204. 

Blahna, D. 2000. Personal communication. 

Blaustein, A. R. and D. B. Wake. 1995. The Puzzle of Declining Amphibian Populations. 

Scientific American April:52-57. 

Bosch, J. M. and J. D Hewlett. 1982. “A Review of Catchment Experiments to Determine the 

Effect of Vegetation Changes on Water Yield and Evapotranspiration.. Journal of 

Hydrology 55:3-23. 

Brasher, J.W. 1996a. Final Report on the 1995 Sensitive Plant Survey for the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests. Salt Lake City, Utah: Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Unpublished manuscript on file. 

Brasher, J.W. 1996b. A Floristic Study of the Southern Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis, 

Department of Botany and Range Science. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 

Buchta, Cheryl. March 22, 2001. Census: Hispanics in Utah Doubles. Standard-Examiner, 

Ogden, UT. 

Burkhardt, Barry. 2000. Personal communication. 

Burkhardt, Barry. 2001. Notes on Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios for Forest 

Plan Revision. Unpublished manuscript on file, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Burroughs, E. R., Jr., and J. G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America 

North of Mexico. Boston. 

Byorth, P.A. and J.P. Magee. 1998. Competitive interactions between arctic grayling and brook 

trout in the Big Hole River Drainage, Montana.” Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 127:921-931. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 3 

Caicco, S.L. 1987. Special Plant Survey Forms for Lower Selway and Lochsa Rivers Vicinity:

Mimulus clivicola and Cypripedium fasciculatum. Idaho Conservation Data Center. 

Campbell, J. B. 1970a. “Hibernacula of a Population of Bufo boreas boreas in the Colorado 

Front Range.” Herpetologica 26: 278-282. 

Campbell, J. B. 1970b. Life history of Bufo boreas boreas on the Colorado Front Range. In: 

Dissertation Abstracts 33:3331B. 

Canterbury, G., et al. 2000. Bird Communities and Habitat as Ecological Indicators of Forest 

Condition in Regional Monitoring. Conservation Biology 14(2):544-558. 

Carlton, J. 2000. Letter from D.C. “Jasper” Carlton of the Biodiversity Legal Foundation to 

Jamie Rappaport Clark Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 

Chidsey, T. C. 1999. Petroleum Plays in Summit County, Utah. Utah Geological Association 

Publication 27. 

Christner, J. and R. D. Harr. 1982. Peak Stream Flows from the Transient Snow Zone, Western 

Cascades, Oregon. Proceedings, 50th Western Snow Conference. Fort Collins: Colorado 

State University Press. 

Christy, H. A. and J. S. Harpel. 1997. Rare Bryophytes of the Interior Columbia River 

Basin and Northern Great Basin, U.S.A. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 82: 

61-75. 

Clapier, K.B. 1997. Botanical Survey and Inventory Record Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Unpublished manuscript on file. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Clapier, K.B. and K. Nichols. 1997. TES Plant Field Data Reports. Dodecatheon dentatum var. 

utahense. Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

Clark, R. N., and D. R. Gibbons. 1991. Recreation. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19: 459-482. 

Clark, W. R. 1973. Reproduction, Survival and Density of Snowshoe Hares in Northeastern 

Utah. Ma.S., Utah State University, Logan. 

Clinton, W. J. 2000. Executive Order, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 4 

Cole, David N. 1996. Wilderness Recreation Use Trends, 1965 through 1994. Research Paper 

INT-RP-488. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 

Cone, R. S. 1989. The Need to Reconsider the Use of Condition Indices in Fishery Science. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:510-514. 

Copeland, S., K. Savig, and J. Adhoch. 2001. Integrated Report of Optical, Aerosol, and Scene 

Monitoring Data, Lone Peak Wilderness – 1993-1998. USDA Forest Service and Air 

Resource Specialists, Inc. 

Cowley, P. 1997. Fish Surveys on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Conducted During 1997. 

Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah 

[260843]. 

Coyner, J. 1989. Status Check on Reported Historic Populations of Spiranthes diluvialis. 

Memorandum, Salt Lake City, Utah: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Coyner, J. 1990. Report for Population Study Spiranthes diluvialis. Unpublished report on file 

at Bureau of Land Management and Red Butte Gardens. Salt Lake City: University of 

Utah. 

CRCT Task Force. 2001. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat 

Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

Fort Collins: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

Cronquist, A., et al. 1972. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West. 

U.S.A. Vol. I. Reprinted 1986. New York City: New York Botanical Garden. 

Da Rosa, C. D. and J. S. Lyon. 1997. Golden Dreams, Poisoned Streams, How Reckless Mining 

Pollutes America’s Water, and How We Can Stop It. Washington, DC:Mineral Policy 

Center. 

Debano, L. F. and J. S. Krammes. 1966. Water Repellent Soils and their Relation to Wildfire 

Temperatures. Bulletin International Association of Scientific Hydrology 11: 14-19. 

DeGraaf, R. M., et al. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States, Natural History 

and Habitat Use. Agricultural Handbook 688. USDA Forest Service. 

De Staso III, J. and F.J. Rahel. 1994. “Influence of Water Temperature on Interactions Between 

Juvenile Colorado River Cutthroat Trout and Brook Trout in a Laboratory Stream.” 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:289-297. 

Dissmeyer, George E. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands, A Synthesis of the 

Scientific Literature. Technical Report SRS-39. USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station, General. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 5 

Dominick, D. S. and M. P. O’Neill. 1998. Effects of Flow Augmentation on Stream Channel 

Morphology and Riparian Vegetation: Upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Wetlands 

18(4): 591-607. 

Dorward, S. 1990. Design for Mountain Communities: A Landscape Architectural Guide, Van 

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. 

Duff, D.A. 1996. Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah). In: Conservation 

Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout, Distribution, Status and Habitat Management 

Implications. Duff, D.A., editor. Washington, DC: United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

Dunkle, S. W. 2000. Dragonflies Through Binoculars. Oxford University Press. 

Dunne, J. 1989. Cryptogamic Soil Crusts in Arid Ecosystems. Rangelands 11(4). 

Durgin, P. B. 1985. Burning Changes the Erodibility of Forest Soils. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation May-June. 

Eldridge, D.J. 1993. Cryptogram Cover and Soil Surface Condition: Effects on Hydrology on a 

Semiarid Woodland Soil. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. Vol. 7: 203-207. 

EU (Envision Utah). 2000. Envision Utah Quality Growth Strategy and Technical Review. 

Manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Farrar, D. R. 2002. Personal communication. 

Federal Register. 2000. Part III, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 36 CFR Parts 217 

and 219, National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning, Final Rule. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1999. Draft Environmental Assessment for 

Hydropower License, Stairs Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 597-003, Utah. 

Washington, DC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2000. Final Environmental Assessment for 

Hydropower License, Pioneer Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2722-008, Utah. 

Washington, DC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Fisher, A.L., D.E. Blahna and R.Bahr. 2001. “Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner 

Preferences in Utah”, Revised Final Report. Department of Forest Resources, Utah State 

University, Logan, UT and Utah Division of Natural Resources, Department of Parks and 

Recreation. 

Flowers, S. 1945. “Utah Hepatics.” The Bryologist. 48:8-11. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 6 

Franklin, M.A. 1989. Report for 1988 Challenge Cost Share Project, Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Target Species Parrya rydbergii, Papaver radicatum var. pygmaaeum, and 

Penstemon uintahensis. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah 

Natural Heritage Program. 

Franklin, M.A. 1990a. Report for 1989 Challenge Cost Share Project, Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Target Species Erigeron cronquistii, Musineon lineare, and Penstemon cyanthus 

var. compactus. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural 

Heritage Program.. 

Franklin, M.A. 1990b. Report for 1990 Challenge Cost Share project, Ashley National Forest. 

Target species: Cypripedium fasciculatum Kellogg ex Wats. (Clustered lady's-slipper). 

Salt Lake City: Utah Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources. 

Franklin, M.A. 1990c. Report for 1989 Challenge Cost Share Project: Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Target Species: Primula maguirei (Maguire Primrose). Salt Lake City: Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. 

Franklin, M.A. 1991. Report for 1990 Challenge Cost Share Project, Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Target Species Parrya rydbergii, Papaver radicatum var. pygmaaeum, and 

Penstemon uintahensis. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah 

Natural Heritage Program. 

FSH 2209.21. Forest Service Handbook. Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management 

Handbook, Section 2209.01.05 – Definitions. Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

FSH 2609.25. R-4 Sensitive Plant Program Handbook. Forest Service Handbook. WasatchCache National Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

FSM 1905. Forest Service Manual 1900 – Planning, Section 1905 – Definitions. Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

FSM 2230. Forest Service Manual 2300 – Term Grazing Permit Administration, Section 2330. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

FSM 2521. Forest Service Manual 2521 – Watershed Condition Assessment. Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

FSM 2360. Forest Service Manual 2360. Special Interest Areas. Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

FSM 2670. Forest Service Manual 2670. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and 

Animals. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2600/2670-2671.txt
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 7 

FSM 2372. Forest Service Manual 2372. Special Areas. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

 

FSM 4063. Forest Service Manual 4063. Research Natural Areas. Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. “Road construction and maintenance.” 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-324. 

Gifford, G. 1975. “Beneficial and Detrimental Effects of Range Improvement Practices on 

Runoff and Erosion.” Paper presented in Proceedings, Watershed Management 

Symposium. American Society of Civil Engineers, Logan, UT. 

Glisson, B. 1995a. Conservation Strategy and Action Plan, Bear River Endemics. Prepared for 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Glisson, B. 1995b. DRAFT Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for Thelesperma pubescens 

(Uinta Greenthread). IHC Environmental. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Gneiting, D. J., and R. Albert. 1999. Utah Agricultural Statistics and Utah Department of 

Agriculture and Food Annual Report. Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Graham, R. T., et al. 1999. Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management 

Recommendations. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. Fort Collins, CO. 

Harr, R. D., et al. 1975. Changes in Storm Hydrographs after Road Building and Clear-cutting 

in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 11: 436-444. 

Harty, K. M. 1991. Landslide Map of Utah.. Map 133. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, 

Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

Hauge, C. J., M. J. Furniss and F. D. Euphrat. 1979. “Soil Erosion in California’s Coast Forest 

District.” California Geology (June):120-129. 

Hay, Keith G. 1958. Beaver Census Methods in the Rocky Mountain Region. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. Vol. 22, No. 4, October 1958. 

Helvey, J. D. 1980. Effects of a North Central Washington Wildfire on Runoff and Sediment 

Production. Water Resources Bulletin 16(4):627-634. 

Hibbert, A. R. 1967. Forest Treatment Effects on Water Yield. In: Forest Hydrology edited by 

W. E. Sopper and H. W. Lull. Proceedings, Forest Hydrology Seminar. New York: 

Pergamon Press. 

Holecheck, J.L. 1988. An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate. Rangelands 10:10-14. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 8 

Holecheck, J.L., et al. 2001. Range Management, Principles and Practices. Fourth Edition. 

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 

Hollis, M. 1988. Inventory and Monitoring of Thelesperma pubescens on the Wasatch National 

Forest and the Rock Springs District of the Bureau of Land Management. Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, Rocky Mountain Heritage Task Force, and the Nature 

Conservancy. 

Holmgren, N. H. 1992. Two New Species of Viola (Violaceae) from the Intermountain West, 

USA. Brittonia 44(3):300-305. 

Holmgren, N. H. 1994. Redefinition of Dodecatheon dentatum (Primulaceae) and Rational for 

Varietal Rank. Brittonia 46(2): 87-94. 

Hovingh, P. 2000. Personal communication. 

Hunter, M.L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry, Principles of managing forests for biological 

Diversity. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ. 

Integration of Air Quality Management into Land Management Planning, pg 1-4. 

Isaacson, A. E. 2000. “Utah Economy Grows at Slower Pace in 1999.” Utah Economic and 

Business Review. Vol. 60, Nos. 7 and 8. 

Jarvis, T. 1999. Personal communication. Letter from Todd Jarvis, Montgomery Watson 

Director of Groundwater Resources, to Melissa Blackwell, Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest planner, regarding Oakley City Sole Source Aquifer Designation Petition. 

Jennings, W.F. 1990. Personal communication. Letter to J.L. England, Botanist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Jones, J. A., and G. E. Grant. 1996. “Peak Flow Responses to Clear-cutting and Roads in Small 

and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon.” Water Resources Research 32(4): 959-

974. 

Kaldenbach, T. 1990. Oil and Gas Potential Report. Unpublished manuscript on file at the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah and Wyoming. 

Kaltenecker, J. and M. Wicklow-Howard. 1994. Microbiotic soil crusts in sagebrush habitats of 

southern Idaho. Prepared for Eastside Ecosystem Management Project, Boise State 

University, Boise, Id. 

Kelly, Alison. 2000. Collections Manager, Intermountain Herbarium. Personal communication. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 9 

Kimball J, Savage F. 1977. Diamond Fork aquatic and range habitat improvements. Provo, UT: 

USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region, Uinta National Forest. p 19. 

Koch, E. D. et al. 1997. Summary of the Conference on Declining and Sensitive Amphibians in 

the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest. Boise, Idaho November 7-8, 1996. 

Krebs, C. J., et al. 2001. “Estimating Snowshoe Hare Popluation Density from Pellet Plots: A 

Further Evalution.” Candadian Journal of Zoology 79:1-4. 

Kruckeberg, A.R. and D. Rabinowitz. 1985. “Biological Aspects of Endemism in Higher 

Plants.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 16 pp.447-479. 

Ladyman, J.A.R. and E. Muldavin. 1996. Terrestrial Cryptogams of Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands 

in the Southwestern United States: A Review. General Technical Report. TM-GTR-280. 

PP.2-7. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Lagler, K.F. 1956. Freshwater Fishery Biology. Dubuque, IA:Wm. C. Brown Company 

Publishers. 

Lentsch, L. Y. et al. 1995. Native Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles of Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 

Lentsch, L., Y. Converse, and J. Perkins. 1997a. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) in the State of Utah. Salt Lake 

City: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 

Lentsch, L., Y. Converse, and J. Perkins. 1997b. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for 

Colorado Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the State of Utah. Salt 

Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 

Lentsch, L.D., et al. 2000. Range-Wide Conservation Agreement andStrategy for Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki Utah). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

LeVere, W. and G. Heaton. 1994. Personal communication. Letter to All Appellants for the 

North Slope Leasing Decision. 

Lewis, M. E. 1970. Alpine Rangelands of the Uinta Mountains. Unpublished manuscript on 

file at USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region (Region 4). 

Liddle, M. 1975. A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human Trampling on Natural 

Ecosystems. Biological Conservation. Vol.6,pp.17-36. 

Liddle, M. 1991. Recreation Ecology: Effects of Trampling on Plants and Corals. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 6, No. 1. January. pp.13-17. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 10 

Malm, W. and M. Pitchford. 1994. Newsletter titled “Visibility Protection”. Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments, August 1994. For more Information 

Contact: Dr. William Malm, NPS-AIR at Colorado State University Fort Collins CO or 

Marc Pitchford, Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab, Las Vegas, NV. 

Mangel, Marc, Lee M. Talbot, Gary K. Meffe, M. Tundi Agardy, Dayton L. Alverson, Jay 

Barlow, Daniel B. Botkin, Gerardo Budowski, Tim Clark, Justin Cooke, Ross H. Crozier, 

Paul K. Dayton, Danny L. Elder, Charles W. Fowler, Silvio Funtowicz, Jarl Giske, Rober 

J. Hofman, Sidney J. Holt, Stephen R. Kellert, Lee A. Kimball, Donald Ludgwig, Kjartan 

Magnusson, Ben S. Malayang, III, Charles Mann, Elliott A. Norse, Simon P. Northridge, 

William F. Perrin, Charles Perrings, Elliott A. Norse, Simon P. Northridge, William F. 

Perrin, Charles Perrings, Randall M. Peterman, George B. Rabb, Henry A. Regier, John 

E. Reynolds, III, Kenneth Sherman, Michael P. Sissenwine, Time D. Smith, Anthony 

Starfield, Robert J. Taylor, Michael F. Tillman, Catherine Toft, John R. Twiss, Jr, James 

Wilen, Truman P. Young. 1996. Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living 

Resources. Ecological Applications: Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 338–362. 

May, B. 2000. Personal communication. 

McCoy, N. H et al. 2000. “DRAFT REPORT An Economic and Social Assessment of 

Snowmobiling in Utah”. Report prepared for Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

McElhany, P., et al. 2000. “Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily 

Significant Units.” National Marine Fisheries Service. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

McKelvey, K.S., et al. 1999. National Lynx Detection Protocol. Unpublished manuscript on 

file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

McKelvey, K. S., et al. 2000. “Lynx Conservation in an Ecosystem Management Context.” In 

Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, edited by Ruggiero, L. F., et al. 

Boulder: University Press of Colorado. 

McKelvey, K. S., et al. 2002. “Effect of Plot Size and Shape on Pellet Density Estimates for 

Snowshoe Hares.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(3):751-755. 

McNab, W. H.; and P. E. Avers. 1994. “Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section 

Descriptions”. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest 

Service, Ecosystem Management. 

Meadows, D. W., C. M. Meadows, and M. Morin. 2000. Conservation Assessment for the 

Ogden Rocky Mountain Snail. Ogden, UT: Weber State University. 

Megahan, W. F. 1972. “Subsurface Flow Interception by a Logging Road in Mountains of 

Central Idaho. In Proceedings, Watersheds in Transition Symposium, American Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 11 

Resources Association, edited by S. C. Csallany, T. G. McGlaughlin and W. D. Striffler. 

Urbana, Illinois. 

Merrill, G.I. 1995. “Bryophytes, our Living Resources: a Report to the Nation on Distribution, 

Abundance and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems.” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Biological Service. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2000. IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0. Social 

Accounting and Impact Analysis Software. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. Stillwater, 

MN. 

Monsell, T. 1998. Logan Canyon Climbs. River Heights, UT: Primrose Publication and Design. 

Morris, S. E. and T. A. Moses. 1987. “Forest Fire and the Natural Soil Erosion Regime in the 

Colorado Front Range.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(2). 

Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech, Jr. 1988. Fishes: an Introduction to Ichthyology. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ. 

Muth, R. M. and K. Fairey. 1995. “Managing Social Conflict in Outdoor Recreation Settings: 

Implications for Curriculum Development in Human Dimensions of Leisure.” Trends

32(4): 4-8. 

Muths, E., S. Corn, and S. Haire. 2000. “Examining an Intact ‘Metapopulation’ of Boreal Toads 

(Bufo boreas): Use of Habitat and Large Scale Movements.” U.S.Geological Survey, 

Fort Collins, CO. Available: 

http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/projects/boreal_toad_movements_habitat.html

Murphy, M.B. 1996. The Development of Brighton Resort. Available: 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/brighton_.html 

National Archives and Records Administration. 2000. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 218, 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Nature Conservancy. 1999. “Species Management Abstract: Northern Goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis).” Arlington, VA. 

Nelson, D. 1994. Subsections of Ten National Forests in the Intermountain Region. 

Newberry, C. C. and L. L. St. Clair. 1991a. “Additions to the Lichen Flora of Utah.” The 

Bryologist 94(2): 154-156. 

Newberry, C. 1991b. Lichens of the Uinta Mountains and adjacent intermountain North 

America. Master of Science thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo. 237 pp. 

Newberry, C.C. 1994. Lichens of the High Uintas Wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 12 

Niccolucci, M. 2000. FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool). A Microsoft 

Excel based workbook and instructions for data entry and tabular output for economic 

impact analysis (IMPLAN). 

Nichols, K. 1995. TES Plant Field Data Reports. Jamesia americana var. macrocalyx. Uinta 

and Wasatch-Cache National Forests. Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache 

National Forests, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

O’Brien, R.A. and R. Pope. 1997. Forest Resources of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 

Olson, R. and W. Hubert. 1994. Beaver: Water Resources and Riparian Habitat Manager. 

Laramie: University of Wyoming. 

Padgett, W.G. 1986. “Maguire Primrose Summary Report.” Logan: Utah Native Plant Society. 

Padgett, W.G. 1990. “Hydrothermograph Report for the Wood Camp Population of Maguire 

Primrose (Primula maguirei L. Williams); Logan Ranger District, Wasatch_Cache 

National Forest.” Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Salt Lake City, UT. 

Padgett, W.G. 1997. “TES Plant Field Data Reports. Draba maguirei var. maguirei. Woodcamp 

Survey.” Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

Padgett, W.G. 1998. “TES Plant Field Data Reports. Erigeron cronquistii.” Unpublished 

manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

Padgett, W.G. 2000. Personal Communication. 

Palis, J., et al. 1999. Species Management Abstract, Northern Goshawk. Arlington, VA: The 

Nature Conservancy. 

Peterson, R. T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 

Company. 

Phillips, R. W., et al. 1975. “Some Effects of Gravel Mixtures on Emergence of Coho Salmon 

and Steelhead Trout Fry.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104:461-466. 

Pierson, K. and V.J. Tepedino. 2000. “The Pollination and Reproduction of Spiranthes 

diluvialis: Implications for Conservation of Four Populations.” USDA Forest Service 

Challenge Cost Share Program. Uinta National Forest. Provo, Utah and USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 13 

Platts, W. S. 1991. “Livestock Grazing.” American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 

389-424. 

Primack, Richard B. 1993. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates, Inc. 

Rahr III, G. R., et al. 1998. “Sanctuaries for Native Salmon: A Conservation Strategy for the 

21st Century.” Fisheries 23(4): 6-7. 

Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. “Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces.” Water 

Resources Research 20: 1753-1761. 

Richards, John. 1993. Primula. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, OR. 

Rideout, D. R., and H. Hesseln. 2000. “Wyoming Timber Market Analysis: The New Western 

Timber Economy”. Administrative study for USDA Forest Service. Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Roby, K. B., D. C. Erman, and J. D. Newbold. 1977. “Biological Assessment of Timber 

Management Activity Impacts and Buffer Strip Effectiveness on National Forest Streams 

in Northern California.” Earth Resources Monograph 11. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Ruediger, B., et al. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Forest Service 

Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. 

Ruggiero, L. F., et al. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. Boulder: 

University Press of Colorado. 

Salt Lake, City of. 1999. Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan, November 1999. Salt 

Lake City, Department of Public Utilities. Prepared by Bear West Consulting Team. 

Sheviak, C.J. 1984. “Spiranthes diluvialis (Orchidaceae), A New Species from the Western 

United States.” Brittonia 36 (1):8-14. 

Sheviak, C.J. 1990. Personal communication. Letter to J.L. England, Botanist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. The University of the State of New York. Albany, 

New York. 

Shultz, Leila M. 1993. Patterns of Endemism in the Utah Flora. In R.Sivinski, Robert and 

Karen Lightfoot [eds.]. Soutwest Rare and Endangered Plants(conference proceedings). 

Publ. No.2 New Mexico Department of Energy. Minerals and Resources. Division of 

Forestry and Resource Conservation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 14 

Sigler, W. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah State Department 

of Fish and Game. 

Sigler, W. F., and J. W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: Natural History. Reno: 

University of Nevada Press. 

Sigler, W. F. and J. W. Sigler. 1996. Fishes of Utah. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 

Sipes, S.D., and V.J. Tepedino. 1995. “The Pollination and Reproduction of Spiranthes 

diluvialis: Implications for Conservation of Four Populations.” Salt Lake City, UT: 

USDA Forest Service Challenge Cost Share Program. Uinta National Forest. Provo, 

Utah. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Spangler, J. 1994. “Wilderness Group Supports a Colorado Cutthroat Refuge.” Deseret News, 

B-1. January 29, 1994. 

St. Clair, L. L, J.R. Johansen and S. B. Rushforth. 1984. “Lichens of Soil Crust Communities 

in the Intermountain Area of the Western United States.” Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 

53, No. 1:5-12. 

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston, MA: 

Houghton Mifflin Company. 

Steele,R. and K. Geier-Hayes. 1995. “Ecology and Silviculture of Western Larch at its Southern 

Limits.” In Ecology and Management of Larix Forests, A Look Ahead: Proceedings of 

an International Symposium. Whitefish, Montana, 1992. General Technical Report. INTGTR-319. pp.500-501. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 

Stevens M. and W. Padgett. 1999. “Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense – Uinta and WasatchCache National Forests TES Plant Field Data Report.” Unpublished manuscript on file at 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Stokes, W.I. 1988. Geology of Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah Museum of Natural History and Utah 

Geological and Mineral Survey Department of Natural Resources. 

Stone, D.R. 1993. “Final Report for 1992 Challenge Cost Share Project, Uinta and WasatchCache National Forests. Target Species: Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak.” Salt Lake City: 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. 

Stone, D.R. 1994. “Field Inventory for Frank Smith’s violet (Viola frank-smithii N. Holmgren) 

in the Logan Canyon Drainage, Cache County, Utah.” Prepared for USDA WasatchCache National Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah Natural Heritage 

Program, Division of Wildlife Resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 15 

Stone, D.R. 1995. “Status Review of Draba globosa and Related Species.” Final Report for 

1994 Challenge Cost Share Project. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. 

Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. “A Checklist of the Liverworts and Hornworts of 

North America.” Bryologist. Vol. 80:405-428. 

Swanston, D. N. 1991. “Natural Processes.” American Fisheries Society Special Publication

19. 

Swanston, D. N. and F. J. Swanson. 1976. “Timber Harvesting, Mass Erosion, and Steepland 

Forest Geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest.” In Geomorphology and Engineering, 

edited by D.R. Coates. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross. 

Tanner, V. M. 1931. “A Synoptical Study of Utah Amphibians.” Utah Academy of Sciences

(8):159-198. 

Taye, A. C. 1983. “Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah.” Great Basin Naturalist 43:4. 

Thompson, H. 2000. Personal communication. 

Thompson, P. 2000. “Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) surveys in the 

Chalk Creek (Sections 02-03) Drainage, 1998-1999.” Salt Lake City: Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. 

Tilman, D. 2000. Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405:208-211 

TRCA (Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance). 2000. “The Economic Values of Fishing, 

Hunting and Wildlife Viewing on National Forest Lands.” Prepared for Wildlife, Fish 

and Rare Plants, USDA Forest Service. Available: http:/WWW.TREA.ORG 

Troendle, C. A. and R. M. King. 1985. “The Effect of Timber Harvest on the Fool Creek 

Watershed, 30 Years Later.” Water Resources Research 21(12): 1915-1922. 

Tuhy, J.S. 1991. “Aster kingii (King Aster) and Lesquerella garrettii (Garrett Bladderpod) on 

the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, Utah. Final Report for Challenge Cost 

Share Agreements with the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests.” Salt Lake City: 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. 

Tuhy, J.S. 1993. “Monitoring Study of Lesquerella garrettii (Garrett Bladderpod) on the Uinta 

and Wasatch- Cache National Forests, Utah. Final Report for Challenge Cost Share 

Agreements with the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests.” Salt Lake City: Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 16 

Tuhy, J.S. 1998. “Resarch Natural Area Needs on National Forest Lands in Utah.” Report to 

Intermountain Region, Forest Service. Unpublished manuscript on file at the WasatchCache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

UDWR UDNR(Utah Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Element Occurrence Database. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City. 

UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 1995. Native Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles of 

Utah. Publication #95-20. Salt Lake City, UT. 

UDWR. 1997a. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the 

State of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: UDWR. 

UDWR. 1997b. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the State of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: UDWR. 

UDWR. 1997c. Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures W2ADM-1. Approved by John Kimball 

24 September 1997. 

UDWR. 1997d. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah. Salt Lake City, UT. 

Prepared for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission and the U. 

S. Department of Interior. 

UDWR. 1997e. Inventory of Sensitive Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Utah. Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

UDWR. 1998a. Utah Sensitive Species List. Available: 

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/sensppl.htm#mollusk. 

UDWR. 1998b. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah: Endemic and Rare 

Plants of Utah: An Overview of Their Distribution and Status. Central Utah Project 

Completion Act, Title III Section 306(b). Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 

Commission, Mitigation and Conservation Plan (May 1996), Chapter 2, Page 2-37, 

Cooperative Agreement No. UC-95-0015, Section V.A.10.a. Available: 

http://www.utahcdc.usu.edu/ucdc/ViewReports/plantrpt.htm 

UDWR. 1998c. Utah Big Game Range Trend Studies – Volume One. Publication Number 98-

16. Salt Lake City, UT. 

UDWR. 1998d. Inventory of Sensitive Species in Utah – Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, 

Invertebrates, Mammals, and Birds. Salt Lake City, UT. Available: 

http://www.utahcdc.usu.edu/ucdc. 

UDWR. 1998e. Conservation Agreement for the Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris). Publication 

Number 98-24. Salt Lake City, UT. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 17 

UDWR. 1999a. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy. Publication Number 99-

40. Salt Lake City, UT 

UDWR. 1999b. Rare, Imperiled, and Recently Extinct or Extirpated Mollusks of Utah. 

Publication Number 99-29. Salt Lake City, UT. 

UDWR. 2000a. The Bats of Utah – A Literature Review. Publication Number 00-14. Salt 

Lake City, UT. Available: http://www.utah.cdc.usus.edu/ucdc. 

UDWR. 2001. 2001 Utah Big Game Proclamation. Salt Lake City, UT. 

UDWR. 2002. Central Biodiversity Database Information (CD). Utah Natural Heritage 

Program GIS Data. Provided to Region 4 Forest Service. Salt Lake City, UT. 

UNHP. 1999. Challenge Cost Share Agreement Between the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources and the USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

United States. v. Amerac Energy Corporation. 1999. 148 IBLA 45-51. 

USDA Forest Service. 1981. Recreation Activity Duration Factors for Computing Activity 

Occasions on National Forest Lands and Waters. Washington D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Forest Plan and Appendices. Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. ROS Book. Washington D.C. 

USDA, Forest Service. 1989. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Program Action 

Plan. Forest Service Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Maguire Primrose (Primula maguirei) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990b. Resource Pricing and Valuation Procedures for the 

Recommended 1990 RPA Program. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990c. The Wasatch-Cache Petroleum Showcase. Unpublished 

brochure on file at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States – Natural History 

and Habitat Use. Agricultural Handbook 688. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Wasatch-Cache National Forest 5-Year Monitoring Report, Land 

and Resource Management Plan. Salt Lake City, UT: Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 18 

USDA Forest Service. 1993. The principal laws relating to Forest Service activities. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994a. North Slope Oil and Gas Leasing Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994b. Intermountain Region Species List. Ogden, UT: Region 4. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994c. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores – 

American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the United States. General Technical 

Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994d. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: 

A Technical Conservation Assessment. General Technical Report RM-253. Fort Collins, 

CO. 

USDA, Forest Service. 1995a. DRAFT Diamond Fork/Spanish Fork Watershed Management 

Plan. Resource Management International. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. 

Agricultural Handbook Number 701. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Rangeland Health Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Alta Ski Area 

Master Development Plan Update. On file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Lewis and Clark Oil and Gas Leasing Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Lewis and Clark National Forest. Great Falls, Montana. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998a. “Changing Economics of the National Forest Timber Sale 

Program.” Washington, D.C. Available: www.fs.fed.us/land/fm/tspirs/changing.html. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Intermountain Region Protocol: Rangeland Capability and 

Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions. Intermountain Region Office. 

Ogden, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998c. Sub-regional Assessment of Proper Functioning Conditions for 

Areas Encompassing the National Forests of Northern Utah. Unpublished manuscript on 

file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City: UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998d. Deer Herd Unit Management Plans. Unpublished manuscripts 

on file at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 19 

USDA Forest Service. 1998e. Elk Herd Unit Management Plan. Unpublished manuscripts on 

file at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999a. Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (PAMS). 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Sustaining the People’s Lands – Recommendations for 

Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century – Committee 

of Scientists. Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999c. Inventory of Rivers on Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Eligible 

for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Intermountain Region. On 

file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999d. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brighton Ski Area 

Master Development Plan Update. On file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999e. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Snowbird Master 

Development Plan. On file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999f. Intermountain Region (R4), Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List Revision. Ogden, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. The Recreation Agenda. FS-691. USDA Forest Service. 

Washington, DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Water for the National Forests and Grasslands, Instream Flow 

Protection Strategies for the 21st Century. Watershed and Air Management. Washington, 

D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000c. Utah Fire Amendment Predecision Environmental Assessment. 

Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000d. Letter from Mike Dombeck, Chief to all Regions. Payments to 

States, Public Law 106-393, Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000e. The Fire Effects Information System [Data base]. Missoula, MT: 

Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory. Magnetic tape 

reels; 9 track; 1600 bpi, ASCII with Common LISP present. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000f. Southwest Idaho Eco-group Forest Plan DEIS, Technical Report 

#3: 4-6. Intermountain Region Office. Ogden, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000g. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan. FS-682. Washington, D.C. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 20 

USDA Forest Service. 2000h. White Paper on Managing for Viable Populations – Draft 10-9-

2000. Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000i. Utah Northern Goshawk Project Decision Notice: Finding of No 

Significant Impact, Finding of Non-Significant Amendment. Manuscript on file at 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000j. Water and the Forest Service. Washington Office, FS-660. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000k. Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources in FireAdapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. Available: 

http://fs.fed.us/publications/cohesive_strategy10132000.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Payments to the state regional database. Intermountain Region, 

Ogden, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. White Paper on Managing For Species Viability. Draft 01/26/01. 

Regions 1 and 4. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001c. White paper discussing 25% Fund data for Forest Service. 

Report on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001d. “American Indian Tribes in Utah”, USDA-FS unpublished 

manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001e. Appeal decision of the Rio Grande National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Colorado Environmental Coalition, et al. (# 97-13-00-0057). 

USDA Forest Service. 2001f. “The Build Environment Image Guide for the National Forests 

and Grasslands”. FS-710. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001g. Ski Area BMPs (Best Management Practices), Guidelines for 

Planning, Erosion Control and Reclamation. Prepared by the USDA Forest Service 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest in cooperation with Sun Valley Corporation and 

Snowbasin Ski Area. Intermountain Region, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001h. Solitude Mountain Resort, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Solitude Mountain Resort Master Development Plan Update, Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001i. Utah Fire Amendment Decision Notice/FONSI Environmental 

Assessment. Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 21 

USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2000. 

Forest Health Protection Program. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/annual_i_d_conditions/index. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Quick-Silver. Internal software program for economic analysis 

of long-term, on-the-ground resource management projects. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2000. 

Forest Health Protection. 

Available: www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/annual_i_d_conditions/index.html

USDA Forest Service. 2002d. “Drought Conditions and Conservation Measures, with 

Enclosure A, National Forest Water Yield Augmentation- Limited Opportunities Due to 

Operational Realities.” Memorandum from the Intermountain Region to Forest 

Supervisors. On file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002e. Wasatch Front Fuels Assessment Report. On file at WasatchCache and Uinta National Forests. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002f. White Paper on Managing For Species Viability. Draft 07/02. 

Regions 1 and 4. 

USDA, USDI. 2001. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment, 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Available: 

http://www.fireplan.gov/10_yr_strat_pg_1.html. 

USDA, USDI 2002. DRAFT Burke’s draba (Draba burkei sp.nov.) Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Land Areas of the National Forest System. Forest Service 

FS-383. Washington, DC 

USDA, NRCS. 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National 

Plant Data Center

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990a. 1990 Census of Population, 

Social and Economic Characteristics of Utah. Washington, DC Available: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990b. 1990 census of population, social 

and economic characteristics of Wyoming. Washington, DC. Available: 

http://www.factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. Statistical abstract of the United 

States: 1999. Washington, DC. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 22 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 2002a. Data 

available on U.S. Department of Commerce and linked websites: 

http://www.commerce.gov. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U. S. Census Bureau. 2002b. American Fact Finder Website, 

2002. Available: http://www.census.gov. 

U.S. Department of Interior. 1997. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Census. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

US EPA 2000. National Air Quality and Emissions Trend Report, 1998. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA 454/R-00-003. Washington, DC. 

USDI (US Department of Interior ). 1996a. “1995 National Assessment of United States Oil 

and Gas Resources.” U.S. Geological Survey, Digital Data Series 30, 35 and 36. 

USDI National Park Service. 1993. Visual Quality of Built Environments in National Parks. 

USDI National Park Service. 2000. Winter Use Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume I, for the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller 

Memorial Parkway. On file at Wasatch-National Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

USDI USDA. 1982. “National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for 

Eligibility and Management of River Areas.” Federal Register 47(173):39454-59. 

USDI USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants: Final Rule to Determine Primula maguirei (Maguires Primrose) to be a 

Threatened Species. Federal Register 50:33731-33737. 

USDI USFWS. 1986. Maguire Primrose (Primula maguirei) Recovery Plan. Region 6, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 

USDI USFWS. 1973. Endangered Species Act. Available: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html 

USDI USFWS. 1990. Maguire Primrose (Primula maguirei) Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. 

USDI USFWS. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to list the plant 

Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’tresses) as a Threatened Species. Federal Register 57(12): 

2048- 2054. 

USDI USFWS. 1995a. DRAFT Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) recovery plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 23 

USDI USFWS. 1995b. Recommendations and Guidelines for Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) Recovery and Fulfilling Section 7 Consultation Responsibilities. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

USDI USFWS. 1999a. June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. 

USDI USFWS. 1999b. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human Land 

Use Disturbances. Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDI USFWS. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species, WasatchCache National Forest. Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDI USFWS. 2002a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Petition for a Candidate 

Species: Botrychium lineare. Federal Register 67(114): 40671. 

USDI USFWS. 2002b. Federally Listed and Proposed (P) Endangered (E) and Threatened (T) 

Species and Habitat in Utah by County. Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDI USFWS and US Bureau of Census. 1997. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC.: Government Printing Office. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). (n.d.) Notice of Availability of the Draft Conservation 

Strategy for the Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad for Review and 

Comment Background summary: Available: 

http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/boreal.htm

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Draft Status Review of Bonneville Cutthroat 

Trout. Salt Lake City, UT. 

USGS Biological Survey. 2000. Species Accounts from internet on breeding bird surveys 

conducted in and near the Uinta NF. Available: http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov. 

Utah State Library. 1997. State Fish, Cutthroat Trout: Available: 

http://pioneer.lib.ut.us/trout.html. 

Utah, State of. 1997a. Utah State Water Plan Weber River Basin. Utah Division of Water 

Resources, Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

Utah, State of. 1997b. Utah State Water Plan Jordan River Basin. Utah Division of Water 

Resources, Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

Utah, State of. 1997c. Utah State Water Plan Utah Lake Basin. Utah Division of Water 

Resources, Utah Department of Natural Resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 24 

Utah, State of. 1998a. QGET (Quality Growth Efficiency Tools) Databook. Demographic and 

Economic Analysis, Governors Office of Planning and Budget, State of Utah, Salt Lake 

City. Available: http://www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/qget. 

Utah, State of. 1998b. Utah Skier Visit Analysis, Governor Office of Planning and Budget. On 

file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Utah, State of. 2000a. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. R317-2, Utah Administrative 

Code. Effective Date of Last Revision – March 17, 2000. Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. 

Utah, State of. 2000b. Utah’s Year 2000 303(d) List of Waters. Department of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Water Quality. 

Utah, State of. 2000c. Final Utah Smoke Management Plan. Utah Division of Air Quality, Utah 

Airshed Group. July 20, 1999, revised. 

Utah, State of. 2000d. Map of State of Utah National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Areas of 

Non-Attainment and Maintenance on Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 

Available: http://www.deq.state.ut.us/eqair/graphics/maps/pcnonatt.gif. 

Utah, State of. 2000e. “Economic Report to the Governor.” Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Budget. 

Utah, State Of. 2001a. “Oil and Gas Production Reports.” Division of Oil and Gas Mining. 

Utah, State of. 2001b. :Economic Report to the Governor.” Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Budget, State of Utah, Salt Lake City. 

Utah, State of. 2001c. Utah State Water Plan West Desert Basin. State of Utah, Natural 

Resources, Division of Water Resources. 

Utah, State of. 2001d. Utah’s Water Resources, Planning for the Future, May 2001, Utah State 

Water Plan. State of Utah, Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources. 

Utah, State of. 2002a. Utah’s 2002 303(d) List of Waters, April 2002. Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. 

Utah, State of. 2002b. Bear River Basin, Planning for the Future, Advisory Review Draft, July, 

2002, Utah State Water Plan. State of Utah, Natural Resources, Division of Water 

Resources. 

Utah Rare Plant Workshop Meeting Results. 2000. Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

Natural Heritage Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 25 

Utah Native Plant Society. 2000. Notes from discussion at Utah Rare Plant Workshop Meeting 

In Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Vekasy. M., et al. 2001. Fall 2000 Raptor Migration Study in the Wellsville Mountains of 

Northern Utah. Unpublished manuscript on filet, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Wallentine, K.J. 1993. TES Plant Field Data Reports with cover letter. Cypripedium 

fasciculatum. Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

WCNF (Wasatch-Cache National Forest). 1982. Water Analysis of Management Situation for 

Forest Planning. Unpublished Manuscript on file at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Salt Lake City, UT. 

WCNF (Wasatch-Cache National Forest). 1998. Sub-Regional Assessment of Properly 

Functioning Conditions for Areas Encompassing the National Forests of Northern 

Utah.Version 1.0. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Salt Lake City, UT. 

WCNF (Wasatch-Cache National Forest). 1999. Inventory of Rivers on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Unpublished manuscript on file at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, 

UT. 

Welsh, S.L. 1987. “Logan Canyon, U.S. 89 Study, Biological Assessment of Maguire Primrose 

Near Wood Camp.” Report to Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City. 

Welsh, S.L., et al. 1993. A Utah Flora: Second Edition, revised. Provo, UT: Brigham Young 

University. 

Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, and G. E. Grant. 1996. “Channel Network Extension by Logging 

Roads in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon.” Water Resources Bulletin 32(6): 

1195-1207. 

Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants. 2000. “1999-2000 Utah Skier Survey. Salt Lake 

City. UT.” Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City. 

Williams, L.O. 1936. Revision of the Western Primulas. American Midland Naturalist 17:741-

748. 

Wilson, L. et al. 1975. Soils of Utah. Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 492, Logan: 

Utah State University. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest References 26 

Windham, M.D. and M. Beilstein. 1998. “A Taxonomic Study of Draba maguirei and Allied 

Taxa (Brassicaceae).” Unpublished manuscript on file at Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Wolf, P.G., and R.B. Sinclair. 1997. “Highly Differentiated Populations of the Narrow Endemic 

Plant Maguire Primrose (Primula maguirei).” Conservation Biology; Vol. 11, no. 2 (Apr. 

1997): 375-378. 

Wolfe, M. L., et al. 1982. “Snowshoe Hare Cover Relationships in Northern Utah.” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 46:662-670. 

Wolman, M. G. and R. P. Miller. 1960. “Magnitude and Frequency of Forces in Geomorphic 

Processes.” Journal of Geology 68: 54-74. 

Wyoming Game and Fish. 2001. Bird Prioritization. Cheyenne, WY. 

Wyoming Species of Special Concern. 2001. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Available: 

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/WYNDD/SpeciesofConcern. 

Wyoming, State of. 2000. “Green River Basin Summary. Water Quality summary at Wyoming 

Department of Environment.” Available: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/305b/green.htm. 

Wyoming, State of. 2001a. “Production Statistics.” Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission. 

Available: http://wogcc.state.wy.us/

Wyoming, State of. 2001b. Bear River Basin Water Plan, Executive Summary. September, 

2001. Prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Available: 

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bear/execsumm.html

Wyoming, State of. 2001c. Executive Summary, Green River Basin Water Plan. February, 

2001. Prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission Basin Planning 

Program. Available: http://waterplan.state.wy.us/basins/green/green.html

Wyoming, State of. 2002. Wyoming’s 2002 303(d) List of Waters Requiring TMDLs. 

Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming. Available: http://deq.state.wy.us/

Young, M. K., et al. 1996. “Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus).” 

In Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout, Distribution, Status and 

Habitat Management Implications, edited by D. A. Duff. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 1 

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

Sources for this glossary include: Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and 

Social Assessment; Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT); 

1993; Region 4 Revision Desk Guide; Resource Planning Act Program Glossary 1995; and 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Manual & Handbook, Executive Order 11987(Exotic Organisms); 

USDA Forest Service, People’s Glossary of Ecosystem Management Terms 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/land/emterms.html) 

GLOSSARY 

100-year flood 

A flood event of such magnitude it occurs, on average, every 100 years (this equates to a 

one percent probability of occurring in any given year). 

abiotic 

Non-living material such as climate, rocks, and soil particles. 

active nest 

In regards to goshawk habitat, a goshawk nest known to have contained an egg. A nest need not 

have successfully produced fledglings (Utah Northern Goshawk Project Environmental 

Assessment, October 1999). 

access rights. A privilege or right of a person or entity to pass over or use another person's or 

entity's travel way. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 5460.5 - Rights of Way Acquisition, FSM 7700 - 

Transportation System) 

active nest 

In regards to goshawk habitat, a goshawk nest known to have contained an egg. A nest need not 

have successfully produced fledglings (Utah Northern Goshawk Project Environmental 

Assessment, October 1999). 

activity area 

A land area impacted by a management activity, excluding specified transportation facilities, 

dedicated trails, and mining excavations and dumps. Activity areas include harvest units within 

timber sales, prescibed burn areas, and grazing areas within allotments. Riparian and other 

environmentally sensitive areas may be monitored and evaluated as individual activity areas 

within larger management areas. 

adaptive management 

A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an on-going 

process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, evaluation, and incorporating new 

knowledge into management approaches based on scientific findings and the needs of society. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 2 

age class

An interval into which the age of species is divided for classification. An age grouping of trees 

according to an interval of years, usually 20 years. A single age class would have trees that are 

within 20 years of the same age, such as 1-20 years or 21-40 years. 

air pollutant

Any substance in air that could, if in high enough concentration, harm humans, animals, 

vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial matter capable 

of being airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or a combination of these. 

air quality

The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently in 

connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. 

airshed

A geographical area that shares the same air mass due to climate, physical and natural features, 

and atmospheric conditions. 

allelopathy 

The release of chemical substance by one plant that inhibits the growth of another plant. 

allotment (grazing)

Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed period of 

time. 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) 

A document prepared in consultation with the permittees(s) involved that specifies the program 

of action for implementation of the forest plan as related to livestock grazing activities. Each 

allotment on National Forest System lands is required to have an Allotment Management Plan. 

Each plan must be reviewed and updated every 10 years or if conditions deem necessary, 

whichever comes first. 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ)

The quantity of timber on a forest that may be sold from a designated area for a specified time 

period. ASQ is determined in the Forest Plan. 

alluvial 

Silt, sand, gravel, or similar materials transported and deposited by running water. 

alternate nest area 

In regards to goshawk habitat, goshawk home ranges often contain two or more nest areas, only 

one of which will be active in a give year. Alternate nest areas are normally historical nest areas 

(Utah Northern Goshawk Project Environmental Assessment, October 1999). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 3 

alternative

In an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), one of a number of possible options for responding 

to the purpose and need for action. 

amenity 

Resource use, object, feature, quality, or experience that is pleasing to the mind or senses; 

typically refers to values for which monetary values are not or cannot be established, such as 

scenic or wilderness values. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM) 

The amount of forage required by a one thousand (1,000) pound cow, or its equivalent, for one 

month. 

annual maintenance 

Work performed to maintain serviceability, or repair failures during the year in which they occur. 

Includes preventive and/or cyclic maintenance performed in the year in which it is scheduled to 

occur. Unscheduled or catastrophic failures of components or assets may need to be repaired as a 

part of annual maintenance. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and 

Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

Appropriate Management Response 

Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement protection and fire use 

objectives. 

Appropriate Management Strategy

A plan or direction selected through a decision process to guide wildland fire management 

actions to meet protection and fire use objectives. The planned strategy for suppression action in 

terms of kind, amount, and timing on a wildland fire that most efficiently meets fire management 

direction under current and expected burning conditions. 

aquatic ecosystem

40 CFR 230.3 - Waters of the United States that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting 

communities and populations of plants and animals. FSM 2526.05 - The stream channel, lake or 

estuary bed, water, biotic communities and the habitat features that occur therein. 

aquifer 

A body of rock that is saturated with water or transmits water. When people drill wells, they tap 

water contained within an aquifer. 

arterial road. 

A forest road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other arterial 

roads or public highways. (FSH 7709.54 - Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no 

longer in print) 

aspect 

The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 4 

ASQ (Allowable Sale Quantity)

On a National Forest, the quantity of timber that my be sold from a designated area covered by 

the forest plan for a specified time period. 

attainment area

A geographic area in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An area 

may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment area for others. See also 

nonattainment area. 

attitudes, beliefs, and values

FSH 1909.17 Preferences, expectations and opinions people have for forests and the 

management and use of particular areas. Differing values and expectations have resulted in 

polarized perceptions that a healthy environment requires protection of lands from human 

influence, or increased attention to environmental quality presents a threat to employment, 

economy or lifestyle. 

AUM (Animal Unit Month) 

The amount of forage required by a one-thousand (1,000) pound cow, or the equivalent, for one 

month. 

background

The area located 4 miles to horizon from the observer. 

bark beetle 

An insect that bores through the bark of forest trees to eat the inner bark and lay its eggs. Bark 

beetles are important killers of forest trees. 

basal area 

The area of the cross section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 and 1/2 feet above the 

ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term basal 

area is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per acre. 

base water flows 

That part of the streamflow derived from groundwater or sources such as lakes and wetlands. 

Base flows do not include direct runoff from precipitation or melting snow. 

baseline 

The first set of data collected at an established monitoring site, to be compared with subsequent 

monitoring data from the same location. 

beneficial use

An actual or potential use that may be made of the waters of the state that is protected against 

quality degradation. Examples of beneficial uses include domestic, agricultural, and industrial 

water supplies, recreation, aquatic life, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and salmon spawning.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 5 

Best Management Practice (BMP) 

A practice or combinaton of practices, that is determined by a State after problem assessment, 

examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective 

and practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point 

sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2(q) ). 

Best Mangement Practices as defined by State of Utah-Division of Water Quality regulation or 

agreement between the State of Utah and Forest Service include the following (appendix A): 

• State of Utah Non Point Source Management Plan for Silvicultural Activitie.s 

• State of Utah Non Point Source Management Plan for Hydrologic Modifications. 

• Salt Lake County Water Quality and Pollution Control: Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook. 

big game 

Large mammals, such as deer, elk, and antelope that are hunted for sport. 

biological control 

The use of natural means to control unwanted pests. Examples include introduced or naturally 

occurring predators such as wasps, or hormones that inhibit the reproduction of pests. Biological 

controls can sometimes be alternatives to mechanical or chemical means. 

biological diversity (or biodiversity)

The variety and abundance of life and it's processes. It includes all living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Biological 

diversity also refers to the compositions, structures, and functions of species and habitats and 

their interactions. 

biomass

The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community. 

biophysical components

Refers to biological and/or physical components in an ecosystem. 

biota

Living material. 

biotic

Living parts of an ecosystem such as plants and animals. 

blowdown 

Trees felled or broken off by wind. 

board foot

A measurement of wood equivalent to a board one foot square and one inch thick. Usually 

expressed in terms of thousand board feet (MBF) or million board feet (MMBF). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 6 

broadcast burning

Burning forest fuels as they are, with no piling or windrowing. 

browse 

Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals eat. Browse is often used to 

refer to the shrubs eaten by big game, such as elk and deer. 

candidate species

Plant and animal species being considered for listing as endangered or threatened, in the opinion 

of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Category 

1 candidate species are groups for which the FWS or NMFS has sufficient information to support 

listing proposals; category 2 candidate species are those for which available information 

indicates a possible problem but need further study to determine the need for listing. 

canopy 

The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the uppermost 

layer of foliage, but it can be use to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest. 

capability 

The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management practices at a given level of management 

intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, 

landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as 

silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease. 

capital improvement 

The construction, installation, or assembly of a new fixed asset, or the significant alteration, 

expansion, or extension of an existing fixed asset to accommodate a change of purpose. 

(Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 

1998) 

carrying capacity 

The maximum number of people a site can accommodate at any given time, usually measured in 

PAOTs (People At One Time). 

categorical exclusion 

A category of acts which do not individually or cumulatively have significant effect on the 

human environment. 

cave 

Any naturally formed void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages that occur 

beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge, including natural subsurface water and 

drainage systems, that is large enough to permit a person to enter, whether or not the entrance is 

naturally formed or human-made. The term “cave” also includes any natural pit, sinkhole, or 

other feature that is an extension or component of a cave. See also significant. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 7 

cave life 

All life forms, including plants and vertebrate or invertebrate animals, endemic (indigenous) to 

caves or that commonly use caves during the completion of their life cycles. 

cavity 

A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and 

reproduction. 

cfs (cubic feet per second) 

A unit of measurement in cubic feet of the amount of water flowing in an area. 

chaining 

The act of dragging of a heavy chain between two vehicles to reduce or clear shrubs or saplings 

from an area. 

characteristic 

Qualities that constitute a character, that characterize a landscape; a distinguishing trait, feature, 

or quality; uniqueness; attribute. 

chemical control 

The use of pesticides and herbicides to control pests and undesirable plant species. 

classified road 

See road. 

Clean Air Act 

An Act of Congress established to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air through air 

pollution prevention and control. 

Clean Water Act

An Act of Congress which establishes policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 

clearcut

A harvest method removing all trees in a stand in one cutting. 

climax 

The culminating stage in plant succession for a given site. Climax vegetation is stable, selfmaintaining, and self-reproducing. 

coarse filter management 

Land management that addresses the needs of all associated species, communities, environments, 

and ecological processes in a land area. (See fine filter management.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 8 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

The general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments 

and agencies of the federal government. 

collaborative stewardship

We will care for the land and serve people by listening to all our constituents and by living 

within the limits of the land...commitment to healthy ecosystems and working with people on the 

land. 

collector road 

A forest road that serves smaller land areas than an arterial road. Usually connects forest arterial 

roads to local forest roads or terminal. (FSH 7709.54 - Forest Transportation Terminology 

Handbook, no longer in print) 

commodity outputs 

Tangible material products which are produced from raw materials obtained on the national 

forest. Commodity outputs are measured in various established units (cubic feet of timber, 

barrels of oil, etc.), and bought and sold in the market. Includes timber products, oil, natural gas, 

minerals, and forage for livestock. 

components of ecosystem management

Biological diversity, physical diversity, social diversity, and economic diversity are the four 

components of Southwest Idaho Ecosystem Management Framework. 

composition 

What an ecosystem is composed of. Composition could include water, minerals, trees, snags, 

wildlife, soil, microorganisms, and certain plant species, 

composition (species) 

The species that make up a plant or animal community, and their relative abundance. 

concentrated use area

Concentrated Use Area (CUA) is where the Forest Service invest management time or dollars for 

the management of sites or areas of recreation activity that leave evident impacts, such as litter, 

vandalism, or soil compaction. Any constructed features or management activities are 

primaryily for resource protection rather than user convenience. The primary management 

objective is to protect and stabilize natural resources. 

concern level 

Is a measure of the degree of public importance placed on how landscapes are viewed from 

travelways and use areas. 

conifer 

A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 9 

connectivity

The degree to which similar but separated vegetation components of a landscape are connected. 

conservation agreement 

A formal written agreement for implementing the conservation strategy. It describes specific 

actions and responsibilities of the participating agrencies. 

conservation biology 

A discipline whose goal is “to develop scientific and technical means for the protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of life on this planet – its species, its ecological and evolutionary 

processes, and its particular and total environment.” (Society for Conservation Biology, 2000) 

conservation strategy

A written document describing specific actions required to reduce or eliminate threats to 

candidate species or species of special concern and to assure their long-term survival. 

Continuous Assessment and Planning (CAP)

An approach to planning that allows for ongoing adjustments to incorporate new technology and 

scientific knowledge. 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU) 

See mining stipulations. 

cord

A stack of wood 4 x 4 x 8 ft, or 128 ft3 (1.2 x 1.2 x 2.4m, or 3.6 m3). 

corridor (landscape)

Landscape elements that connect similar patchers of habitat through an area with different 

characteristics. For example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and 

hardwoods between meadows or through a forest. 

cover type

Stands of a particular vegetation type that are composed of similar species. The aspen cover type 

contains plants distinct from the pinyon-juniper cover type. 

criteria air pollutants

Pollutants that are common to sites across the U.S. and for which air quality criteria have been 

established: ozone, a principal component of smog; Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC), smogforming chemicals released from the combustion of fossil fuels, solvents, paints, glues, and 

plastics; carbon monoxide (CO), from automobile emissions, burning of gasoline, natural gas, 

coal, etc.; nitrogen dioxide, from burning of gasoline, natural gas, coal, automobile emissions; 

Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5), includes dust, smoke and soot from the burning of wood, 

diesel fuel, dust from unpaved roads, agricultural burning, etc.; sulfur dioxide, from the burning 

of coal and oil; lead, from leaded gasoline, metal smelters and the manufacture of lead batteries. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 10 

critical habitat 

Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or endangered 

species. 

crown height 

The distance from the ground to the base of the crown of a tree. 

cultural element 

Attributes in a human-altered landscape; scenically positive cultural elements, most of which 

have historical backgrounds or nostalgic connotations. Examples include split-rail fences, stone 

walls, barns, orchards, hedgerows, and cabins. 

cultural landscape 

Human-altered landscapes, especially those slowly evolving landscapes with scenic vegetation 

patterns or scenic structures. Addition of these elements creates a visually pleasing complement 

to the natural character of a landscape. 

cultural resource 

The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past; this can be historical or 

pre-historic. 

cumulative effects

Impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

cut and fill slope 

An area of land where soil from the hillslope is removed and placed elsewhere to form a base for 

a given activity, usually the construction of a road (i.e., convex slopes are excavated and concave 

slopes are filled). 

CWD (coarse woody debris)

Pieces of woody material having a diameter of at least three inches and a length greater than 

three feet (also referred to as large woody debris, or LWD). 

dbh (diameter at breast height) 

The diameter of a tree 4 and 1/2 feet above the ground on the uphill side of the tree. 

decadent

Marked by decay or decline. 

decommissioning 

Various levels of treatment to stabilize and rehabilitate unneeded roads or trails, such as blocking 

the entrance, revegetating, water barring, removing fills and culverts, reestablishing drainage 

ways, removing unstable road shoulders, or full obliteration by recontouring and restoring 

natural slopes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 11 

deferred maintenance 

Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was scheduled and 

which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When allowed to accumulate without 

limits or consideration of useful life, deferred maintenance leads to deterioration of performance, 

increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Deferred maintenance needs may be 

categorized as critical or noncritical at any point in time. Continued deferral of noncritical 

maintenance will normally result in an increase in critical deferred maintenance. Code 

compliance (e.g. life safety, ADA, OSHA, environmental, etc.), Forest Plan Direction, Best 

Management Practices, Biological Evaluations other regulatory or Executive Order compliance 

requirements, or applicable standards not met on schedule are considered deferred maintenance. 

(Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 

1998) 

demographic

Related to the vital statistics of human populations (size, density, growth, distribution...) 

designated dispersed site 

An area used as a campsite or recreation site that includes a hardened, barren area. Sites are 

hardened to encourage use in those areas, and reduce use in more fragile areas. 

design vehicle. 

The vehicle frequently using the road that determines the minimum standard for a particular 

design element. No single vehicle controls the standards for all the design elements for a road. 

Determine the maximum and minimum standards from the type and configuration of the vehicles 

using the road. Analyze each design element to determine which vehicle governs the standard for 

that element. (FSH 7709.56, Sec 4.1- Road Preconstruction Handbook) 

desired landscape character 

Appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time, recognizing that a landscape is a 

dynamic and constantly changing community of plants and animals. This is a combination of 

landscape design attributes and opportunities, as well as biological opportunities and constraints. 

developed recreation

Primary management objective is to provide enhancement of recreation opportunities through 

site modification and providing various amenities. Example ski resorts, campgrounds, etc.. 

deviation 

Departure from described landscape character or from landscape character goals. Deviation 

from described landscape character can be positive, negative, or have no effect. 

DFC (Desired Future Condition)

A portrayal of the land, resource, or social and economic conditions that are expected to result in 

50-100 years if objectives are achieved. A vision of the long-term conditions of the land. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 12 

dispersed recreation 

Dispersed Recreation is where undeveloped recreation activities and their associated impacts are 

dispersed through out the Forest. Any constructed amenities or management are for resource 

protection rather than user convenience. Undeveloped Recreation and Concentrated Use Area 

are included in Dispersed Recreation. 

distance zones 

Landscape areas denoted by specified distances from the observer. Used as a frame of reference 

in which to discuss landscape attributes or the scenic effect of human activities in a landscape. 

disturbance

Any event, such as wildfire or a timber sale, that alters the structure, composition, or function of 

an ecosystem. 

disturbance regime

All known current and historical disturbances of a subject area. 

down woody debris 

Dead woody material, such as limbs and large roots, on the ground or in streams. 

ecological approach 

An approach to natural resource management that considers the relationships among all 

organisms, including humans, and their environment. 

ecological integrity 

In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which the elements of biodiversity and the 

functions that link them together and sustain the entire system are complete and capable of 

performing desired functions. Exact definitions of integrity are somewhat relative and may 

differ depending on the type of ecosystem being described. 

ecological function

The process through which the constituent living nonliving elements of ecosystems change and 

interact, including biogeochemical processes and succession. 

ecological legacy 

The ecological conditions (composition, structure, patterns, and functions) passed on from one 

generation to the next. 

ecological processes

The actions or events that link organisms (including humans) and their environment such as 

disturbance, successional development, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, productivity, and 

decay. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 13 

ecological units 

Classification units for environmental settings designed to be useful in identification, description, 

comparison, and analysis. The classifications are based on climate, topography, geology, soils, 

hydrology, and vgetation. The system includes different scales of units, from larger to smaller. 

ecology

The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or the study of 

these interrelationships. 

economic efficiency

Producing goods and services in areas best suited for that production based on natural 

biophysical advantage or an area's ability to best serve regional demands of people. 

economic dependency 

Dependent upon the output(s) of the forest(s). 

economic region

A group of communities and their surrounding rural areas that are linked together through trade. 

ecoregions 

An area over which the climate is sufficiently uniform to permit development of similar 

ecosystems on sites that have similar properties. Ecoregions contain many landscapes with 

different spatial patterns of ecosystems. 

ecosystem 

An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move among them. Living 

things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocks and minerals. 

Weather and wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems. 

ecosystem health 

A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and where the 

system's capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and services of 

the ecosystem are met. 

ecosystem management

Scientifically based land and resource management that integrates ecological capabilities with 

social values and economic relationships, to produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and 

desired conditions, uses, products, values, and services over the long term. 

ecotone 

The transition zone between two biotic communities, such as between the spruce-fir forest type 

and the mixed conifer forest, which is found at lower elevations than the spruce-fir. 

ecotype 

A population of a species in a given ecosystem that is adapted to a particular set of 

environmental conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 14 

edge 

The margin where two or more vegetation patches meet, such as a meadow opening next to a 

mature forest stand, or a ponderosa pine stand next to an aspen stand. 

eligibility (for Wild and Scenic Rivers)

A river is eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System if it is free-flowing 

and has at least one river-related value that is considered outstandingly remarkable. 

endangered species

A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. The Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

identifies endangered species. 

endemic plant/organism- A plant or animal that occurs naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited geographically. (see also: indigenous, global distribution) 

enhancement 

A short-term management prescription with the express purpose of increasing positive scenic 

attributes where few exist. 

environmental analysis

A comprehensive evaluation of alternative actions and their predictable short- and long-term 

environmental effects, including physical, biological, economic, social, and environmental 

design factors and their interactions. 

Environmental Assessment (EA)

A concise analysis of the significance of a given project's potential environmental consequences. 

An EA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and determines if an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

A detailed statement of a given project's environmental consequences, including unavoidable 

adverse environmental effects, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local 

short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources. 

ephemeral 

A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, receiving little 

or no water from springs and no long continued supply from snow or other sources, and whose 

channel is at all times above the water table. 

erosion 

The wearing away of the land surface by wind or water. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 15 

even-aged stand

A group of trees of a single age class. 

even-aged silvicultural system

A method to regenerate and maintain a stand with a single age class of trees. 

Existing Scenic Integrity (“Existing visual condition”)

Current state of the landscape, considering previous human alterations. 

exotic species 

All species of plants and animals not naturally occurring, either presently or historically, in any 

ecosystem of the United States. 

fauna 

The animal life of an area. 

fine 

Sediment of very small particle sizes, including sand, silt, and clay. 

fine filter management 

Management that focuses on the welfare of a single or only a few species rather than the broader 

habitat or ecosystem. (See coarse filter management.) 

fire cycle 

The average time between fires in a given area. 

Fire Management Plan (FMP)

A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents 

the Fire Management Program in the approved land use plan. The plan is supplemented by 

operational plans such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans, 

and prevention plans. 

fire regime 

The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability, intensity, 

and seasonality of fire. 

fire use 

The combination of wildland fire use and prescribed fire application to meet resource objectives.

fish-bearing streams 

Stream segments that support fish during all or a portion of a typical year. 

fisheries habitat 

Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish, or have the potential to support fish. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 16 

flood plain 

A lowland adjoining a watercourse. At a minimum, the area is subject to a 1% or greater chance 

of flooding in a given year. 

floodplain

The land bordering a stream or river subject to overflow flooding during periods of high water 

level. 

flora 

The plant life of an area. 

fluvial 

Of or pertaining to a river. 

focal species 

categories of species used to assess ecological integrity 

forage

Plant material (usually grasses, forbs, and brush) that is available for animal consumption. 

foreground 

Detailed landscape generally found from the observer to 1⁄2 mile away. See also immediate 

foreground. 

forbs

Broadleaf ground vegetation with little or no woody material. 

forest cover type 

See cover type. 

Forest Development Road (FDR) 

See National Forest System road.

forest health 

A measure of the robustness of forest ecosystems. Aspects of forest health include biological 

diversity; soil, air, and water productivity; natural disturbances; and the capacity of the forest to 

provide a sustaining flow of goods and services for people. 

forest highway 

A forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to public 

travel. (USC: Title 23, Section 101(a)). 

forest road 

As defined in Title 23, Section 101 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C. 101), any road wholly 

or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and which is necessary 

for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 17 

development of its resources. (FSM 7705 - Transportation System) 

Forest Service Manual (FSM)

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, 

instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and 

primary staff in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. See 

also Forest Service Handbook (FSH) below. 

 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

The Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) are the principal source of specialized guidance and 

instruction for carrying out the direction issued in the Forest Service Manual (FSM). Specialists 

and technicians are the primary audience of handbook direction. Handbooks may also 

incorporate external directives (such as the Federal Property Management Regulations in FSH 

6409.31) with related USDA and Forest Service directive supplements. See also Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) above. 

forest transportation system management. The planning, inventory, analysis, classification, 

record keeping, scheduling, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and 

other operations undertaken to achieve environmentally sound, safe, cost-effective, access for 

use, protection, administration, and management of National Forest System lands. (FSM 7705 - 

Transportation System) 

fragmentation

The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat, typically forest cover, but including other 

types of habitat. Habitat can be fragmented naturally or from forest management activities. 

free-flowing

A stream that exists or flows in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or any other modification of the waterway. 

functional class

The way a road services land and resource management needs, and the character of service it 

provides. (FSH 7709.54, Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in print) 

fuels 

Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that are capable of burning. 

fuels management 

The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective fire management or control. 

For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor 

before the fuels become so heavy that a natural wildfire in the area would be explosive and 

impossible to control. 

fuelwood 

Wood cut into short lengths for burning. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 18 

function 

All the processes within an ecosystem through which the elements interact, such as succession, 

the food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle. 

gabion 

A wire basket filled with clean rocks used as a retaining structure to stabilize a soil slope or 

riverbank or to provide support for a bridge. 

General Forest Area (GFA) 

General Forest Areas are all National Forest System Lands available for recreation use outside of 

Wilderness, developed sites, roads, trails, and administrative sites. GFA’s contain a wide 

spectrum of recreation settings and opportunities and can be a logical working area, like a 

drainage, geographic area, Forest District, etc. 

geoclimatic setting

The geology, climate (precipitation and temperature), vegetation, and geologic processes (such 

as landslides or debris flows) that are characteristic of a place; places with these similar 

characteristics are said to have the same geoclimatic setting. 

geomorphic processes 

Processes that change the form of the earth, such as volcanic activity, running water, and glacial 

action. 

geomorphology

A science that deals with land and submarine relief features, using principles of both 

physiography and geology. 

GIS (Geographic Information System)

A computer system that stores and uses spatial (mappable) data. 

global distribution 

The occurrences of plant and animals over their range. Commonly refered to in terms of 

endemism including disjunct (seperated from the main population), local endemic (range of 

distribution is less than 100 square miles), regional endemic (global distribution is between 100 

and 10,000 square miles), sparsely distributed (widespred but sporadic), peripheral (on the edge 

of its range), widespread, and circumboreal or circumpolar. 

goal 

A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved some time in the future. It 

is normally expressed in broad, general terms, without any specific date for attainment. 

goods and services

36 CFR 219 - The various outputs produced by forest and rangeland renewable resources. The 

tangible and intangible values of which are expressed in market and non-market terms. 

green (sawtimber, oak, etc.)

Live vegetation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 19 

group selection 

An uneven-aged timber harvest system in which trees are harvested in small (<1 ac) groups. 

ground cover

The percentage of material, other than bare ground (or pavement – rock less than 3⁄4 inch in 

diameter), covering the land surface. It may include live vegetation, standing dead vegetation, 

litter, cobble, gravel, stones and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare ground and pavement would 

total 100 percent. 

ground fire 

A fire that burns along the forest floor and does nor affect trees with thick bark or high crowns. 

ground water 

The supply of fresh water under the earth's surface in an aquifer or in the soil. 

group selection 

A method of tree harvest in which trees are removed periodically in small groups. This 

silvicultural treatment results in small openings that form mosaics of age class groups in the 

forest. 

guideline

The preferred or advisable course of action designed to promote the achievement of goals and 

objectives. 

habitat

The place where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions. 

habitat capability 

The ability of a land area or plant community to support a given species of wildlife. 

habitat diversity 

A number of different types of wildlife habitat within a given area. 

habitat type- A way to classify land area . A habitat type can support certain climax vegetation, 

both tree and undergrowth species. Habitat typing can indicate the biological potential of a site. 

hiding area/cover 

Vegetation capable of hiding 90% of an adult elk or deer from human's view at a distance of 200 

feet or less. 

hierarchy 

A general integrated system comprising two or more levels, the higher controlling to some extent 

the activities of the lower levels; a series of consecutively subordinate categories forming a 

system of classification. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 20 

historical range of variability (HRV)

The natural fluctuation of the components of a healthy ecosystems over time. 

ecosystem over time. In this EIS, refers to the range of conditions and processes that are likely to 

have occurred prior to settlement of the project area by people of European descent 

(approximately the mid-1800s), which would have varied within certain limits over time. 

historic mosiac 

A pattern of vegetation communities as they would have been distributed at some time in the 

past. Historic reference conditions are based on fire history studies and records of historic uses of 

these lands both prior to and after the establishment of the National Forest System. 

home range 

In regards to goshawk habitat, the area that a goshawk habitually uses during nesting, resting, 

bathing, foraging, and roosting. A nesting home range contains nest areas (active nests and 

historical nests), the Post Fledgling Area (PFA), and the foraging area (Utah Northern Goshawk 

Project Environmental Assessment, October 1999). 

horizontal diversity 

The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities or different stages of 

plant succession across an area of land; the greater the numbers of communities in a given area, 

the higher the degree of horizontal diversity. 

human dimensions

Refers to social and economic components of an ecosystem. 

HUC (Hydrologic Unit Codes)

A coding system developed by the U.S. Geological Service to map geographic boundaries of 

watersheds of various sizes. 

hydrologic cycle 

Also called the water cycle, this is the process of water evaporating, condensing, falling to the 

ground as precipitation, and returning to the ocean as run-off. 

hydrology

The study of the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on the earth's surface, in the 

soil and rocks, and in the atmosphere. 

immediate foreground 

The detailed feature landscape found within the first few hundred feet of the observer, generally 

from the observer to 300 feet away. This distance zone is normally used in project level 

planning, not broad scale planning. 

IMPLAN 

A contraction for “IMpact analysis for PLANning,” IMPLAN is an input-output computer 

software modeling program that estimates the impacts of economic changes in states, counties, or 

communities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 21 

indicators

A measure of or surrogate for the elements of ecosystem management. 

indigenous (species) 

A species which originally inhabitated a particular National Forest or National Grassland.

inherently rare species 

A species is inherently rare if it occurs in only a limited number of locations, has low population 

numbers, or has both lilmited occurrences and low population numbers, and those conditions are 

natural characteristiics of the life history and ecology of the species and not primarily the result 

of human disturbance. 

inholding 

An area of private land within the proclaimed boundary of a national forest. 

instream flow 

The quantity of water necessary to meet seasonal stream flow requirements to accomplish the 

purposes of the National Forests, including, but not limited to fisheries, visual quality, and 

recreational opportunities. 

intermittent stream 

A stream or portion of a stream that does not flow year-round but only when it receives base 

flow solely during wet periods, or receives groundwater discharge or protracted contributions 

from melting snow or other erratic surface and shallow subsurface sources. 

introduction (speices) 

The release, escape, or establishment of an exotic species intoa natural ecosystem. 

jurisdiction 

The legal right to control or regulate use of a transportation facility. Jurisdiction requires 

authority, but not necessarily ownership. The authority to construct or maintain a road may be 

derived from fee title, an easement, or some other similar method. (FSM 7705 - Transportation 

System) 

ladder fuels 

Vegetation located below the crown level of forest trees, which can carry fire from the forest 

floor to tree crowns. Ladder fuels may be low-growing tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees. 

landscape 

A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to factors such as 

geology, soils, climate, and human impacts. Landscapes are often used for coarse grain analysis. 

landscape analysis

An evaluation of past management direction on a given landscape, and a prediction of future 

conditions given the current management direction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 22 

landscape character 

Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it 

identifiable or unique. 

Landscape Character Theme (LCT) 

A broad description of land use patterns, vegetation processes or patterns, or dominant 

characteristics found in a landscape. 

landscape setting 

The context and environment in which a landscape is set; a landscape backdrop. 

landtype 

An intermediate level in the ecological classification system based on landform, natural 

vegetative communities, and soils. 

landtype associations

A grouping of landtypes that are similar in general surface configuration and origin. 

Lease Notices (LN) 

See leasing stipulations. 

leasing stipulations 

The stipulations applied to all new leasable mineral operations. 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU) 

Use and occupancy are allowed but are restricted to mitigate effects on particular resources, such 

as requiring operations to meet a visual quality objective. 

Lease Notices (LN) 

This notice may be used in addition to one of the stipulations listed above to identify specific 

concern(s) that may impact lease operations on a given lease. Lease Notices do not involve 

additional restrictions or requirements. 

No Lease (NL) 

No new leases are authorized or unavailable for lease. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 

Well sites, tank batteries, or similar facilities are not allowed to occupy the surface of specified 

lands. 

Standard Lease Terms (SLT) 

No special stipulations are applied and current environmental protection laws and the Federal 

Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act orders restrict the operation. 

Timing Limitations (TL) 

Activities are restricted or prohibited during certain time periods. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 23 

lifestyle 

The way people live. 

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

A planning framework that establishes explicit measures of the acceptable and appropriate 

resource and social conditions in recreation settings, and establishes the appropriate management 

strategies for maintaining or achieving those conditions. 

litter 

The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material covering the soil surface. 

local road 

A forest road that connects terminal facilities with forest collector, forest arterial or public 

highways. Usually forest local roads are single purpose transportation facilities. (FSH 7709.54 - 

Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in print) 

Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 

An project analysis unit upon which direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analyses are 

performed. LAU boundaries remain constant to facilitate planning and allow effective 

monitoring of habitat changes over time. They are generally the size used by an individual lynx, 

about 25-50 square miles. These units were developed in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

macroinvertebrate

An animal having no backbone or internal skeleton, large enough to be seen without 

magnification. 

maintenance level 

see roads maintenance level 

management activity

An activity humans impose on a landscape for the purpose of managing natural resources. 

management area

A land area with similar management goals and a common prescription, as described in the 

Forest Plan. 

management prescription 

“Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for application on a specific area to 

attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives.” 36 CFR 219.3, italics added. The categories 

provide a description of general direction for the management of a specific area based on the 

resource emphasis. Sometimes called "management area categories." 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 24 

MCF (thousand cubic feet) 

A cubic foot is a measurement of wood 1 x 1 x 1 ft (30.48 x 30.48 x 30.48 cm), in this case 

expressed in terms of a thousand cubic feet. Most measurements are now made in CCF, hundred 

cubic feet. See also MMBF. 

metapopulation 

A collection of localized populations that are geographically distinct yet are genetically 

interconnected through natural movement of individuals among conservation populations. 

middleground 

The zone between the foreground and the background in a landscape. The area located from 1⁄2 

mile to 4 miles from the observer. 

MIS (Management Indicator Species)

Representative species whose habitat conditions and population changes are used to assess the 

impacts of management activities on similar species in a particular area. 

mitigation measures 

Modifications of actions that (1) avoid impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action; (2) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the actions and it 

implementation; (3) rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; (4) reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action; or (5) compensate for impacts by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments. 

mixed stand 

A stand consisting of two or more tree species. 

MMBF (million board feet)

A board foot is a measurement of wood 1 x 12 x 12 inches (2.54 x 30.5 x 30.5 cm), in this case 

expressed in terms of a million board feet. Most measurements are now made in CCF, hundred 

cubic feet. 

model 

An analytical framework based on the past behavior of numeric variables that is able to predict 

the future behavior of those variables. 10 CFR Part 960.2 defines a model as “a conceptual 

description and the associated mathematical representation of a system, subsystem, components, 

or condition that is used to predict changes from a baseline state as a function of internal and/or 

external stimuli and as a function of time and space.” 

monitoring

The process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated results of a 

management plan are being realized, or if implementation is proceeding as planned. 

monoculture 

A single variety of a particular species growing in one area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 25 

mosaic 

Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape, such as areas with trees and areas 

without trees occurring over a landscape. 

multiple-use 

According to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the management of all the various 

renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination 

that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land 

for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient 

latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some 

land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management 

of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, 

with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily 

the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

National Forest Scenic Byway

A road on National Forest System Land that has been designated by the Chief of the Forest 

Service for its exceptional scenic, historic, cultural, recreational, or natural resources. 

National Forest System Road 

Any road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, including roads on the forest transportation 

system. National Forest System roads are not public roads, in that they are not funded through 

the Federal Highway Administration (FSM 7700). Previously called a Forest Development Road 

(FDR). 

native species 

All species of plants and animals naturally occurring, either presently or historically, in any 

ecosystem of the United States. 

natural disturbance 

Periodic impact or natural events such a fire, severe drought, insect or disease attack, or wind. 

natural range of variability 

See range of variability 

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)

An abbreviation for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires 

environmental analysis and public disclosure of federal actions. 

niche

A situation or activity specially suited to a Forest's character or ability. 

no action (alternative)

The most likely condition expected to exist if current management practices continue unchanged. 

The analysis of this alternative is required for federal actions under NEPA. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 26 

No Lease (NL)

See leasing stipulations. 

nongame

Wildlife species that are not hunted for sport. 

non-point source 

A source of pollutants that flow into surface waters from agricultural run-off from fields, urban 

run-off from paved streets and parking areas, mining and forestry operations, and atmospheric 

deposition. See also point source.

nonattainment area

An area identified by an air quality regulatory agency through ambient air monitoring (and 

designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) that presently exceeds the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for one or more criteria air pollutants. See also attainment area. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 

See mining stipulations. 

 

noxious weed 

Those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the 

responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following 

characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of 

serious insects or disease, and being native or new to or not common to the United States or parts 

thereof (FSM 2080). 

nutrient cycling

Circulation or exchange of elements such as nitrogen and carbon between non-living and living 

portions of the environment. Includes all mineral and nutrient cycles involving mammals and 

vegetation. 

objective

A concise time-specific statement of measurable planned results that move toward preestablished goals. An objective helps define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be 

used in achieving identified goals. 

observer position 

Specific geographic position in the landscape where the viewer is located. Also known as a 

viewer platform. 

objective maintenance level. The maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering 

future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental 

concerns. The objective maintenance level may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the 

operational maintenance level. (FSH 7709.58, Sec12.3 - Transportation System Maintenance 

Handbook) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 27 

OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) 

See ORV

old growth 

“Old growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes; 

old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier 

stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulations of large dead 

woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function.” 

(Characteristics Of Old Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service, 

Ogden Utah, 1993.) 

open for public travel. The road section is available and passable by four-wheeled standard 

passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, 

or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight or class of registration, except during 

scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions. (23 CFR 460.2(c)). 

operational maintenance level. The maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering 

today's needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. It defines the 

level to which the road is currently being maintained. (FSH 7709.58, Sec 12.3 - Transportation 

System Maintenance Handbook) 

ORV (Off-Road Vehicles), 

Vehicles such as motor cycles, 4-wheel drive vehicles, and 4-wheelers. 

outstandingly remarkable value

Characteristic of a river segment that is judged to be a rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is 

significant at a regional or natural scale. Values can be recreational, scenic, geological, 

historical, cultural, biological, botanical, ecological, heritage, hydrological, paleontological, 

scientific, or research-related. 

overstory

In a forest with multiple layers of vegetation, the portion of the trees forming the uppermost 

(canopy) layer. 

paleontological 

Of or relating to past geological periods. Paleontological resources include fossils of shellfish, 

swamp forests, dinosaurs, and other prehistoric plants and animals. 

partial retention 

A visual quality objective which, in general, means man's activities may be evident but must 

remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

patch 

An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 28 

patch cut 

A clearcut that creates small openings in a stand of trees, usually between 15 and 40 acres in 

size. Patch cuts are used to provide the disturbance needed to regenerate aspen. 

pattern 

The spatial arrangement of landscape elements (patches, corridors, matrix) that determines the 

function of a landscape as an ecological system. 

People At One Time (PAOT) 

A recreational capacity measurement term indicating the number of people who can use a facility 

or area at one time. 

Perennial 

When referring to bodies of water, perennial waters are defined as waters that are present during 

all seasons of a year. 

PFC (Properly Functioning Condition)

Ecosystems are in PFC when they function within their historic range of variability. 

planning area 

The area of National Forest land covered by a Regional Guide or Forest Plan. 

planning period 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires forest plans to be revised every 

10-15 years. The planning period refers to the next 10-15 years on the Uinta National Forest 

under the management of the proposed Forest Plan until the next Forest Plan revision. 

Play (oil and gas) 

When referring to oil and gas resources, play is defined as a specific combination of geological 

features with perceived potential for oil and gas accumulation. 

PNV 

See present net value. 

point source 

A source of pollutants that is discernable and confined such as a pipe, ditch, channel, conduit, or 

tunnel. Point sources exclude agricultural discharges (see non-point source). 

pole/sapling 

The stage of forest succession in which trees are between 3 and 7 inches in diameter and are the 

dominant vegetation. 

pole timber 

Trees at least 5 inches in diameter, but smaller than the minimum size for sawtimber. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 29 

population 

The people, wildlife, fish, or plants inhabiting a specific area. 

positive cultural element 

Human alterations that are scenically positive attributes, most of which have historical backgrounds or nostalgic connotations. Examples include split-rail fences, stone walls, barns, 

orchards, hedgerows, and cabins. There may be nodes, enclaves or constellations of positive 

cultural elements. 

post and pole harvest

The harvest of trees four to nine inches in diameter, used primarily as fence posts, corral or fence 

rails, and teepee poles. 

Post Fledgling Area (PFA) 

In reference to goshawk habitat, an area of concentrated use by the goshawk family after the 

young leave the nest. (From the Utah Northern Goshawk Project Environmental Assessment, 

October 1999.) 

Identify a Post-Fledgling Area (PFA) that encompasses the active, alternate, and replacement 

goshawk nest sites and additional habitat needed to raise fledglings. A PFA should be 

approximately 420 acres in size (in addition to the 180 nest area acres) when sufficient suitable 

habitat exists. If sufficient amounts of suitable habitat are not present, use existing suitable 

habitat that is available. 

precommercial thinning 

Removing some of the trees from a stand that are too small to be sold for lumber or house logs, 

so the remaining trees will grow faster. 

present net value (PNV), also called present net worth

The measure of the economic value of a project when costs and revenues occur in different time 

periods. Future revenues and costs are "discounted " to the present by an interest rate that reflects 

the changing value of a dollar over time. The assumption is that dollars today are more valuable 

than dollars in the future. PNV is used to compare project alternatives that have different cost 

and revenue flows. 

prescribed fire 

Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved 

prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met before ignition 

prescription

A planned series of treatments designed to change the current condition to a condition that meets 

management goals. 

properly functioning condition (PFC) 

Ecosystems are in PFC when they function within their historic range of variability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 30 

primary travelways and use areas 

National and/or regionally important location largely associated with recreation and tourism use. 

private road. A road under private ownership authorized by easement to a private party, or a 

road which provides access pursuant to a reserved or private right. (FS-643, Roads Analysis; 

Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System, August 

1999.). 

proposed action

The project or set of activities that a federal agency intends to implement, as defined in NEPA 

regulations. 

public authority

A Federal, State, county, town or township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local government or 

instrumentality thereof, with authority to finance, build, operate or maintain toll or toll-free 

highway facilities. (23 CFR 460.2(b)) 

public Forest Service road

A National Forest System Road that is open to public travel and has been approved for inclusion 

into the Public Forest System Road Program. 

public road

Any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to 

public travel. (23 U.S.C. 101(a), 23 CFR 460.2(a), FSM 7705 - Transportation System) 

rangeland 

Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs 

that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game. 

rangeland condition 

satisfactory. When the desired rangeland condition is being met or short-term 

objectives are being achieved to move the rangeland toward desired conditions; 

either meeting or moving toward desired conditions. 

 

unsatisfactory. When the desired rangeland condition is not being met and shortterm objectives are not being achieved to move the rangeland toward desired 

conditions; not meeting or moving toward desired conditions. 

range management 

The art and science of planning and directing range use intended to yield the sustained maximum 

animal production and perpetuation of the natural resources. 

range of variability (Also called the historic range of variability or natural range of 

variation.) 

The components of healthy ecosystems fluctuate over time. The range of sustainable conditions 

in an ecosystem is determined by time, processes (such as fire), native species, and the land 

itself. For instance, ecosystems that have a 10 year fire cycle have a narrower range of variation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 31 

than ecosystems with 200-300 year fire cycle. Past management has placed some ecosystems 

outside their range of variability. Future management should move such ecosystems back toward 

their natural, sustainable range of variation. 

rare 

Taxa with small populations that are not at present “Threatened” or “Endangered” but are at risk. 

These taxa are usually localized within restricted geographical areas or habitats (e.g. narrow 

endemics) or are more widespread and thinly scattered (i.e. numerically rare) over a more 

extensive range. 

rare plant communities 

Plant communities that may be globally rare, or that may be common globally, but rare on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, or portions of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

realignment (of a road) 

See reconstruction (of a road). 

reconstruction (of a road) 

“Activity that results in improvement or realignment of an existing classified road as defined 

below: 

road improvement 

Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, expands its 

capacity, or changes its original design function. 

road realignment 

Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an existing road

and treatment of the old roadway.” (36 CFR 212.1) 

recommended sensitive plant- Those plants that meet the criteria for the regional sensitive 

species list, but have not been formally placed on the list. 

Record of Decision (ROD)

A public document associated with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that identifies all 

alternatives, provides the final decision, the rationale behind that decision, and commitments to 

monitoring and mitigation. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities, 

and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and opportunities for obtaining 

experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into six classes--primitive, 

semiprimitive non-motorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. 

Recreation Visitor Day (RVD)

Twelve hours of recreation use in any combination of persons and hours (one person for 12 

hours, three persons for four hours, etc.). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 32 

rehabilitation 

A short-term management goal used to return a landscape with existing visual impacts and 

deviations to a desired level of scenic quality formerly found in the characteristic landscape. 

Research Natural Area (RNA) 

An area in or as near a natural condition as possible that is set aside to preserve a representative 

sample of an ecological community, primarily for scientific and educational purposes. 

resilient, resiliency 

The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is one of the properties that enable 

the system to persist in many different states of successional stages. In human communities, 

refers to the ability of a community to respond to externally induced changes such as larger 

economic or social forces. 

Resources Planning Act (RPA)

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Also refers to the 

National Assessment and Recommended Program developed to fulfill the requirements of that 

act. The assessment is prepared every 10 years and describes the potential of the nation's forests 

and rangelands to provide a sustained flow of goods and services. The program is prepared 

every five years to chart the long-term course of the Forest Service's management of the national 

forests. 

Right-of-Way (ROW)

The legal right to pass over another owner's land. 

riparian (riparian ecosystem) 

Land areas that are directly influenced by water. They usually have visible vegetative or 

physical characteristics showing this water influence. Steamsides, lake borders, or marshes are 

typical of riparian areas. The ecosystems around or next to water areas that support unique 

vegetation and animal communities as a result of the influence of water. 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent 

streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing 

the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams, (2) providing root 

strength for channel stability, (3) shading the stream, and (4) protecting water quality. This 

designation still allows for a full range of activities but it emphasis the achievement of riparian 

management objectives that are identified on a site-by-site basis. These objectives should 

include riparian vegetation and instream habitat condition. The RHCAs, by condition, are 

defined below. 

Category 1. FISH-BEARING STREAM: RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on 

either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to 300 feet 

slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 33 

Category 2 - PERMANENTLY FLOWING NON-FISH-BEARING STREAMS: RHCAs consist 

of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the 

active stream channel to 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the 

stream channel) 

 

Category 3 - PONDS, LAKES, RESERVOIRS, AND WETLANDS GREATER THAN 1 ACRE: 

RHCAs consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to 150 feet slope distance 

from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or 

from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake,. 

Category 4 - SEASONALLY FLOWING OR INTERMITTENT STREAMS, WETLANDS LESS 

THAN 1 ACRE, LANDSLIDES, AND LANDSLIDE-PRONE AREAS: This category includes 

features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the 

interim RHCAs must include, landslides and landslide-prone areas, 100 feet slope 

distance in watersheds containing Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout, and 50 

feet slope distance for watersheds not containing Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat 

trout. 

riparian zone 

Those terrestrial areas where the vegetation complex and microclimate conditions are products of 

the combined present and influx of perennial and/or intermittent water, associated high water 

table, and soils that exhibit some wetness characteristics. Normally used to refer to the zone 

within which plants grow rooted in the water table of these rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, springs, marshes, seeps, bogs, and wet meadows. 

riprap 

Rocks, pieces of used concrete, or other material of various sizes placed firmly or loosely on 

river banks to prevent scouring by the river, or on slopes or road cuts to prevent erosion. 

road 

“A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A 

road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary.” (36 CFR 212.1) 

classified roads 

“Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are 

determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, 

county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads 

authorized by the Forest Service.” (36 CFR 212.1) 

temporary roads 

“Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency 

operation not intended to be part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for 

long-term resource management.” (36 CFR 212.1) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 34 

unclassified roads 

“Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest 

transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road 

vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that 

were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the 

termination of the authorization.” (36 CFR 212.1) 

road maintenance levels 

maintenance level 1 (road)

Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. 

The closure period must exceed one year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to 

keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to 

facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining 

drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are "prohibit" and "eliminate." Roads

receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and 

may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. 

However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic but may 

be open and suitable for non-motorized uses. 

maintenance level 2 (road)

Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a 

consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of 

administrative, permitted dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may 

occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage 

or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. 

maintenance level 3 (road)

Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard 

passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this 

maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. 

Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate 

traffic management strategies are either "encourage" or "accept." "Discourage" or 

"prohibit" strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. 

maintenance level 4 (road) 

Assigned to roads that provide a moderated degree of user comfort and convenience at 

moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, 

some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most 

appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage," however, the "prohibit" strategy 

may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. 

maintenance level 5 (road)

Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These 

roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and 

dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 35 

roadless area

Areas that do not have developed and maintained roads, and that are substantially natural. 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II)

A second review and evaluation begun in 1977 to identify roadless and undeveloped land in the 

National Forest System. It also determined which of the inventoried areas should be 

recommended to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, which 

areas should be managed for non-wilderness uses, and which areas required further planning 

before a reasonable decision could be made. 

Road Management Objectives (RMO) 

Defines the intended purpose of an individual road based on management area direction and 

access management objectives. Road management objectives contain design criteria, operation 

criteria, and maintenance criteria. (FSH 7709.55, Sec 33 - Transportation Planning Handbook) 

road prism 

The area of the ground containing the road surface and cut and fill slope. 

ROS 

See Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Rosgen classification system 

A geomorphic stream classification system developed by Dave Rosgen in 1985. The information 

from the classification system can help assess a stream channel’s present stability or instability 

and past conditions, and predict future stream behavior. 

rotation 

The number of years required to establish and grow timber crops to a specified condition of 

maturity. 

rotenone

The chemical compound C23H22O6 used in fish poisons. It is of low toxicity to warm-blooded 

animals. 

R.S. 2477 

A provision originally part of the 1866 Mining Act that states in its entirety, “The right-of-way 

for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby 

granted.” In 1873, the provision was separated from the Mining Act and reenacted as Revised 

Statute (R.S.) 2477. In 1938, it was recodified as 43 U.S.C. Section 932. The Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 repealed both the 1866 Mining Act and R.S. 2477, but all 

rights-of-way that existed on the date of the repeal (October 21, 1976) were preserved under 43 

U.S.C. Section 1769 (Armstrong). 

run-off 

The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open channels. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 36 

salvage cutting

Cutting dead or damaged trees to recover economic value that would otherwise be lost. 

sapling

A loose term for a young tree more than a few feet tall and an inch or so in diameter that is 

typically growing vigorously. 

satisfactory rangeland condition 

See rangeland condition. 

sawtimber 

Trees that are 9 inches in diameter at breast height or larger that can be made into lumber. 

scale 

Defined in this framework as the degree of resolution at which ecosystems are observed and 

measured. The geographic extent; for example, region, sub-regional, or landscape scale. 

scenery 

General appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of a landscape. 

scenery management 

The art and science of arranging, planning, and designing landscape attributes relative to the 

appearance of places and expanses in outdoor settings. 

scenic integrity 

State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or 

alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in a 

national forest. 

Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) 

Objectives established in a Forest Plan that define the acceptable degrees of deviation from a 

landscape character. 

very high (SIO) 

A Scenic Integrity Objective that generally provides for ecological change only. 

high (SIO) 

In high scenic integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, 

and texture found in the described landscape character. 

moderate (SIO)

A Scenic Integrity Objective refers to landscapes where the described landscape character 

“appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinated to 

the landscape character being viewed. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 37 

low (SIO) 

A Scenic Integrity Objective meaning activities must remain visually subordinate to the 

attributes of the described landscape character. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or 

texture common to the landscape character, but changes in quality of size, number, 

intensity, direction, pattern, and so on, must remain visually subordinate to the described 

landscape character. 

very low (SIO) 

A Scenic Integrity Objective meaning activities of vegetative and landform alterations 

may dominate the described landscape character but should appear as valued occurrences 

when viewed at background distances. 

scenic quality 

The essential attributes of landscape that when viewed by people, elicit psychological and 

physiological benefits to individuals and, therefore, the society in general. 

scenic resource 

Attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide varying responses from, and 

varying degrees of benefits to, humans. 

scoping

The process the Forest Service uses to determine, through public involvement, the range of 

issues that the planning process should address. 

secondary travelways and use areas 

Locally important locations associated with all types of use including recreation and tourism. 

seen area 

The total landscape area observed based upon landform screening. Seen-areas may be divided 

into zones of immediate foreground, foreground, middleground, and background. Some 

landscapes are seldom seen by the public. 

seldom-seen 

Areas of the landscape that are infrequently viewed by the public. 

sensitive species

Plant and animal species, selected by the Regional Forester, for which population viability is a 

concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population 

numbers or density, and significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability 

that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Sensitive species are not covered in the 

Endangered Species Act. 

sensitive watershed 

watersheds having geologic formations are defined as watersheds having geologic formations 

highly prone to mass wasting and/or large flood events which pose an increased risk to people, 

water supplies and infrastructure, and other property located within them 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 38 

selection harvest 

An uneven-aged timber harvest system in which trees may be chosen singly or by criteria used to 

identify groups of trees to achieve a full range of size/age classes. 

seral stage 

The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left alone, the 

seral stage will give way to another community that representes a further stage of succession. 

shelterwood method

The cutting of most trees, leaving those shelter trees needed to produce sufficient shade to 

produce a new age class in a moderated microenvironment. 

sidecasting 

The moving of excess excavated material onto the downslope side of a road, trail, landing, or 

other structure during its construction. 

silviculture

The care and tending of stands of trees to meet specific objectives. 

slump

A landslide. 

snag

A standing dead tree. 

Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP) 

The set of practices which, when applied during implementation of a project, ensures that soil 

productivity is maintained, soil loss and water quality impacts are minimized, and water-related 

beneficial uses are protected. Some SWCP’s are defined by Forest interdisciplinary teams or 

described in Forest Service Manuals (FSM) and Handbooks (FSH). These practices are included 

or incorporated by reference in Forest Plans as either Forest wide or management area specific 

standards and guidelines. 

Forest wide or Management Area specific SWCP’s can be found in the following references 

(Forest Plan – Apppendix B): 

• R1/R4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.22). 

• R4 Technical Guide for Erosion Prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas (11/79) 

• UDOT Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (2/99) 

• Applied Storm Water Pollution Prevention for Highway Design and Construction 

• R4/R5/R6 Winter Sports Guidebook (6/92). 

• R4 Winter Sports Monitoring Plan, Appendix N 

 Other SWCP’s are based upon site- specific level evaluations and are intended to supplement 

the Forest Plan for specific projects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 39 

Special Interest Area (SIA) 

Place with unusual scenic, historic, prehistoric, scientific, natural, or other special interest which 

merits special attention and management. 

Species At Risk (SAR) 

Federally listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed species and other species for 

which loss of viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a concern within the 

plan area. Other species-at-risk include sensitive species and may include state listed species. A 

species-at-risk also may be selected as a focal species. 

For the Wasatch-Cache Plan revision, the term “species-at-risk” includes: 

-Fish and Wildlife Service endangered, threatened, candidate, proposed species. 

-Regional Forester designated sensitive species. 

-Wasatch-Cache National Forest recommended sensitve species, which are other species 

that meet the definition of sensitive, but have not been officially listed as sensitive 

Also considered for inclusion as species-at-risk were species identified by: 

-The Nature Conservancy as G1, G2,G3, T1, T2, and T3. 

-State Natural Heritage programs as S1, and S2 

-Partners in Flight species of concern. 

-The Forest that do not appear on any other lists. 

The SAR list is dynamic and species will be added as deemed necessary or removed as recovery 

occurs or new information indicates they are not at risk. 

stand

A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age class distribution, composition, and 

structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality to be a distinguishable unit. 

standard

A required course of action or a level of attainment designed to promote achievement of goals

and objectives. 

Standard Lease Terms (SLT) 

See mining stipulations. 

stewardship harvest 

Harvest being conducted primarily to help achieve desired ecological conditions and/or to attain 

some non-timber resource objective that requires manipulation the existing vegetation. 

structure

The size and arrangement, both vertically and horizontally, of vegetation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 40 

subordinate 

Landscape features that are inferior to, or placed below, another in size, importance, brightness, 

and so on. Features that are secondary in visual impact or importance. 

subbasin

A fourth field hydrologic unit that nests within the hierarchical system developed by the U.S. 

Geological Survey to describe watersheds. Typically 800,00 to 1,000,000 acres in size, a 

subbasin is smaller than a river basin (third field unit), and larger than a watershed (fifth field 

unit). 

succession

The replacement in time of one plant community with another. The prior plant community (or 

successional stage) creates conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. 

suitability (for Wild and Scenic Rivers)

Evaluation of eligible rivers for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System by 

determining the best use of the river corridor and the best method to protect the outstandingly 

remarkable values within the river corridor. 

suited land

Forest land designated in the Forest Plan to be managed for timber production on a regulated 

basis. 

sustainability

The ability to maintain a desired condition or flow of benefits over time. 

sustained-yield

According to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the achievement and maintenance 

in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular output of the various renewable resources of the 

national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land. 

temporary road 

See road. 

theme 

The general focus or subject of variations on landscape character settings. Themes range from a 

naturally evolving landscape to an urban landscape. 

threatened species

Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered throughout all or a specific portion of its range within the foreseeable future. 

tiering 

The coverage of broad, general information in environmental impact statements, with subsequent 

site-specific analyses incorporating that general information by reference. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 41 

Timber Stand Improvement (TSI)

Treatments (including thinning, pruning, release cutting, prescribed fire, girdling, weeding, or 

poisoning of unwanted trees) to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and 

growth of tree stands. 

Timing Limitations (TL) 

See mining stipulations. 

TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load)

TMDL is the sum of waste load allocations for point sources, non-point sources, natural 

background, and a margin of safety. A TMDL specifies the amount of a pollutant that needs to 

be reduced to meet water quality standards set by the state. TMDL is used in a process to attain 

water quality standards that 1) identifies water quality problems and contributing pollutant 

sources, 2) allocates pollution control responsibilities among sources in the watershed, and 3) 

provides a basis for taking actions needed to restore a water body. 

travel map 

A map which shows the transportation network and seasonal motorized or non-motorized access 

opportunities and limitations. This map is usually developed at a sacale smaller than the whole 

national forest, and is readily available to the public to assist in personal recreation and planning 

other uses. 

travelway 

Represent linear concentrations of public-viewing including freeways, highways, roads, 

railroads, trails, commercial flight paths, rivers, canals and other waterways. 

unclassified road 

See road. 

undeveloped area

According to the Wilderness Act, it is an area that “generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable . . .” 

An area with no cultural features, however, some exceptions are listed in the Wilderness Act. 

uneven-aged stand

A group of trees with three or more distinct age classes. 

uneven-aged method

To regenerate and maintain a multi-aged stand by removing some trees in all age classes. 

Undeveloped Recreation 

Undeveloped Recreation is where recreation activity leaves evident impacts, and minimal 

management expenditure is made, such as law enforcement, which continues to allow the 

activity to occur. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 42 

ungulate

A hooved mammal such as a deer or elk. 

unsatisfactory rangeland condition 

See rangeland condition.

unwanted wildland fire

Any wildland fire not covered by a Fire Management Plan. This includes: all fires occurring 

outside approved wildland fire use areas; all non-lightning caused wildland fires; and fires 

occurring in wildland fire use areas that are not managed for wildland fire use. 

use areas 

Represent spots that receive concentrated public-viewing use. They include visitor centers, vista 

points, trailheads, campgrounds, picnic areas, swim beaches, marinas, resorts, ski areas, and 

other recreation sites. Use areas also include urban and suburban areas, towns and villages, 

subdivisions, parks and public and private golf courses, or public lands within or adjacent to 

national forests. 

viable populations 

A population which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to 

insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area (36 CFR 219.19). 

viewshed 

Total visible area from a single observer position or the total visible area from multiple observer 

positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, 

cities, or other viewer locations. Examples are corridor, feature, or basin viewsheds. 

visual absorption capability 

A classification system used to denote relative ability of a landscape to accept human alterations 

without loss of character of scenic quality. 

Visual Quality Objective (VQO) 

A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. 

Refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape in the Visual 

Management System (VMS). 

Wasatch Front 

A geographic region in Utah along the base of the Wasatch Mountains, generally extending from 

Ogden on the north end to Nephi on the south end. More than 50 percent of the population of the 

state resides along the Wasatch Front, which includes the cities of Layton, Salt Lake City, West 

Valley City, American Fork, Orem, Provo, Spanish Fork, and Payson. 

watch list plants 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest designates watch list plant species. These species do not 

meet the definition of Species At Risk, but their populations may be on the edge of their range, 

disjunct, local endemics, or regional endemics, or are rare throughout their distribution but, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 43 

through analysis, are found to be relatively unaffected by activities that occur on the Forest. 

These plants have stable population numbers, density, and habitat capability, and are predicted to 

remain stable. Should populations of these plants be negatively effected by allowed activities, a 

review of impacts may result in plants being recommended as Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive. 

watershed

A land area that contributes all its water to one drainage system, basin, stream, or river. 

Watersheds can be described at multiple scales. For example, the entire area draining to the 

Green River, above its confluence with the Colorado River, is a watershed. Likewise, the area 

draining to the Duchesne River above its confluence with the Green River is also a watershed, as 

is the drainage of Wolf Creek above its confluence with the West Fork of the Duchesne River. 

In this DEIS and Draft Forest Plan, “watershed” specifically refers to a drainage area of 

approximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres, which is equivalent to a 5th order Hydrologic Unit Code. 

See Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for more information on watershed classifications.

wetland 

An area that is either permanently inundated with water or has seasonally high water tables that 

support vegetation requiring these conditions for growth and reproduction. See also non-stream 

or -lake related wetlands and stream or lake related wetlands. 

wilderness

As defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act, "an area where earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which 

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also 

contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

value. (16 U.S.C. 1131)" 

Wilderness Areas 

Areas that are without developed and maintained roads, and that are substantially natural, and 

that Congress has designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

wildland fire 

Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland. This includes 

wildland fire use and unwanted wildland fire. 

wildland fire use

The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific prestated resource 

management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. 

Operational management is described in the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan. Wildland fire 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 44 

use is not to be confused with "fire use", which is a broader term encompassing more than just 

wildland fires. 

Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) 

A progressively developed assessment and operational management plan that documents the 

analysis and selection of strategies and describes the appropriate management response for a fire 

managed as wildland fire use. 

wildland setting 

Places which are largely undeveloped in character and generally natural appearing, especially 

when compared to nearby privately owned lands where more development is present (towns, 

cities, industrial, commerical, agricultural and modified rural landscapes.) 

ZOI (Zone of Influence)

The area that is economically and socio-economically influenced by Forest Service management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest GL - 45 

Acronyms and Symbols 

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity 

AUM Animal Unit Month 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWD Coarse Woody Debris 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS Draft Environment Impact 

Statement 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ERU Ecological Reporting Unit 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FACA Federal Advisory Committee 

Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GIS Geographical Information 

System 

HRV Historical Range of 

Variability 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IWM Integrated Weed Management 

MIS Management Indicator 

Species 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MOU Memorandum of 

Understanding 

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act 

NFMA National Forest Management 

Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

NOI Notice of Intent 

PFC Properly Functioning 

Condition 

PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

PVG Potential Vegetation Group 

PVT Potential Vegetation Type 

RACR Recreation Area Conservaiton 

Rule 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum 

RVD Recreation Visitor Day 

TES Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive (species) 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of 

Interior 

USFWS United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 

ZOI Zone of Influence 

> Greater than 

< Less than 
Index 

X - 1 

INDEX 

Chapter or Appendix - Page No. 

Air Resources..................................................................................................................................... Ch 3-58 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) ...............................................................................................Ch 3-337-341 

Allotment Management Plans .................................................................................... Ch 3-349,354,360,363 

Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................Ch 2 

American Indian Tribes ........................................................................................................... Ch 3-446, 484 

Amphibians...............................................................................................................................Ch 3-194-196 

Botanical Resources.................................................................................................. Ch 3-126-155, App B-4 

Comparison of Alternative Outputs ..............................................................................................Ch 2-60-66 

Counties ....................................................................................................................................Ch 3-440-446 

Cutthroat Trout..........................................................................................................................Ch 3-188-194 

Decisions Made In a Forest Plan.......................................................................................................... Ch 1-6 

Demographics .................................................................................................................................. Ch 3-449 

Developed Recreation...............................................................................................................Ch 3-234-236 

Disturbance Regimes ....................................................................................................................Ch 3-69-88 

Employment..................................................................................................................................... Ch 3-449 

Environmental Justice...................................................................................................................... Ch 3-469 

Fire Management ............................................................................................Ch 1-5, Ch 2-9, Ch 3-401-415 

Fire Regimes .............................................................................................................................Ch 3-404-405 

Forested Vegetation ......................................................................................................................Ch 3-89-96 

Fragmentation ........................................................Ch 1-12, Ch 2-16-42, Ch 3-172-185, App B2-16, B2-25 

Fuels......................................................................................................................................Ch 2, 3-401-415 

Grazing.................................................................................................Ch 3-347-369, App B-9, App B-11-5 

Geologic Hazards....................................................................................................................Ch 3-21, 38-43 

Head Months............................................................................................................ Ch 3-351, App B-9 9-10 

Heliskiing......................................................................................................................................... Ch 3-264 

Heritage Resources ...................................................................................................................Ch 3-416-428 

Historical Range of Variability.................................................................................................Ch 2, 3-84-92 

Income .....................................................................................................................................Ch 3-455-457 

Inventoried Roadless Areas .............................................. Ch 1-4, Ch 2-3, Ch 3-293-319, App C-1 and C-2 

Issues...............................................................................................................................................Ch 1-7-15 

Jobs ............................................................................................................................Ch 2-66, Ch 3-453-473 

Lands.........................................................................................................................................Ch 3-488-491 

Lynx .................................................................................................................Ch 3-163-164, App B-2-2,15 

Management Area.............................................................................................................................Ch 3-1-7 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) .......................................................................... Ch 3-169-171, App J

Management Prescription Categories (MPC) ................................................................................... App D-1 

Macroinvertebrate ............................................................................................................................ App B-3 

Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................................... App H 

Oil and Gas Leasing................................................................................................ Ch 3-380-400, App B-10 

Preferred Alternative......................................................................................................................... Ch 2 -58 

Present Net Value (PNV)................................................................................................................ Ch 3-469 

Proposed Action................................................................................................................................... Ch 1-1 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.........................................................Ch 1-16, Ch 2-3, Ch 3 294, App C-2 

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC).............................................................................................. Ch 3-89 

Public Involvement ...................................................................(See Table of Contents in Appendix) App A 

Purpose And Need For The Proposed Action...................................................................................... Ch 1-1 
Index 

X - 2 

Rangeland Capability................................................................................................ Ch 3 349-350, App B-9 

Rangeland Suitability..................................................................................................Ch 3 355-360, App B9 

Recommended Wilderness................................................................................................Ch 1-6, 3-219, C-1 

Recreation ...........................................................................................................Ch 1-4 and 7, Ch 3 224-273 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum .....................................................Ch 3 229-231, 254-255, App B-6, D-2 

Research Natural Areas (RNA)........................................................................................................ Ch 3-370 

Revenues to State............................................................................................................................. Ch 3-464 

Road Management .................................................................................................... Ch 3-209-222, App B-5 

Roadless Areas.................................................................................................. Ch 3 291-315, App C-1, C-2 

Salable Minerals............................................................................................................................... Ch 3-428 

Scenery Management................................................................................................ Ch 3-277-290, App B-7 

Ski Area Management.................................................................................Ch 3 242-245, 262-263, 274-275 

Social And Economic Setting ...................................................................................................Ch 3-440-466 

Soil Resources.................................................................................................................................... Ch 3-11 

Species-at-Risk ..............................................................................Ch 1-9, Ch 3 64-206, App B-2, B-3, B-4 

Special Areas, Special Interest Areas .......................................................................................Ch 3-375-377 

Timber Suitability .....................................................................................................................Ch 3-334-340 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ......................................................................................Ch 3-27, 3-51 

Total Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) .............................................................................................. Ch 3-340 

Tourism............................................................................................................................................ Ch 3-463 

Trails .........................................................................................................................................Ch 3-237-241 

Undeveloped Recreation (Concentrated Use Areas)........................................................................ Ch 3-236

Viability .................................................................................................. Ch 1-9, Ch 3-64, 91, 129, 184, 194 

Watershed Health........................................................................................................................Ch 3-222-29 

Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................ Ch 3-23 

Wild And Scenic Rivers................................................................................................................... Ch 3-373 

Wilderness .......................................................................................................... Ch 1-4, Ch 3-298, App C-1 

Wildlife Habitat And Species ..........................................................................Ch 1-3, 2-32, 3-115, B-2, E-1 

Winter Recreation ...................................................................... Ch 3-231-234, 242-245, 260-264, App D-3 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

February 2003 

 

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Appendix A – Response

to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 

APPENDIX A 

Table of Contents 

 First 

Page 

Number 

Appendix A....................................................................................................... A-1 

Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 

Introduction.................................................................................................... 

Public Outreach.............................................................................................. 

Summary of Public Comment........................................................................ 

General Overview of Public Comment .................................................... 

Overview of Comment on Specific Topics .............................................. 

Analysis of Public Comment ......................................................................... 

Agency Response to Comments .................................................................... 

Planning and Decision Process................................................................. 

Public Involvement and Collaboration ..................................................... 

Relationship to Other Planning and Rulemaking Processes..................... 

The Forest Planning Process..................................................................... 

Funding and Fees...................................................................................... 

Alternatives............................................................................................... 

Alternative Development.......................................................... 

Adequacy of Alternatives ......................................................... 

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................... 

Suggestions for New Alternatives ............................................ 

Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................. 

Forest Plan Direction................................................................................ 

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

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

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Site Specific 

Designations.............................................................................. 

Affected Environment .............................................................................. 

Environmental Values General................................................. 

Ecosystem/Restoration Management........................................ 

Topic 1: Watershed Health Management ................................ 

Soils, Water, and Geologic Resources............................. 

Air Resources................................................................... 

Topic 2: Biodiversity and Viability Management ................... 

Biodiversity and Viability Management General ............ 

Wildlife ............................................................................ 

Management Indicator Species........................................ 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species.............. 

Vegetation........................................................................ 

Topic 3: Roads and Access Management ................................ 

A-1 

A-1 

A-1 

A-3 

A-3 

A-5 

A-25 

A-29 

A-29 

A-32 

A-42 

A-44 

A-53 

A-58 

A-58 

A-60 

A-61 

A-62 

A-63 

A-67 

A-67 

A-80 

A-82 

A-83 

A-83 

A-87 

A-93 

A-93 

A-104 

A-105 

A-105 

A-107 

A-118 

A-120 

A-123 

A-127 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2 

Infrastructure General ...................................................... 

Trailhead Access and Parking.......................................... 

Road System Management .............................................. 

Trail System Management ............................................... 

Travel Management – Planning....................................... 

Travel Management – Motorized Access to Forest 

Resources ......................................................................... 

Travel Management – Roads and Trails .......................... 

Travel Management – Motorized Seasonal Restrictions . 

Travel Management – Winter Motorized ........................ 

Travel Management – Mechanized.................................. 

Topic 4: Recreation and Scenery Management ...................... 

Recreation and Scenery Management.............................. 

User Conflict/Monitoring and Enforcement .................... 

Motorized Recreation....................................................... 

Motorized Recreation – Off Road Vehicles..................... 

Motorized Recreation – Snowmobiles............................. 

Motorized Recreation – Heli-skiing................................. 

Motorized Recreation – Watercraft ................................. 

Non-Motorized Recreation .............................................. 

Ski Areas.......................................................................... 

Hunting and Fishing......................................................... 

Outfitter-Guides/Special Use Permits.............................. 

Camping........................................................................... 

Dogs ................................................................................. 

Miscellaneous Activities.................................................. 

Scenery............................................................................. 

Topic 5: Roadless Areas/Wilderness Management ................. 

Roadless Areas/Wilderness Management General .......... 

Roadless Area Management ............................................ 

Wilderness Management.................................................. 

Topic 6: Suitable Timberlands................................................. 

Suitable Timberlands General.......................................... 

Adequacy of Analysis...................................................... 

Allow Timber Harvest ..................................................... 

Not Allow/Restrict Timber Harvest................................. 

Insects and Disease .......................................................... 

Topic 7: Rangeland Capability, Suitability, and Forage 

Production................................................................................. 

Rangeland Capability, Suitability, and Forage 

Production General .......................................................... 

Legal Considerations ....................................................... 

Rangeland Management................................................... 

Subsidies .......................................................................... 

Grazing............................................................................. 

Topic 8: Special Designations ................................................. 

A-127 

A-127 

A-130 

A-137 

A-142 

A-147 

A-148 

A-154 

A-155 

A-162 

A-162 

A-162 

A-170 

A-175 

A-178 

A-182 

A-188 

A-191 

A-194 

A-196 

A-206 

A-206 

A-207 

A-209 

A-209 

A-210 

A-210 

A-210 

A-212 

A-216 

A-232 

A-232 

A-233 

A-236 

A-237 

A-238 

A-239 

A-239 

A-242 

A-242 

A-251 

A-251 

A-255 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 3 

Special Designations General .......................................... 

Research Natural Areas.................................................... 

Special Interest Areas ...................................................... 

Wild and Scenic Rivers.................................................... 

Topic 9: Oil and Gas Leasing .................................................. 

Oil and Gas Leasing General ........................................... 

Adequacy of Analysis...................................................... 

Allow Leasing.................................................................. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Leasing ....................................... 

Topic 10: Fire Management..................................................... 

Fire Management General................................................ 

Adequacy of Analysis...................................................... 

Legal Considerations ....................................................... 

Education ......................................................................... 

Fuels Management........................................................... 

Heritage Resources ................................................................... 

Locatable and Salable Minerals................................................ 

Adequacy of Analysis...................................................... 

Mineral Extraction ........................................................... 

Social and Economic Analysis.................................................. 

Social and Economic Analysis General........................... 

Social Values ................................................................... 

Economic Values ............................................................. 

Lands, Real Estate, and Property Boundary Management ....... 

Lands, Real Estate, and Property Boundary Management 

General............................................................................. 

Land Purchases and Exchanges ....................................... 

Access .............................................................................. 

Other ................................................................................ 

 Copies of Letters from other Government Agencies ........................... 

A-255 

A-255 

A-257 

A-257 

A-259 

A-259 

A-260 

A-262 

A-262 

A-262 

A-262 

A-264 

A-264 

A-264 

A-265 

A-267 

A-268 

A-269 

A-269 

A-270 

A-270 

A-271 

A-273 

A-282 

A-282 

A-283 

A-284 

A-285 

A-286 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 1 

APPENDIX A – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Introduction 

As a federal agency, we are required to solicit public comment on our draft plans 

involving significant actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Further, we are directed to “assess and consider [the resulting] comments both 

individually and collectively.” In addition, we view such comments as critical in helping 

us to shape a responsible plan for management of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that 

best meets the Forest Service’s mission, legal mandates, the goals of NEPA and the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the interests of the American public as a 

whole. 

Forest and Intermountain Region leadership and the forest plan interdisciplinary team 

have examined the range of public opinion on the issues and alternatives identified during 

the forest plan revision process. The Forest Service places high value on the reasoned 

and heartfelt comments that were received. 

This appendix includes five sections. The first section outlines the public outreach 

activities and efforts made to solicit public input during the forest plan revision process. 

The second section is a summary of the 3,700 responses to the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) and Proposed Forest Plan. The third section describes how we 

analyzed the formal public comment we received on the DEIS and Proposed Forest Plan. 

In the fourth section we list the public concerns and our response to them. The fifth 

section includes copies of all comments received on draft EIS from the Federal, State, 

and local agencies and elected officials. 

Public Outreach 

Because the land and resource management planning process determines how the lands of 

the National Forest System are to be managed, the public is encouraged to participate 

throughout the planning process. Several opportunities were presented to members of the 

public to gather their input and allow involvement essential to drafting these documents. 

Initially, areas where the plan needed changes or updating were identified by the 

Planning staff, after reviewing environmental documents on file, the 1992 Monitoring 

Report, meetings and letters from the public, and conversations with other Forest 

personnel. These needs for change were formally taken to the public in April of 1999 in 

the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (PAMS). It also included an 

assessment of conditions and described the new framework for a forest plan. The 

concept of management prescriptions was introduced as part of the framework. 

Throughout April and May 1999 public information forums in 11 communities were 

held. We heard from several hundred people through letters, e-mail messages, and 

conversations at open houses. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 2 

The Need for Change topics evolved into the Revision topics. Once revision topics were 

identified, in September of 1999 the Proposed Action for Plan Revision and Notice of 

Intent (NOI) for the preparation of an environmental impact statement were released for 

comment. Public meetings were held in four communities to explain the Proposed Action 

for the Forest Plan Revision. Approximately 150 people attended these meetings and 

some 247 comments were received. 

In November and December 1999 we began to develop alternatives to rthe Proposed 

Action. Public workshops (8 sessions in 4 communities) were held to review issues and 

to engage the public in assisting with mapping of alternatives. Over 400 people attended. 

Opinions were diverse and the level of interest in Forest Plan Revision high. There were 

significant comments on snowmobiling, livestock grazing, recreation opportunities, and 

roadless/wilderness areas. The alternatives were developed to reflect these comments. 

At key points we provided feedback to the public about our progress and comments we 

had heard. A Wasatch-Cache Newsletter on Plan Revision Update was mailed to 1,695 

people in December 1999. Early in the new year a summary of public comments on the 

Proposed Action and their disposition were sent to participants. 

A document explaining the five preliminary alternatives was mailed to public for 

comments in August of 2000. Feedback from the public helped the Planning team refine 

the alternatives to be analyzed in depth and the development of the preferred alternative 

to be displayed in the DEIS and Proposed Plan. It was crafted using some aspects of 

other alternatives. 

In May 2001 we mailed the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement out to public and other agencies for review. Recognizing the complexity and 

detail of the planning document and maps we hosted a series of open houses in key 

communities. Forest leadership and the Planning Team were on hand to answer 

questions and gather comments. 

During the summer and fall, planning team members appeared at numerous organization 

meetings to listen and explain the Proposed Forest Plan. In October and November we 

held formal oral comment hearings in key communities. We received over 200 oral 

comments on DEIS and Proposed Forest Plan. By the close of the comment period in 

November 2001, the forest had received over 3,700 formal comments on DEIS and 

Proposed Forest Plan. In June of 2002 a newsletter providing a general overview of these 

comments was mailed to nearly 5,000 recipients. 

The Final EIS examines seven alternatives. Alternative 7 was formulated to deal 

specifically in response to comments on the draft EIS and new analysis completed after 

development of the release of the DEIS and Proposed Plan. Each alternative contains a 

theme that provides emphases for human uses and physical and biological resource 

management. 

Members of the Forest Planning staff have coordinated with other federal agencies, the 

Bureau of Land Management; Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 3 

Natural Resources Conservation Service; and various state agencies, including the 

Department of Natural Resources; the Utah Division of Wildlife; and the Governor’s 

Office of Planning and Budget. Staff also coordinated with Utah State University, U.S. 

Congressional representatives, county planners and county commissioners. 

Beginning in May of 2000 we coordinated and consulted with Uinta County, Wyoming 

and Summit County, Utah who have been identified as Cooperating Agencies. 

Summary of Public Comment 

The following is a summary of public comment received by the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest (WCNF) regarding the draft revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) for the WCNF and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

EIS). The comment period was May 9 to November 1, 2001. The WCNF received 3,762 

responses, including transcripts of oral comments from formal public meetings, letters, 

emails, and faxes. 

The summary begins with a general overview of public comment on the Draft EIS and 

Forest Plan, and follows with a discussion of respondents’ main areas of concern. This 

summary is not intended to provide an exhaustive account of public concerns. Indeed, 

much of the comment on the WCNF Draft EIS and Forest Plan consists of site-specific 

requests for management prescription category allocations and travel/recreation 

allocations; these site-specific comments cover so much ground (figuratively and 

literally) that they do not lend themselves to a brief summarization. This summary, 

therefore, is intended only to give a general discussion of the pervasive themes running 

through public comment. 

General Overview of Public Comment 

Public comment on the Draft EIS and Forest Plan is far-reaching, often highly detailed, 

and represents a wide range of values and perspectives with respect to public land 

management in general and management of the WCNF in particular. Given this wide 

range of values and perspectives only broad generalizations are possible. 

In general, those who comment fall roughly into two groups: those who tend to 

emphasize preservation and protection of forest natural resources, and so request greater 

restrictions on various human uses; and those who tend to emphasize motorized access to 

and traditional use of forest lands, and so request either fewer or at least no additional 

restrictions. The distinction between these two groups is not absolute. The former group 

also values access and use; while the latter group also expresses concern for forest 

protection. Virtually everyone who comments on the Forest Plan and Draft EIS cares 

about the condition of the WCNF and about the value it has to users of all types. The 

difference is one of emphasis, and this often revolves around each group’s perception of 

the nature and degree of impacts caused by human activities, especially recreational 

activities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 4 

This difference in emphasis is reflected in the preferences people voice regarding the 

general management philosophy that ought to guide the WCNF. The preservationoriented group favors ecosystem/restoration management: they stress preservation of 

natural processes and landscapes, ecosystem protection, and restoration of degraded 

areas. The use-oriented group favors multiple use management which, under their 

interpretation allows much more active management of forest resources, allows 

traditional levels of commodity extraction and grazing, and allows widespread motorized 

recreation (this management philosophy is referred to in the document as Traditional 

Multiple Use Management). 

These different perspectives drive the comments people offer on virtually every topic. 

The single most frequently mentioned topic in public comment, however, is recreation, in 

particular motorized recreation. Preservation-oriented respondents frequently request that 

motorized recreation, both summer and winter, either be restricted or prohibited—in 

general, under certain conditions, or in specific areas. Use-oriented respondents 

frequently request that motorized recreation, both summer and winter, either be allowed 

or at least not be further restricted—in general, under certain conditions, or in specific 

areas. 

Those who ask that motorized recreation be restricted appeal primarily to environmental 

and social considerations. According to these respondents, motorized recreation causes 

erosion and degrades the environment, damages watersheds, produces noise and air 

pollution, and disrupts wildlife. The noise and exhaust, they say, also disrupts nonmotorized recreationists who go into the canyons to escape from the hustle and bustle of 

urban life, and to gather peace and mental rejuvenation from quiet, pristine landscapes. 

These respondents also say that restrictions will not negatively impact motorized users 

inasmuch as there are already so many areas open to them. 

Those who ask that motorized recreation not be restricted argue that it does not harm the 

environment. While some people violate motorized boundaries and engage in behavior 

that is harmful to resources, they say, that is no reason to restrict all users; rather, the 

WCNF should rely on education and enforcement. Beyond that, these respondents appeal 

primarily to social and economic considerations. Many say that motorized recreation has 

become a much-loved family tradition, one that family members of all ages and physical 

abilities can enjoy. Indeed, these respondents frequently argue that motorized access is 

essential for the elderly and the physically impaired (a point countered by other 

respondents, however). Further, they maintain, motorized recreation contributes 

significantly to local economies. 

These different views frame the significant number of site-specific requests made by the 

public. Respondents submit many requests regarding management prescription category 

allocations, travel and recreation allocations, roadless area designations and management, 

and wilderness recommendations and management. These numerous requests relative to 

specific areas, in conjunction with all other concerns raised by the public, reveal how 

important the WCNF is to people, and how much they care about its management and the 

many benefits they derive from it. Further, as allocation decisions are at the heart of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 5 

Forest Plan, these comments and their rationales provide the planning team important 

feedback for use in final decisionmaking. Please consult the full summary of public 

concerns to review the site-specific comments as well as to examine the full range of 

public comment. 

Overview of Comment on Specific Topics 

Following is a summary of public comment on specific topics. These topics include forest 

plan development and planning issues, the alternatives, forest plan direction with respect 

to management prescription categories, and various management activities and affected 

resources. 

Forest Plan Development and Public Involvement 

Adequacy of the Document 

A number of respondents make a point of saying they find the proposed Forest Plan and 

Draft EIS well done, clear, and immensely readable. Other respondents suggest various 

ways in which the WCNF should improve its documents. Suggestions include providing 

a more detailed table of contents or an index; producing a cross-walk document to clarify 

the relationship between the current and proposed Forest Plan; providing sufficient detail 

for site-specific travel analysis; improving the quality of its maps; and making various 

technical corrections. 

General Adequacy of the Draft EIS Effects Analysis 

A number of respondents comment that the Draft EIS cumulative effects analysis is 

inadequate. Others advise the WCNF to factor into its effects analysis the effects of 

management—including the level of development—of adjacent non-federal lands. 

Relation of the Forest Plan to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

People offer very different views regarding the possible application of the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule to the WCNF forest planning process. A number of respondents 

advise the WCNF to protect roadless areas in a manner consistent with the Rule 

regardless of the Rule’s legal status. On a similar note, many say the WCNF should 

establish its own strong protection of roadless areas independent of national rulemaking. 

Others advocate that the WCNF not manage roadless areas in accord with the Rule. 

Indeed, assert some, the final Forest Plan should state that it is not required to comply 

with the Rule, pending resolution of legal challenges, and should state that inventoried 

roadless areas will not be subject to any restrictions beyond the assigned management 

prescription category. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 6 

Forest Plan Development General 

A number of respondents offer varied comments regarding the general development and 

adequacy of the Forest Plan. According to some, the proposed plan allows too much 

management flexibility. Suggestions for reducing flexibility include providing detailed 

descriptions of desired future conditions; more effectively integrating desired future 

conditions for each resource to those for management areas as a whole; more effectively 

linking desired future conditions to anticipated management actions; adding specific and 

measurable standards throughout the final Forest Plan; listing prescription-specific 

standards and guidelines separately from forest-wide direction; and eliminating the word 

“generally” from all management prescription category descriptions. Others, however, 

recommend increasing management flexibility—by reducing specificity in the 

management prescription categories, and by reevaluating management prescription 

categories on a district-by-district basis. 

Public Involvement Efforts 

One respondent commends the WCNF for “involving the public throughout the process 

of producing a thorough, well researched DEIS.” Others suggest ways of improving its 

outreach efforts with the public—by expanding outreach efforts with motorized 

recreationists in order to improve support for travel management decisions; by holding 

informational planning meetings at the ski resorts in order to seek comment from out-ofstaters who come here to ski; and by publishing documents and holding meetings in 

Spanish in order to reach the growing Hispanic population who lives along the Wasatch 

Front and recreates in the Tri-Canyon area. Others comment on the need to maintain a 

friendlier, more neutral atmosphere at public meetings, saying that inflammatory 

language—especially comparing environmentalists to terrorists in light of the events of 

September 11—is uncalled for and intimidating to other participants. 

Use of Public Comment in the Decision Process 

A few individuals suggest the WCNF should advise people about how to write effective 

comment and should make it easier to submit e-mail comments. Beyond that, most 

respondents who address this topic offer suggestions on how the WCNF should weigh 

public comment in the decision making process. Some say greater weight should be given 

to those who pay fees. Several say that more weight should be placed on comments from 

local users. Others, however, contend that federal lands are for all of our use. Some 

complain that many people who submit comment are ill-informed about the issues, and so 

greater weight should be given to detailed, scientifically-backed comments. 

Some members of the public emphasize that the comment consideration process should 

not be turned into a vote. Others, however, advise the WCNF to canvass public opinion 

by, for example taking a public opinion poll or field surveying people who are actually 

using the land in question. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 7 

Finally, some people suggest that submission of written comment may not provide the 

best means of interaction between the public and decision makers inasmuch as response 

to individual concerns and oral comments at meetings, if it does come, comes at a much 

later date. One individual suggests convening less formal town meetings prior to 

finalizing the Forest Plan; others say the WCNF should provide specific responses to 

individual comments. 

Involvement of Interest Groups 

The perceived influence of special interest groups sparks very divided comment. Some 

thought in many cases powerful national environmental organizations use ‘junk’ science 

and are interested in only closing public lands to vehicle access and recreation. Typical 

comments on the other side is the charge that private and corporate interests have undue 

influence. 

Collaboration 

Respondents suggest that the WCNF should collaborate with state, county, and local 

governments in addressing a number of administrative/management issues—such as the 

size of recreational motorized tags, coordination of wildlife introductions, coordination 

with zoning regulations, and the use of cooperating agency status. Additionally, some 

advise the WCNF to better coordinate its management with that of adjacent national 

forests. Suggestions include working with both the Caribou and Uinta National Forests 

regarding wilderness recommendations; working with the Uinta National Forest to 

establish consistent requirements for the Snowbird ski area; and working with adjacent 

forests to ensure consistent management prescription categories, allocations, and travel 

management plans. 

Alternatives 

Adequacy of Alternatives 

Many people reference the alternatives in their comments. Most respondents justify their 

preference for or against a given alternative within the context of effects on a particular 

resource area; hence it is in the resource sections of the document that most of these 

comments are found. A number of respondents do specifically assert, however, that the 

range of alternatives are inadequate and suggest ways that it could be broadened. Often 

people suggest including an alternative which emphasizes their preferred management of 

a particular resource—e.g., restricting motorized access, eliminating timber harvest and 

grazing, recommending all roadless areas as wilderness, or protecting biodiversity and 

ecosystem services. Some suggest the WCNF provide a balanced range of non-motorized 

winter recreation designations; a wider range of wilderness recommendations; and a full 

range of alternatives for grazing. 

Additionally, a few respondents offer detailed requests for a new alternative. Some 

suggest a new alternative should offer a more balanced approach to resource protection, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 8 

commodity output, and recreational opportunity than any of the six alternatives under 

consideration. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Several respondents advise the WCNF to specifically compare the effectiveness of 

Alternatives 1 and 6 with respect to management prescriptions, motorized recreation, 

winter recreation, scenic quality, and ecosystem protection. Others ask that resource 

outputs be provided for each alternative, and that all be compared with respect to forest 

health—including wildfire, insects, and disease. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Of those respondents who specifically address the advisability of implementing a 

particular alternative, most address their comments to Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6. 

Alternative 1 – Those who request that the WCNF select Alternative 1 assert that it best 

protects the environment, reduces motorized recreation, preserves recreational 

opportunities, prohibits other development, emphasizes wilderness protection, and 

protects habitat. Conversely, others ask that it not be selected because it promotes 

wilderness above other uses, restricts recreational opportunity, restricts use, and harms 

wildlife habitat. 

Alternative 2 – Some respondents suggest the WCNF select Alternative 2 because it 

preserves the land, protects the environment, and has the least impact on air quality. 

Others say Alternative 2 should not be chosen because it restricts recreational 

opportunities, restricts use, harms wildlife habitat, and promotes wilderness above other 

uses. 

Alternative 3 – A few respondents suggest the WCNF select Alternative 3 because it is 

well balanced, while one individual maintains that it recommends too much area for 

wilderness designation to be acceptable. 

Alternative 4 – A few respondents suggest the WCNF select Alternative 4 because it 

maintains existing uses and represents a fair compromise. 

Alternative 5 – Numerous respondents ask the WCNF to select Alternative 5 because it 

best supports diverse recreational use, as well as other traditional uses, while still 

providing adequate protection for the land, water, watershed, and wildlife of the forest 

ecosystem. They also stress that more wilderness is not needed. Others suggest that 

Alternative 5 should not be chosen because it allows too much off-road vehicle abuse and 

too much development. 

Alternative 6 – Many people advise the WCNF to select Alternative 6. They felt that 

Alternative 6 represents compromise. Those in favor of Alternative 6 emphasize that it 

protects the environment, protects recreational opportunities, and preserves heli-skiing. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 9 

Other respondents oppose Alternative 6. Those who oppose it typically fall into one of 

two groups: one group echoes the sentiment expressed in the first part of the above quote 

in saying they really prefer stronger protection and restrictions; the other group opposes it 

because it imposes too much protection. 

Suggested modifications to Alternative 6 reflect these two different perspectives. 

According to some, Alternative 6 should be modified to more adequately protect the 

environment, to protect wildlife corridors, to protect Canadian lynx habitat, and to 

increase the areas recommended for wilderness. Others say it should be modified to 

preserve motorized recreation opportunities, and to create less restrictions overall. 

Forest Plan Direction 

Management Prescription Categories 

Some respondents offer general comments about management prescription categories—

such as that the WCNF should provide a more equitable distribution of acres by 

management prescription categories, or should allocate acreage in inverse proportion to 

the degree of impact of each activity. A few ask the WCNF to clarify the distinction 

between certain management prescription categories, such as that between 3.1 and 3.2, or 

between 2.6 and 4.1. Additionally, a number of respondents ask the WCNF to assign 

more protective management prescription categories to all roadless acres—by utilizing 

Management Prescription Categories 1.5, 2.4-2.7, or 4.1. 

Beyond these general considerations, many respondents make site-specific requests for 

management prescription category allocations. Because many of these requests are so 

detailed and far-ranging, they cannot be adequately summarized. Rather, a few 

generalizations are offered regarding the general direction of these requests. In general, 

most site-specific requests reflect the same emphasis on more protective management 

prescription categories as that found in the comments directed to roadless acres as a 

whole. Most site-specific requests are for Management Prescription Categories 1.5, 2.4-

2.7, 3.1-3.2, and 4.1. Some request Management Prescription Category 4.5 for certain 

locations to allow for ski area expansion. Other comments make very specific 

management requests for certain areas involving multiple management prescription 

category allocations—some focusing on protection/restoration, and some focusing on 

commodity production. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Many comments, which are directed specifically to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

allocations, are concerned about allocations for motorized recreation. Many request more 

semi-primitive motorized areas, saying the WCNF “[has] failed to adequately plan for the 

increase in popularity of motorized recreation in past years, let alone for the future.” 

Other respondents, however, maintain that semi-primitive non-motorized designations 

can be impacted by the noise coming from motorized designations on adjacent land. 

Many non-motorized recreationists assert that motorized use has exploded along with the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 10 

power of these vehicles, and request more non-motorized allocations to preserve their 

recreational experience and the environment. Another suggestion made by the public is 

that the WCNF develop four winter recreation classes: 

wilderness, non-motorized, motorized, and motorized heli-ski. 

Beyond these general comments, some people make site-specific requests for Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum allocations. Most ask the WCNF to apply or extend semi-primitive 

motorized corridors to trails in certain areas, or conversely to close these areas to 

motorized travel. 

General Environmental Values 

Most general comments regarding environmental values address the advisability of 

ecosystem/restoration management versus traditional multiple use management. 

Ecosystem/Restoration Management 

Many respondents request that the WCNF preserve forest lands in their natural state and 

restore degraded areas. People maintain that the WCNF should not rely on intensive 

management to preserve forest resources, but should instead minimize human 

interference. Some ask the WCNF to develop a comprehensive plan for ecosystem health 

and species viability. Within that context, some ask the WCNF to protect and restore 

ecological integrity, and to aggressively restore the historic range of variability by 

“allowing natural disturbance regimes to operate as freely as possible within the 

undeveloped landscapes.” Many feel that this approach best meets both human and 

environmental needs, especially since the Wasatch Mountains provide drinking water for 

many urban communities. 

Traditional Multiple Use Management 

Numerous people advise the WCNF to continue traditional multiple use management. 

They believe multiple-use management goals are the only goals that will ‘best meet the 

needs’ of the public and provide for equal program delivery to all citizens including 

motorized visitors. This view is echoed by most respondents who identify themselves as 

motorized users. People also say this approach is needed to address forest health issues 

and to maintain important social values. Some individuals describe family traditions 

centered around motorized activities in the WCNF and fear that, in the absence of 

traditional multiple use management, they will not be able to continue those traditions 

into the generations to come. A few respondents also emphasize the need to protect 

heritage resources and western culture which is “characterized by access to the land for 

multiple-uses, friendliness, good neighborliness, and sharing”—and claim that traditional 

multiple use management is essential to that end. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 11 

Topic 1: Watershed Health Management 

Respondents often express concern over the effects of various agents on water quality—

such as nitro aromatic compounds, sediment, and sewage spills—as well as the need to 

enhance water production. Most comment on water resources, however, addresses 

watershed health. People ask the WCNF to protect watersheds for a number of reasons, 

but primarily to preserve the water supply for a growing population. 

Suggestions to address watershed health include designating sensitive or damaged 

watersheds and directing future management accordingly, and prohibiting any activities 

that degrade watershed health. People ask the WCNF to provide detailed strategies 

regarding water management in the final Forest Plan, and to more adequately analyze 

watershed condition and the impacts of various activities on watershed health. 

Topic 2: Biodiversity and Viability Management 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat 

Most of the comments on the topic of biodiversity and viability management address 

wildlife management. Some suggest that the WCNF improve its analysis of wildlife 

habitat—by instituting appropriate data collection; analyzing anticipated changes in 

habitat components; and analyzing the effects of tree density and road management on 

terrestrial wildlife. Respondents state that the WCNF should protect critical wildlife 

habitat by providing adequate direction for wildlife habitat management, by giving 

priority to actions that enhance habitat, and by preserving large tracts of land. They 

suggest improving aquatic habitat protection by tying the monitoring of aquatic resources 

to specific management implementation, and by maintaining aquatic habitat through 

different allocations of management prescription categories. 

Likewise, respondents ask the WCNF to preserve wildlife habitat corridors—by restoring 

wildlife habitats within the context of eco-regional planning; by protecting habitat 

corridors between forest areas; by protecting national forest lands sufficiently to offset 

adverse effects caused by management practices on private lands; and by prohibiting 

extractive uses, motorized vehicles, and grazing in wildlife corridors. On the other hand, 

some ask the WCNF not to manage for wildlife corridors. 

 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Species 

Some respondents offer specific comment on a number of species. Some ask the WCNF 

to reconsider management of non-native wildlife, especially mountain goats and nonnative fish; others ask the WCNF to emphasize big game species management and to 

protect big game winter ranges. 

A number of respondents address their comments to predator management, in particular 

to management associated with the lynx. Some ask the WCNF to protect the lynx by 

protecting lynx habitat; by taking into account the variety of factors influencing the status 

of the lynx; and by developing goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines specifically 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 12 

designed to mitigate impacts on the lynx. Others, however, maintain that studies on lynx 

management are inconclusive and that the lynx can survive along with traditional 

multiple use activities. Therefore, these respondents conclude, the WCNF should 

reevaluate any management prescription category designation, or alternative selection 

made based on the lynx, and should not restrict activities because of possible lynx habitat. 

Another species mentioned often is the native cutthroat trout. People ask the WCNF to 

restore and expand its habitat and to better address the impacts of non-native fish species. 

Management Indicator Species 

Various members of the public urge the WCNF to improve its management of 

management indicator species. Suggestions include prescribing goals, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, and mitigation measures for all management indicator species by 

developing an adequate monitoring program for management indicator species; and 

analyzing the relationships between management indicator species, habitat, and other 

species. Some suggest selecting additional terrestrial animals as management indicator 

species, others suggest including predators, or relying more heavily on bird species. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Respondents request that the WCNF better protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species. Suggestions include providing a full range of standards and procedures for the 

selection of sensitive species; managing all threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

in the context of the overall, functional ecosystem; improving monitoring of these 

species; and conducting surveys for sensitive species before allowing certain activities. 

Vegetation 

People offer a wide variety of suggestions regarding vegetation management. 

Suggestions include providing a mix of vegetative age classes; maintaining more old 

growth forest; eliminating commercial timber harvest; ensuring adequate amounts of 

snags and downed wood; acting to reverse aspen decline; maintaining sagebrush 

communities; protecting the habitat for five unique species of wildflowers; revegetating 

with seed from native plants; and preserving nonvascular plant species. Some also 

express concern over management of noxious weeds. Some suggest restricting activities 

in areas where noxious weeds occur such as to avoid spreading them; others, however, 

say the WCNF should more fairly evaluate the spread of noxious weeds and not assume it 

is caused by motorized recreationists. 

Topic 3: Road and Access Management 

Road and access management is a topic of great interest and concern to many 

respondents. Many of the comments that appear in this section of the document are 

closely related to comments in Recreation section. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 13 

Road System Management 

Numerous respondents comment on management of the road system. A few ask the 

WCNF to address Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477) roads—by evaluating the direct and 

cumulative impacts of road closures on RS 2477 routes, and by recognizing RS 2477 

road rights-of-way claimed by local governments for all routes in existence prior to 1976. 

Most who comment on the road system, however, address the topics of construction, 

maintenance, closure, removal, and obliteration. In addition to general comments 

summarized below, respondents make many site-specific requests for road management 

actions, management prescription category allocations, and recreation allocations that 

would allow or restrict types of travel. 

Road Construction/Reconstruction – A number of people say the WCNF should allow 

road construction—by allowing construction of temporary roads as needed, or by 

allowing reconstruction of road and trail segments that are causing environmental 

impacts. Some people say that road construction should be allowed in roadless areas. 

Others, however, state that road construction should be prohibited, or should be 

prohibited within certain areas. For example, one person suggests the WCNF prohibit 

roads across amphibian travel routes, while another respondent suggests it be prohibited 

in tundra and talus ecosystems. Some also maintain that it should be prohibited in 

roadless areas. 

Road Maintenance – While opinion is divided over the topic of road construction, there 

is a general consensus that existing roads should be better maintained. Some ask the 

WCNF to address its road maintenance backlog. One person relates having witnessed 

very inefficient maintenance activities, and so admonishes the WCNF to be more 

efficient with road maintenance funds and personnel. Some suggest the WCNF raise road 

maintenance and construction standards in order to lessen environmental impacts. 

Specifically, some suggest removing all culverts and replacing them with bridges across 

permanent streams; increasing bridge maintenance; and minimizing the impacts of road 

maintenance near stream channels. 

Road Closure/Removal/Obliteration – Most who address this topic request either that 

the WCNF close and reclaim roads under certain conditions or that it convert roads into 

trails. With respect to the former, respondents suggest the WCNF close roads in 

environmentally sensitive areas; that it close roads strategically in order to link roadless 

areas; and that it follow through with closure and reclamation of roads after timber 

projects are complete. With respect to the latter, one respondent suggests the WCNF 

consider an alternative that converts the backlog of unmaintained roads to motorized 

trails in order to provide challenging recreation opportunities at lower costs, while 

another requests that it continue converting roads to single-track trails. Most motorized 

recreationists, however, strongly object to road closures, including obliteration. Some feel 

that obliteration causes more damage than the existing roadbed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 14 

Trail System Management 

Just as management of the road system is a frequent topic of comment, so is management 

of the trail system. On a general level, a few individuals ask the WCNF to address trail 

system management in coordination with local user groups and to retain emphasis on trail 

system planning in the Tri-Canyon area. In addition to comments summarized below, 

respondents make site-specific requests for trail management actions. 

Trail Construction/Reconstruction – Several people ask the WCNF to expand the 

motorized trail system. Suggestions include providing sufficient summer motorized use 

zones to allow expanded trail systems; expanding the motorized trail network by taking 

advantage of existing snowmobile parking lots and trail corridors or by reopening some 

old logging roads as off-road vehicle trails; and providing more motorized loop trail 

systems. Some also state that motorized trails should be allowed in roadless areas. 

Others, however, urge the WCNF not to expand the motorized trail network on the 

grounds that there is already sufficient motorized recreational access. Some say the 

WCNF should first maintain and streamline the existing motorized trail system before 

constructing new trails. Other individuals say, moreover, that motorized trails should not 

be constructed in roadless areas. 

While most general comments regarding trail construction revolve around motorized 

trails, a number of site-specific requests regarding trail construction address nonmotorized trails. 

Trail Maintenance – Several people request the WCNF increase trail maintenance. 

Suggestions include investing more resources in trail maintenance in order to mitigate 

damage caused by off-road vehicle and hiking use; clearing trails early in the season to 

prevent damage caused by rerouting; adopting trail maintenance methods to reduce 

stream sedimentation; redesigning problem trails rather than closing them; improving the 

safety of trails used by horses; and increasing winter grooming and snowplowing. 

Trail Closure/Removal/Obliteration – Some respondents express concern over trail 

closures for wildlife; one respondent suggests the WCNF use seasonal rather than 

permanent closures for wildlife whenever possible, and close trails to motorized use only 

if negative wildlife impacts are specifically documented. Additionally, this respondent 

suggests that the WCNF should relocate any routes that would otherwise be closed by 

timber, mining, or grazing activities. At the same time, one individual states that the 

WCNF should prevent user-caused conversion of single-track trails to off-road vehicle 

trails through closures and enforcement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 15 

Travel Management 

Members of the public offer many comments related to travel management. Some request 

that the WCNF better analyze travel needs. Suggestions include inventorying and groundtruthing all roads and trails during the travel management planning process; estimating 

the number of miles and locations of user-created trails; fully considering issues found in 

publication FS-643, Roads Analysis; compiling more statistics about use levels and 

opportunities for different recreational types; and analyzing the comparative effects of 

different uses. 

Other respondents are concerned about the effects on travel management of possible 

conflicts between management prescription category and recreation allocations. Some 

individuals ask the WCNF to define how such conflicts would be resolved; others ask 

that, given possible conflicts, prescriptions that are open to misinterpretation be removed. 

Most comments related to travel management, however, consist of site-specific requests 

for travel prescriptions, either for specific roads or trails or for specific areas. Most of 

these requests pertain to motorized versus non-motorized use, both summer and winter. 

Topic 4: Recreation and Scenery Management 

Management General 

Recreation is the most frequent topic of comment on the WCNF Draft EIS and Forest 

Plan. A number of respondents express general concerns about recreation management, 

such as that the WCNF should manage recreation and other forest uses responsibly; 

should treat all user groups fairly; should disperse recreational users; and should not 

restrict access. Quite a few respondents also ask the WCNF to more adequately analyze 

recreational impacts and to conduct a carrying capacity analysis, especially in the TriCanyon area, which is of particular concern to many Wasatch Front residents. Some 

people say the WCNF should educate the public on proper use of the land and increase 

enforcement, particularly before imposing further restrictions. 

People also offer many general comments on allowing or restricting specific activities. 

Some say recreational motorized activities should be allowed in order to promote family 

values, prevent crime, and to accommodate the growing population, as well as to 

maintain the economic benefits derived from recreation. Others say recreation should be 

restricted to protect the environment, forest health, and riparian areas. In addition to such 

general comments, many respondents offer views specific to certain areas of management 

or types of recreation. These comments are summarized below. 

User Conflicts 

Both summer and winter recreationists express great concern over user conflicts. People 

suggest the WCNF consider examples of how other forests have reduced recreational 

conflicts, and that it implement a variety of remedies. One example is back-county skiers 

that ask the WCNF to segregate users. Many snowmobile enthusiasts, however, disagree. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 16 

While many non-motorized recreationists assert that motorized vehicles must be 

restricted to reduce environmental harm, user conflicts lie at the center of many requests 

for restrictions. 

Monitoring and Enforcement 

Most who comment specifically on monitoring and enforcement ask the WCNF to 

monitor motorized recreation and enforce regulations. Both motorized and non-motorized 

users often say the WCNF should enforce regulations, though motorized users 

specifically add that this should be done rather than restrict their motorized activities. A 

number of writers ask the WCNF to monitor motorized recreation and enforce regulations 

in specific areas. 

While many respondents—both in comments directed specifically to monitoring and 

enforcement and in comments offered in other contexts—suggest that specific areas 

should be closed to winter and/or summer motorized use, or that these activities be 

otherwise restricted in order to reduce user conflicts, others argue that such 

closures/restrictions will be meaningless without the resources to truly enforce them. 

Motorized Recreation – Off-Road Vehicles 

As noted previously, comments about motorized recreation overlap extensively with 

general travel management, access, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, and management 

prescription category comments. Opinion on this subject is quite polarized and many 

respondents submit their personal experiences to justify restrictions or their opposition to 

them. 

Many respondents state that motorized recreation should be allowed, because it is a 

legitimate activity and because it does not harm the environment. These respondents also 

say off-road vehicle recreation should be allowed because the majority of the public 

supports it; because it is growing in popularity; because education of motorized users is 

working; and because motorized access leads to higher public appreciation of nature. 

A number of people say it should be allowed because of its importance to families, 

because it is needed for safety or emergency use, and because it is needed to provide the 

disabled and elderly access to forest lands. 

Many other respondents, however, state that motorized recreation should be prohibited or 

restricted. Often they say restrictions are needed because of the harm off-road vehicles do 

to the environment. People say restrictions are needed, further, because of erosion caused 

by user-created trails; because of the cumulative impacts resulting from the exponential 

increase in numbers of motorized users; because of noise and air pollution; because it 

affects non-motorized users’ quality of experience; and because there are already 

adequate opportunities elsewhere in Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 17 

Some respondents also make a point of refuting the argument that continued motorized 

access is needed to accommodate the elderly. 

Motorized Recreation – Snowmobiles 

A number of respondents ask the WCNF to more adequately analyze the impacts of 

snowmobiling—by analyzing the impacts of having massive areas of compacted snow 

due to snowmobile use; reevaluating the advisability of allowing snowmobile use when 

snow cover is less than or equal to 12 inches; by incorporating new data into travel 

management planning about the effects of 2-stroke engines on the environment; and by 

analyzing the effects of snowmobiling on air quality, watersheds, and wildlife habitat. 

Beyond these requests, comments requesting either that snowmobiling be allowed or 

prohibited/restricted reflect the same concerns offered with respect to off-road vehicle 

use. 

Many comments request site-specific winter closures—or oppose them—especially in the 

Cache-Box Elder and Uinta management areas. 

Motorized Recreation – Heli-Skiing 

A number of respondents advise the WCNF to allow heli-skiing to continue—because it 

does not harm the environment; because noise is a minimal impact; because it is needed 

for safety reasons and to provide access for the disabled; and because of its positive 

economic impact. 

Others say it should be prohibited or restricted because it negatively impacts wildlife and 

conflicts with other dispersed winter backcountry users. People express particular 

concern over its impacts on birds, especially raptors, arguing that frequent helicopter 

flights in February, March, and April disrupt their nesting habits and hinder reproductive 

success. 

Mechanized Recreation 

Most who address mechanized recreation say it should be allowed—because it does not 

harm the environment; because it has no effect on water quality; because it contributes to 

the economy; and because there is no evidence that bicyclists pose a risk to other trail 

users’ safety. Some, however, counter that it should be prohibited in certain areas because 

it harms the environment and is dangerous to hikers and animals. One organization asks 

that mechanized use be separated from motorized use for travel management purposes. 

This group acknowledges that there may be a need for limited site-specific restrictions 

but asks to be closely involved in these evaluations. 

Non-Motorized Recreation 

Most who address their remarks specifically to non-motorized recreation say it should be 

emphasized—by giving non-motorized users the highest priority; by designating all 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 18 

remaining roadless areas for non-motorized use; or by setting aside more areas which 

meet a variety of non-motorized needs. Many say that certain areas should be restricted to 

non-motorized uses only—e.g., the Tri-Canyons area, many roadless areas, and the North 

Slope of the Uintas. A few respondents, however, assert that non-motorized activities 

should also be restricted due to environmental impacts. According to some motorized 

users, hikers and skiers disturb wildlife more than they do. 

Ski Area Expansion 

Several respondents state that ski areas should be allowed to expand. These respondents 

say the WCNF should not place restrictions on the ski industry based on the speculative 

possibility that the lynx, or other species, will be placed on the endangered species list; 

and that the WCNF should maintain a flexible policy rather than impose premature 

restrictions. 

Many other respondents, however, argue that ski areas should not be allowed to expand 

any further. These people say that public land should not be used to subsidize real estate 

development; that the ski industry has not experienced growth sufficient to justify 

expansion; that it would take away non-motorized areas; that it is not something which 

benefits the whole population; and that it harms the environment. People object not only 

to expansion in terms of acreage, but also in terms of infrastructure development. They 

say, for example, that the WCNF should prohibit resort building on prominent ridges; 

should prohibit development of trams or lifts in roadless areas; and should not allow ski 

resorts to turn into all season recreation areas or destination resorts. 

Topic 5: Roadless Areas/Wilderness Management 

Roadless Area Management 

Many people ask the WCNF to protect roadless areas, primarily to preserve 

environmental values. Some assert that regardless of the outcome of national rulemaking, 

local forests can and should take the initiative to protect these areas during forest 

planning because they are a limited resource. People ask more specifically to maintain 

roadless area characteristics of all inventoried roadless areas—by keeping existing 

roadless areas roadless, and by prohibiting all development and motorized recreation. 

Some ask that the WCNF protect roadless areas that are adjacent to wilderness areas, 

others that it designate watershed areas as roadless. Respondents also request roadless 

designation for a number of specific areas. 

Others, however, object to designating areas as “roadless” and that many roadless areas 

contain roads. Others maintain that there are already enough roadless and wilderness 

areas, and no more are needed; instead, some suggest, the WCNF should develop a 

backcountry recreation area designation for roadless areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 19 

Wilderness Management 

Wilderness management and designation is a topic of great interest to respondents. Some 

ask that the WCNF clarify how wilderness areas will be managed; others express 

frustration over the time it sometimes takes to develop a management plan for wilderness 

areas and so ask the WCNF to prepare wilderness management plans in a timely manner. 

Some suggest that before recommending any more areas for wilderness designation, the 

WCNF should enforce existing wilderness regulations, provide education, or better 

explain the balance of resources and the needs of the people. Some suggest the WCNF 

reexamine the criteria for wilderness evaluation and the underlying legislation, and 

consider the capability availability, and need of individual roadless areas in determining 

wilderness potential. 

Wilderness Recommendations 

Many respondents say that the WCNF should recommend additional wilderness areas for 

environmental reasons—to link wilderness areas together; to protect ecological health, 

watersheds, biodiversity, wildlife, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; and to 

protect areas from the effects of mining and off-road vehicle recreation. People also 

request additional wilderness recommendations to allow research and education, to 

benefit future generations, to preserve the American spirit, and to benefit the economy. 

A number of other respondents ask the WCNF not to recommend any more areas for 

wilderness designation. According to these respondents, wilderness designation is not 

need inasmuch as these areas can be adequately protected with careful stewardship, and a 

wilderness designation precludes management tools needed for forest health. People also 

oppose further recommendations on the grounds that areas should remain open for future 

generations; that motorized access is needed for the elderly; and that wilderness 

designations would restrict recreational access and hurt the economy. Some also urge the 

WCNF not to create de facto wilderness areas by adding more restrictions to proposed 

roadless areas, or by managing recommended wilderness areas for wilderness values. 

Additionally, respondents submit many site-specific requests that certain areas either be, 

or not be, recommended for wilderness designation, often with detailed personal 

comments or reasoning for their requests. 

Topic 6: Suitable Timberlands 

Management General 

On a general level, respondents ask the WCNF to clarify timber management 

prescriptions in the Forest Plan by, for example, including species-specific density 

requirements and management direction. Several people also ask the WCNF to modify 

the standards and guidelines related to timber management in a number of ways, 

generally with the intent to preserve environmental values. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 20 

Adequacy of Analysis 

Members of the public offer a number of comments on the adequacy of analysis relative 

to timber management. Some ask the WCNF, for example, to provide a more thorough 

analysis in compliance with the Forest Service Manual; one respondent suggests using 

FORPLAN to calculate allowable sale quantity and long-term sustained yield. Others ask 

the WCNF to analyze the cumulative effects of logging on threatened wildlife, and the 

effects of timber sales on atmospheric carbon levels. Some ask for more recent 

monitoring data and the allowable sale quantity for each alternative. It is also requested 

that the WCNF discuss timber harvest methods in the Final EIS, and that it continue to 

research best management practices for timber harvest methods. 

Timber Harvest 

Some respondents ask the WCNF to allow timber harvest. One of the most common 

reasons given is forest health. People also ask that public fuel wood collection be 

allowed—to reduce fire hazards, warm households, and finance maintenance backlogs; to 

prevent waste of natural resources; and to help clean up the forest. 

Others say the WCNF should restrict timber harvest, primarily to preserve environmental 

values. Some urge the WCNF not to use the concept of forest health as a justification for 

its timber commodity program. People also say timber harvest should be restricted 

because of its low economic value in comparison with amenity values, and because of the 

recreational, scenic, and biological values of the forests. A few individuals say it should 

be prohibited until the WCNF completes a proper accounting of timber harvest costs. 

Quite a few respondents, therefore, express support for Alternative 1, although often they 

concede that its ultimate selection is not likely. 

In addition to these requests that timber harvest in general be restricted, a number of 

respondents ask specifically that it be prohibited in roadless areas—to allow natural forest 

processes to dominate, to preserve ecosystems from fragmentation, to protect wildlife, 

and to preserve roadless values. 

Topic 7: Rangeland Capability, Suitability, and Forage Production 

Management General 

Most comment regarding rangeland capability, suitability, and forage production 

addresses specific topics; these comments are summarized below. On a general level, 

some respondents ask the WCNF to develop improved livestock grazing strategies in the 

final Forest Plan. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

A number of respondents offer comment on the adequacy of analysis relative to 

rangeland management. Several ask the WCNF to adequately analyze the impacts of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 21 

livestock grazing—by analyzing environmental and economic impacts, site-specific 

impacts, and impacts on other forest uses; by documenting the rate of aspen decline; and 

by analyzing the effects of grazing against the economic benefits. People also ask the 

WCNF to clarify the relationship between animal unit months and terrestrial conditions; 

to clarify its discussion of permitted grazing levels; to justify its rationale for only closing 

three allotments in the Preferred Alternative; and to verify rangeland condition and trend. 

Rangeland Management 

Respondents offer a wide variety of comment on specific aspects of rangeland 

management, including comment on goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, 

management prescription categories, suitability and capability, conditions and trends, 

properly functioning condition, restoration, monitoring and enforcement, and 

infrastructure. Most of the suggestions offered are aimed at reducing any negative 

impacts of grazing. This general concern over impacts is reflected in comments addressed 

to monitoring and enforcement. People ask the WCNF to monitor and enforce range 

quality standards and allotment management plans—to protect ecological values, to 

ensure overgrazing does not occur, to justify grazing at or near current levels, to meet 

legal requirements, and to protect wildlife and forest health. A few individuals, however, 

assert that, with proper management, the condition of grazing allotments can be 

maintained. 

Allotments and Permits 

Most general comments regarding allotments and permits address the question of whether 

allotments should be maintained, phased out, or closed. Some respondents say the WCNF 

should reduce the number of grazing allotments available in order to protect resources—

by closing vacant grazing allotments, by honoring existing leases but allowing leases to 

expire, and by allowing voluntary allotment retirements and voluntary waiving of grazing 

permits. One respondent, however, maintains that there should be no reductions in 

grazing allotments. 

Grazing 

Several respondents urge the WCNF to continue to allow grazing. They believe grazing is 

an important deterrent to wildfires. They also state that it has been demonstrated in many 

western states that game animals often prefer and thrive on land holdings that are 

managed by and for livestock grazing. They assert the value of proper livestock grazing 

on Utah’s forestlands is much greater than the revenue produced from the grazing fee. 

People argue that with appropriate management to protect forest resources, grazing is an 

acceptable use of public land, even of roadless areas, and that it is an important 

contributor to many rural counties. 

Many other respondents, however, urge the WCNF to restrict, reduce, phase out, or 

prohibit grazing. People recommend it be restricted until condition and trend are verified; 

they say restrictions are necessary to protect water and aquatic resources and to preserve 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 22 

recreational experiences. People likewise say it should be reduced in order to reach 

biodiversity goals; to prevent topsoil erosion, ground terracing, and vegetation 

destruction; and to restore streams for fishing. People say it should be phased out or 

prohibited to return to properly functioning condition, to allow vegetation to be restored, 

to preserve ecological values, to reduce fire hazard, to prevent the spread of noxious 

weeds, and to preserve scenic quality. Respondents go on to list a number of specific 

places where they would like to see grazing prohibited. 

Topic 8: Special Designations 

Members of the public comment in general that the WCNF should identify more lands for 

special designations. In particular, some ask the WCNF to designate additional Research 

Natural Areas; one respondent asks it to identify potential areas that could contribute to 

diversity in the Research Natural Area system. Some ask the WCNF to manage lands as 

Special Areas in order to prevent impacts that will be harder to reverse, and to consider 

forming additional Special Areas. Additionally, one respondent asks the WCNF to 

provide interim protection for eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers by ensuring proposed 

activities are compatible with protection and designation. Several ask that additional Wild 

and Scenic Rivers be designated, although a few ask that no more designations be made. 

Respondents also refer to specific areas which they request be given, or not given, a 

particular special designation. 

Topic 9: Oil and Gas Leasing 

Some people ask the WCNF to indicate where oil and gas exploration and development 

are to be allowed; to develop detailed standards for managing minerals, oil, and gas 

exploration/extraction in order to protect environmental values; to inspect oil and gas 

development sites; and to ensure that oil and gas exploration sites are restored. People 

also ask the WCNF to more adequately analyze oil and gas potential. 

A few respondents state that oil and gas leasing should be encouraged. Others say it 

should be prohibited in roadless areas in order to protect unique and vital habitat, and to 

preserve roadless characteristics and values. 

Topic 10: Fire Management 

Members of the public offer a number of general comments regarding fire management. 

A common suggestion is that the WCNF should evaluate the feasibility of fire 

management in non-motorized, roadless, and wilderness areas—with respect to 

protecting habitat, managing small roadless areas, meeting desired landscape goals, and 

protecting watersheds. Many other comments include specific suggestions regarding fire 

management strategies. 

Some respondents assert that the WCNF should more fully utilize timber harvest and 

grazing in conjunction with prescribed burns—to avoid wasting resources, to maintain a 

healthy forest, to avert fire risk, to bring the forest back into historic range of variability, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 23 

and to maintain the viability of local economies. Others, however, say the WCNF should 

reevaluate timber harvesting and mechanical treatments as means to meet forest goals—

because of their inability to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, because of the role of 

standing dead timber in forest wild fires, because mature trees are needed for wildlife 

habitat, because young trees have high fuel load values, because timber harvesting cannot 

replace the role of fire in the forest, and because harvested areas show a strong 

association with increased rate of spread and flame length. 

This same difference of opinion is reflected in comments on prescribed burns. Some say 

the WCNF should not rely on prescribed burns for fire management because they do not 

prevent high-severity fires and because they are not adequate to meet forest goals. Others 

say they should be used in order to maintain bio-integrity. 

Locatable and Salable Minerals 

A few respondents comment on locatable and salable minerals. One requests that the 

WCNF add objectives for mineral and energy exploration and development, and that it 

discuss the management direction for geologic, paleontologic, and mineral resources in 

the Forest Plan. Another respondent asserts that recreational mining should be allowed to 

continue because it is not harmful; others say the WCNF should restore areas with mining 

damage in order to protect watershed health and to restore scenic values. 

Social and Economic Analysis 

Adequacy of Social and Economic Analysis General 

Some respondents ask the WCNF to prepare an adequate socioeconomic analysis—by 

including costs associated with different management activities; by analyzing the receipts 

and expenditures of the fee demo program; by analyzing the social and economic impacts 

on all forest users, not just local communities; and by including the results of specific 

recent studies on recreational economics. 

Social Values 

The two most common concerns related to social values are population growth and 

development. Some people urge the WCNF to factor projected population growth into 

management plans—by identifying the combined impacts of all users instead of viewing 

them separately, and by acknowledging that population growth will result in restrictions 

on traditional experiences. With respect to development, most people say the WCNF 

should prohibit further development of various kinds on the forest. Some say 

development should be prohibited for environmental reasons—to protect wildlife habitat 

and winter range, and to protect watersheds. Some say it should be prohibited for social 

reasons—to provide escape from the urban environment, to preserve natural 

environments for the future, and to avoid bringing more users into the forests. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 24 

Adequacy of Economic Analysis 

A number of respondents express concern over the adequacy of the economic analysis 

and offer suggestions for improving it. Some of the suggestions include separating 

different industries and communities, using more recent data, disclosing the real socioeconomic impacts of the various alternatives, using the travel cost method and contingent 

valuation method to analyze social and economic valuations, and including information 

about externalized costs passed on to communities, businesses, and individuals when 

national forests are developed or intensively managed for various activities. Some ask the 

WCNF to strengthen its cost/benefits analysis by, for example, providing a full 

accounting of benefits and costs, including environmental benefits (clean air, clean water, 

etc.) of undisturbed forest lands; and some ask the WCNF to provide a full accounting of 

costs associated with various activities, such as timber harvest and grazing. 

A number of respondents comment on the net public benefits analysis. A few ask the 

WCNF to revise or eliminate that analysis because the 50-year time frame is meaningless 

and because it is based on faulty assumptions. Others say the that WCNF should establish 

accurate benchmarks for the net public benefits analysis; that it should establish an 

analytical process to demonstrate that the final Forest Plan will maximize net public 

benefits; and that it should quantify ecosystem service values and externalized costs of 

commodity production in the net public benefits analysis. 

Economic Impacts 

Several respondents ask the WCNF to acknowledge the important economic contribution 

of various activities, such as recreation and tourism, motorized use, and grazing. 

Lands, Real Estate, and Property Boundary Management 

Several people write to say the WCNF should acquire additional private lands—to protect 

multiple resources, to protect moose habitat, and to preserve watersheds. One individual 

asks the WCNF to eliminate all private inholdings in roadless areas. Another person 

advises the WCNF to consider additional land exchanges, but only with adequate public 

involvement; others, however, urge the WCNF not to exchange lands within the TriCanyon area which would compromise watershed health and wildlife or which would 

create developable private property. 

Additionally, a number of respondents request that the WCNF acquire more access 

rights-of-way across private lands; while one respondent asks the WCNF to process 

easement applications in a timely fashion for inholders. Recreational access, both 

motorized and non-motorized, is of particular concern as adjacent private lands become 

increasingly developed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 25 

Analysis of Public Comment 

All letters, emails, faxes, comment forms, and transcripts of public hearing testimony 

received as public comment on the proposed forest plan and DEIS were compiled, 

organized, read, and analyzed by the U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team (CAT). 

This team, a unit of the U.S. Forest Service Washington Office Ecosystem Management 

Coordination branch, specializes in public comment processing and consideration. This 

team uses a process they have developed called “content analysis” which allows 

systematic review of public comment on a proposed plan or project through the creation 

and use of comprehensive electronic comment database. This method is particularly 

effective in analyzing voluminous comment both individually and collectively, as 

required by NEPA. 

The CAT analytical process is comprised of three main components: a categorical 

coding structure and standardized process for its application, a comment database and 

mailing list, and a set of summary reports. In the content analysis process, each letter, 

postcard, transcript text, or other document (collectively referred to as “response letters” 

in this appendix) is assigned a unique tracking number. Each author or signatory to a 

response is called a “respondent”. All respondents’ names and addresses are entered 

into a project-specific database program to produce a complete mailing list. Each 

respondent is also assigned a unique identifier number for tracking purposes. All 

respondents are linked to their individual responses and comments in the database using 

these identifying numbers. Project-specific demographic information is also recorded in 

the database, such as any self-identified organizational affiliation or whether the response 

letter submitted is part of an organized response campaign. 

Staff analysts then read all public response letters in their entirety and proceed to identify 

discrete comments within them that relate to a particular concern, resource consideration, 

or proposed management action. Every effort is made to keep each comment within 

sufficient context that it is a stand-alone statement. Analysts look for not only each 

action or change requested by the public, but also the reason(s) behind each request in 

order to capture the full argument of each comment. Therefore, paragraphs within a 

response letter may be divided into several comments because multiple arguments are 

presented, or alternatively, several paragraphs that form one coherent statement may be 

coded into one comment. While simple statements of opinion without a rationale are 

captured in the process and entered in the project database, it is the strength of each 

rationale as a complete argument that provides the interdisciplinary team a substantive 

comment to consider. 

Once stand-alone comments are identified, analysts assign each comment to a numerical 

code that identifies the overall subject area. They use a systematic numerical 

categorization or “coding” structure that has been specifically tailored to project 

documents. Each project-specific coding structure is a tool to help sort comments into 

logical groups by topics. In this case, the coding structure was organized to follow the 

topic order of the DEIS and components of the proposed forest plan documents, and was 

designed to be inclusive rather than restrictive in order to sufficiently capture all 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 26 

comments. Depending on project complexity and needs, analysts may also assign 

secondary codes to track those comments that refer to such subtopics as specific plan or 

EIS elements, land areas, or individual roads or trails, to permit finer-scale sorting of 

comments. The coding structure and other supporting documentation is available in the 

administrative record at the Supervisor’s Office in Salt Lake City, UT. 

After being coded, each response letter’s set of coded comments is entered verbatim into 

the project database. This database serves as the complete project record and allows 

analysts and planning team members to run specialized reports, identify public concerns, 

and determine the relationships among them. 

The content analysis process also identifies all response letters that are submitted as part 

of an organized response (or “form letter”) campaign and therefore contain identical text. 

These are grouped by campaign, and all mailing information for each respondent is 

entered into the project database, as well as an identifier code for the campaign. Analysts 

also code a “master” campaign letter and enter all comments verbatim into the project 

database so that they are considered alongside all non-campaign comments. If a 

respondent adds original comments to the organized response letter he or she submits, 

these comments are identified, coded and entered into the database. 

The third phase of content analysis includes composing statements of public concern and 

then preparing a narrative summary. Analysts review the entire comment database, 

sorted by topic area, and then write public concerns to summarize comments that present 

similar arguments or positions. Each formal statement of concern is accompanied by one 

or more sample comments which provide respondents’ specific perspectives and 

rationales regarding that concern. For each sample comment a letter number is provided, 

enabling the reader to track and review the original response, if necessary. 

Each public concern is worded to capture the action that one or more members of the 

public feel the Wasatch-Cache National Forest should undertake and provides the 

decision-maker with a clear sense of actions the public is requesting. Because each 

concern statement is a summary, it can represent one or many comments, depending on 

the actual comments submitted. Concern statements range from extremely broad 

generalities to extremely specific points because they reflect the content of verbatim 

public comments. Once the comments have been exhaustively reviewed and the range of 

concerns identified, CAT then submits a Summary of Public Concerns report to the 

interdisciplinary team, who is responsible for the next stage of comment consideration, 

response to comment. At this stage, the interdisciplinary team determines whether 

comments are substantive and in scope, and then composes responses to comment. For 

more information on the content analysis process, the reader may contact the forest 

Service Content Analysis Team in Salt Lake City, UT. 

Public concern statements are not intended to replace actual comment letters or sample 

quotes. Rather, they can help guide the reviewer to comments on the specific topic in 

which he or she may be interested. All original response letters in their entirety are on 

file at the Supervisor’s office in Salt Lake City, UT. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 27 

Although the list of public concerns attempts to capture the full range of public issues and 

concerns, it should be used with caution. Respondents are self-selected; therefore their 

comments do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the public as a whole. However, 

these reports do attempt to provide fair representation of the wide range of views 

submitted. In considering these views, there is no attempt to treat input as if it were a 

vote. Instead, the content analysis process ensures that every comment is considered at 

some point in the decision process. 

The final CAT reports are summary documents. As such, they are not intended to replace 

the need for interdisciplinary team members and decision-makers to directly review all 

responses and comments. Database reports by topic area allow systematic review of all 

public responses by subject area. Given the rapidly expanding volume of responses 

during comment periods due in part to increasing public interest and the widespread use 

of email, this process can greatly enhance methodical review of comments and meet our 

goal to continually improve decision-making and responsiveness to the public. 

Considering Different Types of Comments under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

Agencies have a responsibility under the National Environmental Policy act (NEPA) to 

first “assess and consider comments both individually and collectively” and then to 

“respond... stating its response in the final statement.” The content analysis process used 

by the U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team (CAT), described in the previous 

section, considers comments received “individually and collectively” and equally, not 

weighting them by the number received or by organizational affiliation or other status of 

the respondent. Public concern statements and supporting quotes from public input form 

the basic summary of public comment and were the primary focus of our interdisciplinary 

team in considering comments. 

The NEPA requires that after we consider comments, we formally respond to substantive 

comments. However, the nature and extent of each response depends on the type of 

concern identified. 

We classified comments, or the concerns identified from them, as either those that fall 

within the scope of decision-making for the plan revision or those that fall outside of the 

scope for any number of reasons described below. Generally, the types of comments 

received, and concerns identified, that were considered out of scope include those that: 

• Do not address the purpose, need, or goals of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

2003 Forest Plan Revision (e.g. propose an action in areas beyond the WasatchCache National Forest jurisdiction or that are not directly related to the action 

proposed in the plan, or relate to day-to-day operational issues such as law 

enforcement procedures or road maintenance). 

• Address concerns that are already decided by federal law or national policy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 28 

• Suggest an action not appropriate for the current level of planning (site-specific 

decisions to construct new roads, campgrounds or facilities, to offer special use 

permits or the sale of timber resources). 

• Propose untenable restrictions on management of the forest or conflict with 

approved plans not being revised in the forest plan revision process. 

• Did not consider reasonable and foreseeable negative consequences. 

We further classified comments within the scope of the plan as either substantive or nonsubstantive. Based on the Council of Environmental Quality’s regulations, a substantive 

comment is one that: 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the 

environmental impact statement. 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis as 

presented. 

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the DEIS that meet 

the purpose and need of the proposed action and address significant issues. 

• Cause changes or revisions in the proposal. 

Non-substantive comments, or concerns identified from them, include those that simply 

state a position in favor of or against an alternative, merely agree or disagree with Forest 

Service policy, or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion. 

We are required to respond only to substantive comments or the concerns identified from 

them. We have chosen to respond to all public concerns identified during analysis of 

public comment, within and out of scope, substantive and non-substantive alike. 

Responses to out of scope concerns are generally restricted to explaining that the concern 

is out of scope and does not merit further attention. A more elaborate answer may have 

been provided for clarity. Responses to substantive concerns are typically more 

extensive, complete, and most importantly, offer an explanation of why or why not and 

where the concern may have resulted in changes to the plan or analysis. If several 

concerns are very similar, they have been grouped for response purposes. Public 

concerns that identified editorial or other errors in the presentation of information in the 

DEIS were used to revise text and make corrections for the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 29 

Agency Response to Comments 

As described in the previous section, each public concern statement was derived from one 

or many individual public comments. However, these supporting sample comments have 

been deleted here due to space constraints. Our interdisciplinary team reviewed the 

actual letters, public concern statements and the supporting comments in the preparation 

of our responses. Interested parties may consult the full CAT reports and the reading file 

of original response letters on file at the Supervisor’s Office in Salt Lake City, UT. 

Public concern statements and our responses are organized by section to mirror the order 

of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) by topic area. 

Planning and Decision Processes 

Adequacy of the Document 

Document Organization and Layout 

1. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should be congratulated for the clarity of 

its planning document.

Response: Thank you. 

2. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue to improve planning 

document by providing a more detailed table of contents or an index. 

Response: Every effort was made to write in plain English and to use charts and 

maps to more effectively present information. We have worked to improve the 

clarity in the draft environmental impact statement. We have now added a listing of 

all tables and figures and created a more detailed table of contents. 

3. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should produce a cross-walk document to 

clarify the relation between the current and the proposed Forest Plan, with 

potential impacts listed for each change. 

Response: Alternative 4 represents the 1985 (current) Forest Plan as amended. To 

the extent possible, differences between Alternative 4 can be compared with 

Alternative 7, which has been developed in the Revised Plan. Many of the 

standards and guidelines contained in the 1985 Plan are site-specific direction that 

is inappropriate for programmatic type documents. The revised forest plan is based 

on a framework strategy so a one-to-one correlation from one to the other is not 

possible.

4. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve the quality of planning 

document maps.

4.1 Provide sufficient detail for site-specific travel analysis by the public. 

4.2 By increasing readability 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 30 

4.3 By using more color 

Response: We believe the detail of our maps is appropriate for the broad scale type 

of planning such as the revised forest plan. Site-specific travel planning for roads 

and trails is a future analysis, not a part of the forest planning analysis. Because of 

this we don’t see the need for more detailed maps addressing this need. Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum maps portray the six broad classes of opportunities, not the 

management of every trail and road.

Printing color maps with the draft EIS was very expensive. We continually 

evaluate the balance between spending federal dollars wisely versus communicating 

proposed forest direction. Color maps showing management prescriptions by 

alternative can be viewed in the complete documents package, on a CD or our 

website. Color maps are included as part of the Revised Forest Plan. 

5. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should number and reference all plates in 

the final Forest Plan. 

Response: We have titled and referenced the oil and gas maps that you refer to as 

plates. 

6. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should correct errors in the plates 

included in the draft Forest Plan. 

Response: Errors have been corrected. Corrected maps are available in the FEIS 

and Plan complete sets, on CD-ROM and posted on the internet.

7. The Forest Plan should include Figure 2-1 as referenced in the text. 

Response: The Figure has been properly labeled and referenced in the text.

8. The final Forest Plan should include Revision Topic 11 as referenced in the 

text. 

Response: There are 10 revision Topics. This paragraph has been edited to clarify 

the number of topics.

9. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should edit the poorly written “Response 

to Issue 5” section in the draft Forest Plan. 

Response: We have edited this section. 

10. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve the organizational 

structure of Chapter 5. 

Response: We have improved the layout and structure of the Chapter 5 in the 

Revised Forest Plan. The monitoring section is part of the forest management 

direction of Chapter 4. The process management direction section has been 

reformatted and moved to an Appendix X called Implementation Guidance. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 31 

General Adequacy 

11. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand and quantify effects 

analysis discussions throughout the Final EIS by replacing the extensive 

reliance on professional opinion.

Response: Planning for a unit of the National Forest System involves two levels of 

decisions. The first is the development of a Forest Plan that provides direction for 

all resource management programs, practices, and protection measures. The second 

level of planning involves analysis and implementation of management practices 

designed to achieve goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. This level involves sitespecific analysis to meet NEPA requirements. By the very nature of programmatic 

planning it is impossible and inappropriate to quantify site-specific effects. Since 

the Forest Plan is a broad framework, which does not directly commit to 

development, there are inherent limitations in predicting what development, and 

consequently what effects, will actually occur. When we have relied on science to 

support our analysis, it has been cited. In some cases, however science is simply 

not available and we must rely on the professional judgment of resource specialists. 

12. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should better balance the effects analysis 

of management activities by changing biased statements that exaggerate the 

benefits of active management. 

Response: We have improved watershed and wildlife sections to more fairly 

evaluate the effects of active management. 

13. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should properly account for and mitigate 

cumulative effects. 

Response: In reviewing the adequacy of the cumulative effects analysis in the EIS, 

it’s important to acknowledge that the cumulative effects for a forest plan are quite 

different than those of a site-specific action. We have expanded the discussion of 

other agency actions and private land effects in Chapter 3 of the FEIS to the degree 

that is appropriate in a programmatic document. In addition because the Plan does 

not make an irretrievable commitment of resources, we are not relying on 

mitigation measures to reach a Finding of No Significant Impact. 

14. The final Forest Plan should not rely on best management practices (BMPs) to 

mitigate cumulative environmental effects because this is insufficient to ensure 

compliance with the Clean Water Act

Response: We feel that BMPs, standards and guidelines, and soil and water 

conservation measures are effective means to reduce adverse effects from sitespecific project implementation. The revised Forest Plan does not propose sitespecific projects of which mitigation measures could be proposed, but provides for 

broad-scale planning. At this scale of planning, the revised Forest Plan identifies 

BMPs, standards and guidelines, and soil and water conservation measures as ways 

the WCNF can use to reduce adverse effects of site-specific projects. Projects that 

implement the revised Plan may use mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects 

and it is at this point that effectiveness of mitigation measures should be evaluated. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 32 

The Forest Plan assumes that BMPs will be used during project implementation to 

reduce impacts from a site-specific project. 

For their respective states, Utah and Wyoming have authority to determine 

compliance with the CWA. The State of Utah provides the authority to use BMPs 

to control nonpoint sources of pollution as stated in section 3.2 High Quality Waters 

– Category 1 in section R317-2-3. Antidegradation Policy, in R317-2, Utah 

Administrative Code (FEIS reference: Utah, State of. 2000a). 

15. The Final EIS should include an analysis of risks from private lands that affect 

the health of the forest and adopt a more conservative strategy in the Forest 

Plan 

Response: We agree that the adjacency of private lands to the Forest and their 

development contribute to effects on national forest system lands in varying 

degrees. We have expanded the discussion of other agency actions and private land 

effects in Chapter 3 of the FEIS to the degree that is appropriate in a programmatic 

document. As we developed the forest plan it was always with an awareness of the 

context of the forest and private lands. 

Public Involvement and Collaboration 

Public Information 

Accessibility of Information for the Public 

16. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that complex changes to 

management prescription categories between scoping and draft have made 

meaningful public comment difficult. 

Response: We agree the definitions of management prescription categories have 

evolved since they were first introduced in the preliminary AMS. Much of this 

change was the result of incorporating public comment and adapting to national 

initiatives. We recognize their application and interpretation in each alternative does 

require thoughtful analysis. However, because of this we specifically included very 

detailed tables of allowed activities with each alternative description in Chapter 2. 

Use of Information in the Decision Process 

17. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should base its decision on sound science. 

Response: Sound science should always be the basis for decisions. However, 

often, science is simply not available for many of the decisions we make. In some 

cases there are differing scientific opinions and no one definitive answer exists. 

18. The final Forest Plan should state that all accompanying technical documents 

will undergo external peer review. 

Response: The level of scientific scrutiny requested is not a requirement of the 

1982 implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act. Many of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 33 

the technical documents that were relied upon in our analyses are those published in 

scientific journals. The planning team has used the best available information to 

conduct their analyses 

Public Involvement Efforts 

19. The Final EIS should evaluate the effects of multiple planning processes on 

public involvement. 

Response: We recognized the demands placed on the public because of the many 

national and local planning efforts that were ongoing during our 4-year revision 

process. Because of this we included extended periods for public response when 

possible, such as a 5-month review period for the DEIS. 

20. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue its extensive public 

outreach efforts.

Response: We view public outreach as very important and plan to continue our 

efforts. 

21. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand its outreach efforts with 

motorized recreationists to improve support for travel management decisions.

Response: We are always striving to improve public outreach so those affected by 

management decisions participate in their formulations and understand and are fully 

aware of them when they are implemented. Organizations representing special 

interests provide an excellent opportunity to increase our outreach. We do have to 

balance our outreach efforts with available personnel, time, and expense. 

22. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate its bias toward 

commercial interests in its consultations with stakeholders.

Response: We do not feel that we are biased in our conversations with commercial 

interests. We often ask questions of our constituents to characterize the current 

condition from their point of view. We always acknowledge the source of our 

information. 

23. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve outreach efforts to out-ofstate residents by holding informational planning meetings at the ski resorts.

Response: Skiers, often out of state residents, represent a unique situation for 

public outreach. Many receive information in the mail and respond in writing. In 

the past informational meetings held at the ski resorts have been poorly attended 

since most visitors are more interested in leisure activities. Ski area permittees often 

distribute material to their guests. Our mailing list reveals out of state addresses, 

many whom are skiers. 

24. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve outreach efforts to 

Hispanic residents during Forest Plan implementation and future planning by 

publishing documents and holding meetings in Spanish. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 34 

Response: We agree this is an increasing segment of our society that requires a 

specialized approach. 

25. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow intimidation at public 

meetings by disallowing inflammatory threats of closure violations and 

accusations of terrorism by environmentalists.

Response: We too regret that some members of the public felt their safety was 

being threatened. While we did have law enforcement present at those meetings it 

did not stop the confrontational attitude of some members of the public. We felt if 

we had taken a more aggressive stance, we may have incited violence. 

26. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not schedule meetings during 

hunting season. 

Response: There are so many segments of society that compose those interested in 

forest management, it is next to impossible to plan public meetings that don’t 

conflict with someone’s schedule. Public meetings were logically scheduled in 

relationship to the steps in the planning process. 

Use of Public Comment in the Decision Process 

27. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide clear guidelines on how to 

write effective comments. 

Response: We recognize with such a comprehensive set of documents, such as the 

revised forest plan, it is extremely difficult to know where to focus one’s review. 

You make a good suggestion to consider when releasing future planning documents 

for public review.

28. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make submitting email comments 

easier by providing a direct link from the website. 

Response: We published our e-mail address and received a large share of 

comments via the internet. Adding a link is an avenue we will explore. 

29. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should weigh public comments 

differentially. 

29.1 By giving particular attention to comments submitted by college students 

29.2 By giving greater weight to users who pay fees 

29.3 By giving greater weight to comments from local residents 

Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is a national resource and decisions 

regarding the management of this forest are made in conjunction with national as 

well as local concerns. There are many viewpoints within Utah and within the 

nation that the Forest must consider. All of these comments are valid and were 

reviewed and considered in the final documents. 

30. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should give equal weight to comments 

from out-of-state residents. 

Response: See response 29. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 35 

31. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish a clear standard for 

consideration of public comment by prioritize detailed, scientifically-backed 

comments. 

Response: Every comment received was read and considered when developing the 

revised forest plan and FEIS. 

32. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use misinformed public comments 

to frame its educational strategy for users. 

Response: All of the public comments received have been very instructive in 

where and how we need to focus our information and education strategy. Working 

with community groups and organizations is one way of spreading resource 

management messages. These activities are very important and will continue to be a 

tool used to spread information in the future. We included an objective in the 

Revised Forest Plan emphasizing the areas of our education efforts as we 

implement the Plan. 

33. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not make the comment 

consideration process a vote.

Response: We agree. Public comments are not considered votes when making a 

decision. Every substantive comment and suggestion has value whether expressed 

by one respondent or many. Public comments help us better understand the 

sentiment behind particular viewpoints and values, reveal new information 

previously not considered, and provide clear understanding of the implications of 

our decisions for various interests. 

34. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider broader public opinion. 

34.1 Rather than just that of people who officially comment in writing 

34.2 Rather than just that of people who are vocal in public meetings. 

Response: Please see the response to 33. Decisions made in the revised forest plan 

are not determined by public opinion. We have followed the NEPA and NFMA 

regulations that provide direction on solicitation of public input. It relies on those 

who make written and oral comments. 

35. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish better means of creating 

dialogue with the public rather than delayed summary responses to written 

and oral comments. 

Response: At this final stage of the revision planning process, we agree that 

responding in writing to comments is not very satisfying to either those who wrote 

the comments or for us as forest planners and managers. A written response to 

substantive comments is required by the implementing regulations of NEPA. 

During the previous phases of the planning process we felt that constructive 

dialogue was conducted between many parties. Individual conversations at open 

houses, discussions with organizations at their invitation and constituent phone calls 

were very informative. Open houses are planned shortly after the release of the 

decision. In addition, we look forward to having more dialogue at the local level for 

small-scale projects as the revised plan is implemented.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 36 

36. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should convene town meetings prior to 

finalizing the Forest Plan.

Response: We agree that some type of meeting with engaged citizens is worthwhile 

and scheduled open houses shortly after releasing the decision. 

37. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should canvass public opinion. 

37.1 By taking a public opinion poll. 

37.2 By surveying forest users. 

Response: Please see the response to 33. Decisions in the revised forest plan are not 

the result of a public opinion survey or a vote counting process in which the 

outcome is determined by the majority viewpoint. 

38. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide specific responses to 

individual comments on the preliminary alternatives. 

Response: We have found that there is a common misperception among some 

members of the public that because the decision does not reflect their opinion then 

we have not considered their opinion. When making a decision we have to look at 

the broad array of comment, which is often conflicting, and then make a reasoned 

choice. Rarely do we make a decision that satisfies everybody. With a 

comprehensive effort such as forest planning, a response to every comment heard at 

every phase is an unwise use of planning resources. At the preliminary alternative 

phase, we believed planning team efforts were more wisely spent analyzing and 

incorporating comments instead of developing specific responses to individual 

comments. 

39. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow public sentiment to 

overrule environmental protection when damage is occurring from overuse. 

Response: We agree.

Involvement of Interest Groups in the Planning Process 

40. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consult with mountain bicycling 

organizations early in the summer travel management planning process.

Response: All user groups should be involved in scoping efforts during future sitespecific travel planning. Successful implementation of decisions often depends on 

involvement throughout the process. 

41. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consult with user groups before 

closing trails to them (ie. mountain bikers). 

Response: Being involved in future site-specific travel planning will allow user 

groups to voice their comments and be informed of decisions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 37 

42. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include motorized recreation 

planners on the interdisciplinary team and advisory boards. 

Response: We intend to include all interested parties including user groups and 

their representatives in future travel planning following the guidelines of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Influence of Interest Groups in Decision-making 

43. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not cater to special interest 

groups. 

43.1 Environmental groups 

43.2 “Eco-terrorists” 

43.3 Influential private and corporate interests 

43.4 Motorized recreational groups

Response: Throughout the planning process there has been a broad array of public 

viewpoints expressed. Each point of view believes the opposing interests are 

receiving preferential treatment. This is simply not true. The planning team has 

met with any individual or group to discuss their concerns when a request was 

made. All of comments were reviewed and considered in the final documents. 

44. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine what constitutes a 

special interest according to the group’s impacts on forest lands, giving the 

greatest consideration to those causing the least destruction. 

Response: We use the term “special interest” to help us understand the needs and 

demands of many varied forest users. Because of the many varied interests there is 

no normal use of the forest. The range of alternatives responds differently to each 

issue thereby gives greater consideration to one type of user versus another. 

Regardless of a person or groups’ interest all forest uses should be properly 

managed. 

45. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider that special interest 

groups provided biased information to their members. 

45.1 Motorized groups 

45.2 Environmental groups 

Response: All comments were reviewed and considered in the content analysis 

process whether they appear to be based on misinformation or not. Comments that 

were apparently based factual errors or misinformation are responded to by 

correcting the error or by offering the agency’s position on the issue. 

46. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should discount research conducted by 

environmental groups. 

Response: We generally use research from scientific journals. When information is 

used from non-scientific journals it is cited as such. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 38 

Trust and Integrity 

47. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should deal honestly with the public. 

Response: We agree honesty and integrity are vital for good relationships with the 

public. We also recognize that in any communication between two people there’s a 

chance each may interpret conversations differently. Public feedback on these 

issues helps us recognize where we may communicate more clearly. 

Collaboration 

Public Partnerships and Volunteers 

48. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should end all partnerships with private 

outfitters/guides because the forest should not be used for profit. 

Response: Outfitters and guides can help provide opportunities for forest visitors 

where special expertise, experience or equipment may be needed or offered to those 

without an outdoor skill base. We agree that outfitted opportunities must always be 

evaluated in light of public demands for an activity. Criteria to be used when 

considering outfitter and guide services can be found in the Appendix X describing 

Implementation Guidance. 

49. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide environmental education 

programs in partnership with the Stokes Nature Center. 

Response: We agree. The Logan District staff is currently holding discussions with 

Utah State University and Stokes Nature Center regarding joint efforts concerning 

environmental education. We are open to proposals and are always looking for 

partners to deliver appropriate messages concerning and stewardship. 

50. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not refuse offers for volunteer 

programs from motorized groups. 

Response: While each volunteer opportunity needs to be evaluated on its own 

merits, user groups can offer opportunities for peer education and contribute to 

proper resource management. We are willing to work together in a cooperative 

setting to promote an accurate, consistent message. 

Interagency Collaboration – State 

51. The Final EIS should discuss the Collaborative Approach for Reducing 

Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment document. 

Response: Please see Revision Topic 10 where we have discussed this long-term 

program to deal with wildland fire and hazardous fuels situation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 39 

52. The final Forest Plan should provide greater detail about how collaboration 

with other government entities will be implemented by creating an interagency 

working group. 

Response: The Forest Plan is a broad framework for the management of a National 

Forest. How further collaboration could be enhanced and expanded is more 

appropriately left for future implementation efforts. 

53. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the State of Utah to 

enlarge the recreational motorized vehicle tag format so that the public can 

read license numbers of violators. 

Response: We agree that enforcement issues related to ATVs are important; 

however, your suggestion is outside the scope of our authority.

54. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the State of Utah to 

coordinate motorized recreation management with the use of the state trail 

ranger programs. 

Response: We coordinate extensively with the Division of Parks and Recreation. 

We have competed successfully numerous times for trail-building grants. In the 

wintertime we work together on providing snowmobile opportunities through 

grooming projects. 

55. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove the incorrect statement 

that wildlife reintroductions are carefully and openly planned. 

Response: The sentence you refer to is from the desired condition section of the 

forest plan. Because the Forest Service has the responsibility to prevent damage to 

resources on national forest system lands, it is our intent to work more closely with 

the Division of Wildlife Resources as they plan wildlife introductions that affect 

national forest system lands. We endorse public involvement for wildlife 

reintroductions.

56. The final Forest Plan should require independent scientific review of native 

wildlife determinations conducted by state agencies. 

Response: Your request is outside of our authority as determined in Forest Service 

Manual 2641: The state has the responsibility to make the determination as to which 

wildlife and fish species are native or indigenous.

57. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should only cooperate with the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources when management is science-based. 

Resource: We recognize that sometimes science is not definitive and differing 

opinions exist. Because our responsibilities are so intertwined, cooperation with 

state agencies is necessary and desirable. 

58. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the state wildlife agency 

to eliminate the use of lead shot in the forest. 

Response: Your request is outside of our authority. However, for your information 

according to 2002-2003 Utah Waterfowl Proclamation, only nontoxic shot may be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 40 

in possession or used while hunting waterfowl or coot in any area of the state and 

federal refuges (R657-9-10 and CFR 20.21(j)). 

59. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the State Division of 

Wildlife and Natural Resources to monitor and encourage wolf migration onto 

the forest. 

Response: A wolf that was trapped in 2002 in the Cache Box Elder Management 

Area indicates the possibility of more wolves migrating to Utah. If wolves return to 

Utah they will be under the control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

managed as a threatened species. All activities concerning the wolf would be done 

through the consultation process with the FWS as outlined in the Endangered 

Species Act, Section 7. Protection of the regionally significant wildlife corridor as 

provided in Alternatives 1, 2 3, 6, and 7 makes it possible for many different 

species to migrate 

Interagency Collaboration – County and Local 

60. The final Forest Plan should include a goal stating the Forest Service’s intent 

to comply with local zoning regulations. 

Response: It is our policy to work with local governments and make very effort to 

meet the intent of zoning ordinances even though we are not legally required to do 

so. 

61. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate the bias established due 

to cooperating agency status for Uinta County. 

Response: Uinta County was granted cooperating agency status because they had 

special expertise to provide to the planning effort. They have been granted the 

rights as afforded them in the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA. 

62. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prioritize the cooperating agency 

status for Uinta County. 

Response: See Response 61. 

Interagency Collaboration – Multi-Jurisdictional 

63. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with other land managers 

and adjacent landowners to restore the entire region to properly functioning 

condition. 

Response: We agree and to the extent we can have been working towards that goal. 

As an example we have been working with an adjacent landowner, Deseret Land 

and Livestock, in a joint prescribed burn project. The State of Utah also has large 

blocks of land that lend themselves to joint projects. 

64. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should coordinate management activities 

with state and private landowners. 

Response: Yes, we agree and will continue to do so at the project level. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 41 

65. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the state Division of 

Natural Resources and county commission to eliminate hunting in the TriCanyon area, especially of moose. 

Response: This is a decision that is outside of the scope of Forest Planning (see 

chapter 1 of the FEIS). Members, of the Wildlife Board, set hunting regulations. 

Representatives from public land management agencies participate on Regional 

Advisory Councils who then make recommendations to the Wildlife Board. It is 

through this avenue hunting in the Tri-canyon area is regulated. 

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning with Adjacent National Forests 

66. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reanalyze the High Uintas 

Roadless Area as one contiguous planning area in conjunction with the Ashley 

National Forest.

Response: Ideally the planning efforts for both forests would have been scheduled 

during the similar time frames. Each forest had its own set of unique circumstances 

that dictated when each would undertake forest plan revision. We have brought 

forward the direction from the High Uinta Management Plan that was completed 

jointly with the Ashley National Forest in 1994. 

67. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with particular national 

forests. 

 67.1 Work with the Caribou National Forest toward wilderness designation 

for Franklin Basin 

67.2 Work with the Uinta National Forest toward recommended extensions to 

the Lone Peak Wilderness 

67.3 Work with the Uinta National Forest to establish consistent requirements 

for the Snowbird Ski area 

Response: Within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Caribou EIS and in the 

Uinta EIS, recommendations for additional wilderness in Franklin Basin and Lone 

Peak respectively were considered. In the revised Plans the Uinta and Wasatch do 

not provide for permit boundary additions in Lone Peak. A sliver of 400 acres north 

of Mt. Naomi to the state boundary is recommended for wilderness consistent with 

the wilderness recommended by the Caribou National Forest. 

Coordination between the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache for Snowbird Ski Area is best 

conducted at the Master Development Plan stage. 

68. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with all adjacent forests to 

assure consistent management prescription categories and allocations to 

achieve landscape-level wildlife connectivity. 

Response: The three adjoining forests that are currently revising their forest plans 

all have very similar management prescriptions. Their application to the ground 

varies because of the differing capabilities of the landscape and the needs and 

values of the distinctive populations each serves. Also see Response to 59. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 42 

69. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with all adjacent forests to 

assure consistent travel management plans. 

Response: We did to the extent appropriate given the often-differing set of 

circumstances unique to each forest. 

Relationship to Other Planning and Rulemaking Processes 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

70. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should issue a supplement to the Draft 

EIS to explain new Roadless Area Conservation Rule interim directives. 

Response: The interim directives simply include the Chief’s instructions that Forest 

Plan revisions consider, as appropriate, the long-term protection and management 

of unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas. The Forest has considered the 

values of each roadless area in the FEIS.

71. The final Forest Plan should protect roadless areas in a manner consistent with 

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

71.1 Regardless of the Rule’s status 

71.2 On the Logan Ranger District

Response: We are applying the Chief’s June 7, 2001 direction (incorporated into 

interim directives) as the overarching guidance for managing inventoried roadless 

areas in the Revised Forest Plan. It has applied protection similar to the Rule, to 

some roadless areas while others it has not. On the Logan Ranger District the 

majority of roadless areas are managed to maintain or mostly maintain roadless 

values. 

72. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not manage roadless areas 

according to Roadless Area Conservation Rule direction. 

Response: The terms of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are not applied to 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7. Other alternatives consider the protection and 

management of inventoried roadless areas by applying terms of the Rule. All give 

full consideration of the values of inventoried roadless areas on the forest. 

73. The final Forest Plan should adopt the “outside roadless area” use tables. 

Response: See Response 71. 

74. The final Forest Plan should define “likelihood” of degrading roadless 

characteristics in a scientific manner. 

Response: Display of effects to roadless area values has been expanded in the final 

EIS. A programmatic analysis such as that in forest planning cannot analyze any 

specific on the ground effects. This disclosure must come at the project level 

analysis when a site-specific action is proposed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 43 

75. The final Forest Plan should explicitly state whether road construction is 

permitted by management area prescription in the allowable use tables. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan includes standards and guidelines by 

management prescription that state whether or road construction is allowed. 

76. The final Forest Plan should establish its own strong protection of roadless 

areas independent of the national roadless rule by assigning all areas to 1.5, 

2.6, or 4.1. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan protects inventoried roadless area values to 

varying degrees. Please refer to Table RW-9 under Topic 5 in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. 

77. The final Forest Plan should state that it is not required to comply with the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule pending resolution of legal challenges. 

Response: In Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIS we have explained the current status of 

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In Alternative 7 that has been developed as 

the Revised Forest Plan, we are applying the Chief’s June 7, 2001 direction as the 

overarching guidance for protecting inventoried roadless areas. This direction has 

been incorporated into Forest Service Interim Directive No. 1920-2001-1. Once a 

judicial ruling has been made or some further regulations for roadless area 

management decided upon, we would follow that direction. 

78. The final Forest Plan should state that inventoried roadless areas will not be 

subject to any restrictions beyond the assigned management prescription 

category. 

Response: They will be subject to management direction contained in the revised 

Forest Plan and any applicable agency policy.

79. The final Forest Plan should comply with the Chief’s interim directives. 

Response: It does. The Chief has instructed forests to ensure that Forest Plan 

revisions consider, as appropriate, the long-term protection and management of 

unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas. He also stated in the policy that as 

a general rule inventoried roadless areas should be managed to preserve their 

roadless characteristics until a forest scale roads analysis is completed and 

incorporated into a forest plan. This has been done. Inventoried roadless areas are 

protected in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6. Other alternatives consider the protection and 

management of inventoried roadless areas by varying degrees. All give full 

consideration of the values of inventoried roadless areas on the forest.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

80. The final Forest Plan should include standards that define whether categorical 

exclusions can be used when extraordinary circumstances are present. 

Response: An agency final interim directive was published in the Federal Register 

on August 23, 2002 that addressed this issue. Direction such as this is most 

appropriately addressed in agency handbooks and manuals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 44 

The Forest Planning Process 

Purpose, Need, and Significant Issues 

Revision Topics 

81. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand the roadless area issue 

discussion to emphasize ecological integrity and inherent values because 

recreation is over-emphasized. 

Response: The examination of roadless areas was expanded considerably between 

the Draft and Final EIS to consider each area’s values individually, in broader 

contexts, and for values in addition to recreation. See Appendices C-1, C-2 and the 

Topic 5 discussion in the FEIS. 

Decisions Made in Forest Planning 

Scale of Decisions 

82. The final Forest Plan should clearly define the difference between significant 

and non-significant Forest Plan amendments. 

Response: Forest Service Manual section 1922.5 defines the difference between 

non-significant (1922.51) and significant (1922.52) amendments. These sections 

are cited below and further define more general direction established in the 

planning regulations, 39 CFR 219.10 (f). 

1922.51 - Changes to the Forest Plan That Are Not Significant. Changes to the 

forest plan that are not significant can result from: 

 1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for 

long-term land and resource management; 

 2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause 

significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management; and 

 3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

 4. Opportunities for additional management practices that will contribute to 

achievement of the management prescription. 

The Forest Supervisor must prepare an amendment to the forest plan to 

accommodate a change determined not to be significant. Appropriate public 

notification is required prior to implementation of the amendment. 

1922.52 - Changes to the Forest Plan That Are Significant. The following examples 

are indicative of circumstances that may cause a significant change to a forest plan: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 45 

 1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between 

levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected (36 CFR 219.10(e)); 

and 

 2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the 

planning period. 

When a significant change needs to be made to the forest plan, the Forest 

Supervisor must prepare an amendment. 

Documentation of a significant change, including the necessary analysis and 

evaluation should focus on the issues that have triggered the need for the change. 

In developing and obtaining approval of the amendment for significant change to 

the forest plan, follow the same procedures as are required for developing and 

approving the forest plan (36 CFR 219.10(f) and 36 CFR 219.12). 

Management Direction 

83. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should produce a high-quality, strong 

Forest Plan in order to face real issues in the region. 

Response: We believe that through this planning process the key issues for forest 

plan development at this time and place have been identified, and that the resulting 

plan presents strategies for their treatment. The degree of detail with which the 

revised forest plan treats these issues through allocation to prescriptions, standards 

and guidelines, goals and objectives and monitoring is intended to be at appropriate 

scales given the nature of the issues and affected resources. We think the revised 

forest plan is a high quality product, but at the same time is by no means perfect. 

We think that the forest planning process is continuous, and that amendments will 

be needed and welcome as new information is developed and new issues arise. 

84. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remedy its failure to shift from 

emphasizing utilitarian values to ecosystem preservation and recreation values 

to mirror changes in society. 

Response: We recognize the diverse opinions related to how the forest should be 

used. Different segments of society have different values and interests. Strong 

opinions are expressed by majorities or minorities, of the overall population, on 

various issues. However, the planning and NEPA process are not a referendum or 

vote, and we have no accurate information on the numbers of people who take up 

opposite positions on issues. The forest plan is a complex set of decisions intended 

to serve all of society, while protecting the values of the federal lands and their 

elements as required by law. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 46 

85. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use the precautionary principle in 

the final Forest Plan because of lack of species trend data. 

Response: The FEIS has added analysis and information beyond what was 

provided in the DEIS. Consideration of lynx and other species is expanded in the 

FEIS. Additionally, Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) have been mapped and were 

considered along with other information on lynx in the FEIS. These LAU maps are 

on file with the forest. Some species of carnivores are not considered in as great 

detail (egg. pine marten and black bear) either because they are not at risk or their 

distribution is limited on the forest and local issues related to them are not critical. 

New information on individual species is presented in Appendix J – to the FEIS on 

Management Indicator Species. Information on presence/absence and some trend 

information are presented. Decisions in the forest planning process use the best 

information available. 

86. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should be proactive in addressing the 

immediate overuse problems facing the Tri-Canyon area and write a separate 

crisis plan for this area. 

Response: Forest leadership and forest plan interdisciplinary team carefully 

considered a specific objective to plan focused on the Tri-Canyon area; see 

Forestwide Objective 19 in the Proposed Forest Plan (May 2001, pg. 4-20.) This 

objective did not survive in the revised forest plan given hard choices for where to 

emphasize future work. However, several identified objectives in the revised forest 

plan will add proactively to Tri-Canyon management, to bring vegetation within 

historic range of variation, to treat urban-interface fuels, to better manage dispersed 

camping, and to continue development of the Bonneville Shoreline and Great 

Western Trails. Also, considerable additional focused direction for the Tri-Canyon 

area in provided in the desired future conditions section on the Central Wasatch 

Management Area.

87. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should write strict standards and 

guidelines specifically addressing the Tri-Canyon Forest in the new Forest 

Plan to avoid degradation from lack of management. 

Response: The forest wide standards and guidelines for soil and watershed in the 

revised forest plan, the Clean Water Act, and state and county standards for water 

provide substantial limits on how much degradation is possible. We think that the 

Tri Canyon area, while directly adjacent to and used by a large urban population, 

can be protected adequately by these standards. 

88. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should frame management direction of 

the Logan Ranger District on watershed and critical wildlife corridor values in 

order to meet the purpose and need. 

Response: Much of the desired future condition section for the Cache-Box Elder 

Management Area was developed with the protection of the Logan River watershed 

and north-south Bear River Range wildlife corridor in mind. See Watershed and 

Wildlife Habitat sections in that part of Chapter 4 in the revised Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 47 

89. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should verify that final Forest Plan 

language reflects the management direction of the new Administration. 

Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest and Intermountain Region receive 

direction and policy updates from our Forest Service Washington Office (WO) and 

the current administration on a regular basis. Draft forest planning documents are 

reviewed by the regional and WO prior to making a final decision, and forest 

policies must be compatible with direction from these management levels and the 

current administration. 

Forest Plan Elements General 

90. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify and strengthen vague 

direction in the proposed plan to reduce excessive management flexibility. 

Response: The revised forest plan has tried to identify a trim and realistic set of 

management direction that can guide future management and set user expectations 

as to how management will operate. As the comment infers, some management 

flexibility and local ad hoc decision-making authority are recognized as essential to 

any organization that must plan project work, do daily work or respond to crises. 

The forest plan includes several kinds of management direction (DFCs, standards, 

guidelines, goals, objectives, and monitoring) all of which must be integrated and 

considered in implementing overall management for all or part of the forest. The 

revised forest plan sets standards where needed to protect key resources from 

overuse and so that desirable resource trends can be established. Standards that are 

perceived by some as tying the hands of local managers can be seen as excessive 

management flexibility to others. 

91. The final Forest Plan should provide detailed descriptions of desired future 

conditions in order to meet ecosystem goals. 

91.1 For each management area 

91.2 For all habitat types and resources 

Response: DFCs are written for each management area and forestwide for an array 

of resources and uses; see Chapter 4 in the revised Forest Plan. Similarly, the 

forestwide goals for different resources identify longer-term situations and settings 

that the plan intends to trend toward. Included in for the management area DFCs 

and in the goals are statements regarding uses, vegetation settings, wildlife habitats, 

watershed and soils, and other items. 

92. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should more effectively integrate desired 

future conditions for each resource to those for management areas as a whole. 

Response: Desired future conditions (DFC) statements were written for 

management areas in the DEIS to apply to Alternative 6, and were rewritten as 

needed in the Final Plan. Forestwide resource DFCs were also rewritten as needed 

to make the whole plan more integrated. While management areas are not as large 

as the whole forest, they still are major tracts of the forest. Our rationale is that 

these management areas have some integrity from both social and physical 

geographic perspectives. The amount of detail and specific foci in a desired future 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 48 

condition statement is related to several factors, some of which are: the decisions 

the forest plan is making, the issues for the management area and related larger and 

smaller contexts of consideration (forestwide or larger), scientific and management 

perspectives of the team writing the DFC. We recognize that the DFCs as written 

may seem like overkill to some (too narrowly defining of what may occur in an 

area), and lacking to others (not detailed enough regarding particular drainages, 

issues, development opportunities or prohibitions), both from social or 

physical/natural perspectives. We think, however, that the forestwide resource 

DFCs and management area DFCs provide enough emphasis on desired social and 

physical conditions related to the issues which need resolution, for managers and 

the public to see where management emphases for the planning period (next decade 

or more) should be. If more detailed definition of broad management is DFCs are 

needed, or if focus on subparts of the management area is needed, subsequent area 

assessments and planning may be undertaken. 

93. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should more effectively link desired 

future conditions to anticipated management actions by placing more focus on 

commodity resource values. 

Response: The forest plan makes several decisions – desired future conditions, 

goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, management prescriptions, monitoring, 

timber allowable sale quantity, suitable rangelands, and makes recommendations 

for wilderness. The Forest Plan objectives stated in Chapter 4-A. 4 probably come 

closest to defining what management actions are likely to be taken in the near 

future. The forest plan is not required to provide detail on how these objectives or 

the other decisions will be implemented. In other words it states the “what and 

why” for the Wasatch-Cache over the next several years, but it does not state 

“how”. “How” these several decisions will be implemented is largely left up to the 

discretion of the forest supervisor and district rangers as they propose projects, 

(subject to NEPA process and with public involvement) and undertake daily 

activities to narrow the gap between the current condition and what is desired in the 

future. 

Alternative 5 in the FEIS was provided for the decision maker to consider one that 

would emphasize commodity outputs. 

Goals and Objectives, Standards and Guidelines General 

94. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add specific and measurable 

standards throughout the final Forest Plan to reduce excessive management 

flexibility. 

Response: See response to 90. 

95. The final Forest Plan should list prescription-specific standards and guidelines 

separately from forest-wide direction. 

Response: In the revised Forest Plan prescription-specific standards and guidelines 

have been developed for timber harvest, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 49 

snowmobiling, livestock grazing, road, trail and recreation construction, and other 

activities. See Chapter 4 B- Forestwide Allocations, Management Prescription 

Categories. 

96. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should vary standards and guidelines by 

alternative and monitoring criteria. 

Response: We chose to keep standards and guidelines constant across alternative 

for three reasons. First, we think of standards as thresholds beyond which there 

should not be further use, i.e. limits to reasonable use beyond which adverse effects 

are likely. As such, standards ought not to vary for soil compaction, vegetation loss, 

etc. – regardless of what general goals or desired futures there are for an area. 

Second, varying standards across alternatives would have made the analysis of 

alternatives even more complex than it has already become, without much 

perceived benefit. Third, keeping standards equal across alternatives allows 

standards to be a controlled constant across the analysis. 

97. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the frequency of visitor 

satisfaction surveys in Objective 23 to two-year intervals. 

Response: The objectives in the revised Forest Plan have changed considerably 

since the DEIS and proposed Forest Plan were distributed in May 2001. Objective 

23 has been dropped, and no other objective addresses frequency of visitor 

satisfaction surveys. The Forest Service has recently developed a national program 

for monitoring and sampling recreation use and satisfaction. The survey of 

Wasatch-Cache recreation will commence in the fall of 2002 and run for 1 year. 

Results of this yearlong survey should be available in early 2003. It is expected that 

this recreation survey will be conducted every five years to develop long-term 

information on recreation. 

Management Prescription 

Management Prescription Category Development General 

98. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a broader range of 

management prescription categories to better manage individual activities to 

include a back-country designation. 

Response: Management prescriptions 4.1 and 4.3 both can be considered 

“backcountry” recreation prescriptions. Management Prescription 4.1 is a nonmotorized prescription, while the 4.3 prescription allows motorized use. For full 

descriptions on these management prescriptions see Chapter 4 in the revised Forest 

Plan. 

99. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should place the greatest emphasis on 

management prescriptions instead of management areas. 

Response: Management prescription categories have been used by several regions 

in the Forest Service to generally describe what activities might occur or be limited 

on subareas of forests. They are a “shorthand” tool for looking at management for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 50 

delimited areas. The application of these prescriptions is a forest plan decision. 

Interpretation of how the prescription should be implemented through particular 

projects is specific to the site characteristics and local issues related to the 

implementation. Management prescriptions are only one part of overall plan 

direction, and should not be considered without also thinking about how standards 

and guidelines apply in the local setting, how the prescription relates to the goals 

and objectives of the plan and the desired future conditions for the management 

area. An analogy: Think of management prescriptions as a fork. It’s hard to do a 

thorough and neat task of eating a meal (the forest) without also having a plate 

(management areas), spoon (goals and objectives), knife (standards and guidelines) 

and a napkin (monitoring.) 

Management Prescriptions General 

100. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate the word “generally” 

from all management prescription category descriptions to reduce excessive 

management flexibility. 

Response: We have eliminated the use of the word “generally” in our management 

prescription definitions to try to more clearly state what is allowed and what is not. 

101. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce specificity in the 

management prescription categories to increase management flexibility. 

Response: Management prescription definitions have been rewritten to clarify what 

is allowed and what is not. Prescriptions are applied to an area of land to better 

help the local manager and public understand what practices should be applied and 

what uses and characteristics can be expected on a given landscape. In the 1985 

Forest Plan no prescriptions were applied, providing little, if any direction for how 

subareas of the forest ought to be managed. The application of management 

prescriptions helps define the future of an area, but still leaves considerable 

implementation flexibility available to the manager and to an involved citizenry. 

102. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should re-evaluate management 

prescription categories on a district-by district basis to enable maximum 

flexibility. 

Response: We have reviewed management prescription on a district-by-district 

basis and believe that the range of alternatives, as cited in the FEIS, was sufficient 

to provide a high level of flexibility. The individual rangers and their staff also 

reviewed alternative 7. They believe that this alternative provides the flexibility 

they need to accomplish the Goals and Subgoals of the Forest Plan. 

Allocation of Management Prescription Categories General 

103. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should avoid using restrictive 

management categories. 

103.1 Wilderness 

103.2 Unroaded, roadless, or non-motorized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 51 

Response: We understand that many users are not in favor of any protection of 

roadless values, non-motorized recreation, or wilderness recommendations on the 

Wasatch-Cache. Some alternatives provide for wilderness recommendations and 

maintenance of roadless values and others do not. No Wilderness is recommended 

in Alternatives 4 and 5. The discussion in Chapter 3, Topic 5 in the FEIS compares 

the extent to which roadless values are protected in each alternative. The decisionmaker will have to weigh what is the best mix of winter motorized and nonmotorized, protected roadless, and wilderness settings for the future. 

104. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should overcome the institutional bias 

against wilderness designation that is evident throughout the draft Forest Plan. 

Response: The Forest Service must evaluate roadless areas for their Wilderness 

potential as required by laws and implementing direction. Public and internal 

opinions regarding the capability, availability, and need for more wilderness are 

weighed in the overall evaluation. 

105. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should redesign allocations on the North 

Slope to eliminate the patchwork of conflicting uses. 

Response: Alternative 7 has been added to the array of alternatives after receiving 

comments on the DEIS. Other alternatives provide a range of possibilities designed 

to address the issues associated with this forest plan revision and guide the forest on 

different trajectories. What may appear in some alternatives to be a patchwork of 

conflicting uses to some is likely to be seen a good multiple-use programmatic 

direction to others. Projections of outputs from the different alternatives are 

provided that give a sense of what might be expected under management from the 

alternatives. 

Implementation and Monitoring 

Implementation and Monitoring General 

106. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should measure and report specific results 

toward Forest Plan goals. 

Response: Forest plan monitoring is intended to show whether management under 

the plan is successfully moving the Wasatch-Cache closer toward the desired future 

conditions that are stated, or if there are problems. Our Chapter 5 section on 

Monitoring will focus on the extent to which the objectives identified in the forest 

plan are being accomplished, and whether that accomplishment is helping the forest 

trend as intended. Annual forest plan monitoring reports have been provided to the 

regional office. In the future some revamping of these of these reports is 

anticipated and they will be made available to the public on our website. 

107. The final Forest Plan monitoring section should include specific standards to 

define success or failure for each measurement indicator. 

Response: The forest plan monitoring section has been substantially changed since 

the publication of the DEIS and proposed Forest Plan in May 2001. In Chapter 5 of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 52 

the revised Forest Plan monitoring questions, measurement indicators, frequency of 

monitoring, and other monitoring criteria are identified. It is important that forest 

plan monitoring and project level monitoring be distinguishable. While there are 

clear relationships between the two, forest plan level monitoring is more 

programmatic and generally concerned with broader scale, while monitoring at 

project level is mostly likely more specific and focused. 

108. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should collect adequate monitoring data 

to meet cumulative effects analysis requirements. 

Response: The choices made for monitoring items in the monitoring section are 

intended to provide a framework which can be further defined in response to 

changing conditions in annual monitoring and completed given available funding. 

Cumulative effects analysis in the FEIS is based on best available and applicable 

data at the time the document was prepared. 

109. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should incorporate the cost of monitoring 

into all projects or refuse to approve them if funding isn’t available. 

Response: We agree that project monitoring is an important responsibility, and its 

costs should be anticipated and budgeted during project development. 

110. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor the same activities under 

different environmental conditions rather than just once. 

Response: We do monitor BMPs and other indicators and standards under a broad 

variety of project situations. Part of our monitoring plan will be to sample a variety 

of projects in different areas of the forest to see if the forest is implementing 

direction as directed and trending as intended under the direction in the forest Plan. 

See the Monitoring section in Chapter 5 of the revised Forest Plan for details. 

111. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor the extent to which 

standards and guidelines are applied annually. 

Response: It is intended that all standards and guidelines are applied consistently. 

Many standards and guidelines are monitored annually, or regularly as 

implemented. Other forest plan monitoring and reporting are done at intervals of 

several years. Part of our monitoring plan will be to sample a variety of projects in 

different areas of the forest to see if the forest is implementing standards, 

guidelines, and other direction and trending as intended. The revised Forest Plan 

monitoring section in Chapter 5 details the frequencies of monitoring different 

items. 

112. The final Forest Plan should better define how desired future conditions will 

be achieved and how monitoring will be done for the western Uintas. 

Response: Chapter 4. A. 4. of the revised Forest Plan details several objectives in 

that will be undertaken over the course of the plan to move the forest toward DFCs. 

The detail for how these and other actions will be approached will be based on 

individual project proposals to implement the plan. Questions about how DFCs will 

be attained for vegetation, watershed, recreation, wildlife and other items defined in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 53 

the management area statements must be answered over time through project level 

implementation and monitoring both projects and overall performance under the 

plan. 

Volunteers 

113. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make better use of volunteer labor 

from recreationists. 

113.1 Off-road vehicle users 

113.2 Mountain Bikers 

Response: The Wasatch-Cache does have an active program to incorporate 

volunteer work to enhance accomplishment of forest work. Volunteers have 

worked in recreation and trails projects, heritage resource (PIT) projects, range 

administration and monitoring, and a variety of other tasks. We welcome 

volunteers; their work takes time to supervise and coordinate, but it is of great value 

to us and worthy service to the community and for public lands. Volunteers may 

call the main desk at the Wasatch-Cache to inquire about opportunities. 

114. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make better use of volunteer labor 

for monitoring non-recreational impacts. 

Response: See response 113. 

Funding and Fees 

Funding 

115. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should secure adequate funding for 

certain purposes. 

115.1 For the Avalanche Forecast Center 

115.2 For environmental analysis 

Response: Funding for a variety of functions that are closely linked to the WasatchCache is often needed for their viability. Several partners including the Forest 

Service, Friends of Utah Avalanche Forecast Center, Utah State University, Salt 

Lake County, the State of Utah and others, fund the Utah Avalanche Center. Each 

of these partners recognizes the valuable service that is provided, and strives to 

apply support when at all possible. 

Similarly, environmental analysis, in advance projects or planning, as required by 

law, is needed for quality work, and can take substantial funding to achieve. Often 

project proponents pay for environmental analysis, and partnering with other 

agencies to bear this cost is a good idea. The Forest Service is always looking for 

to bear the costs of project planning. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 54 

116. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase funding for seasonal 

ranger positions to add weekend shifts and Spanish speaking rangers. 

Response: Seasonal employees are a key to successful management of the forest. 

Funding for them is tight, and seems to be getting tighter as overhead costs go up. 

We do have Spanish-speaking seasonal employees working for us in recreation as 

well as other disciplines. These individuals are valued for their ability to 

communicate with the Spanish-speaking community and users. Hiring, 

deployment, and scheduling work for these individuals and other personnel actions 

are not part of forest plan decisions. 

117. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider the financial impacts of 

wilderness designation on the state parks and recreation division. 

Response: To our knowledge, a decrease in licensing fees paid to a state for atvs 

and snowmobiles has not been linked to recommendations for wilderness in any 

state. In the State of Utah the numbers of these vehicles has continued to rise. 

118. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use oil and gas revenue for road 

maintenance. 

Response: Revenues from oil and gas development are committed to the treasury 

and to the states by laws, which define the mechanisms for their distribution and 

allocation. The Wasatch-Cache has no authority over how this is done. 

119. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the State of Utah to 

assure that off-road vehicle gas tax receipts are used directly for off-road 

vehicle recreation. 

Response: The Wasatch-Cache often applies for funding from the State of Utah to 

develop plans and funding for trails. The state has awarded monies nearly every 

year when the forest has projects that fall within their funding criteria. These 

monies are applied to both motorized and non-motorized recreation trails. 

120. The final Forest Plan should identify specific funding sources to meet its 

recreational site maintenance goals. 

Response: While general guidelines to seek partnerships or other means for funding 

or to decrease costs of administration, maintenance, operations, and monitoring may 

be appropriate in a forest plan, we think that identifying specific sources is not 

necessary and not within the scope of forest plan decisions. 

121. The final Forest Plan should identify specific funding sources to meet its range 

monitoring requirements. 

Response: See response 120. 

122. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allocate money to monitor the use 

of wilderness areas. 

Response: While budgets are always limited, some funding is spent each year to 

monitor wilderness use, both in the summer and winter. Additionally, a national 

visitor recreation use monitoring survey is being undertaken this year to improve 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 55 

our understanding of recreation use on the forest (and in designated wildernesses.) 

Forest Plan level monitoring, see Chapter 5 of the revised Forest Plan, does identify 

questions that relate to recreation use and the extent of impacts to resources from 

recreation. 

123. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require all individuals and 

corporations profiting from forest lands to pay the full cost for management 

associated with their use. 

Response: Individuals and corporations that are permitted to operate on the national 

forest for profit are charged a use fee that is calculated based in part on the revenues 

of their operation. The agency is not required to cover the full costs of 

administration of the use, not would that always be desirable. Permit fees and 

administration are not within the scope of the decisions made in forest plan 

revision. 

Fees 

Fees General 

124. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should charge parking fees at lots. 

Response: The forest could elect to charge for parking at developed lots, which 

provide some services or meet some minimum development levels. While this 

might be desirable and return some money to the treasury and the forest, it is not a 

forest plan decision. 

 

125. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should request a larger share of off-road 

vehicle registration fees for enforcement and mitigation. 

125.1 Rather than new trail construction 

Response: See response 119. 

126. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the fairness of imposing 

fees only on motorized recreationists. 

Response: We recognize the frustration of some motorized recreation users, who 

feel they are bearing a larger burden because of licensing fees associated with their 

vehicles. However, the question of fees for parking or licensing is outside the scope 

of forest plan decisions. 

127. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should charge user fees according to the 

activity’s impact. 

Response: Fees for grazing use are set by Congress and changing them is not 

within the authority of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Mitigation of impacts 

can be required in definition and administration of permits. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 56 

Fee Demonstration Program 

128. The Final EIS should disclose more detailed accounting information on fee 

demonstration program receipts and expenditures. 

Response: Fee demo program decisions and the administration of the fee demo are 

not covered by the forest plan, and as such are not dealt with in this effects analysis 

or Forest Plan. 

Detailed accounting for the fee demo program is provided on an annual basis, and 

reports are prepared which can be made available to the public. General summaries 

have been prepared for the Intermountain Region, and project by project reports are 

available on the forests. 

129. The Final EIS should analyze the effects of the fee demonstration program on 

low-income users. 

Response: See response 128. 

130. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand the fee demonstration 

program locally as long as subsidized grazing is eliminated.

 Response: See response 128. 

131. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should only extend the fee demonstration 

program to heavily used areas. 

 Response: See response 128. 

132. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require all users, including nonmotorized ones, to pay a license fee. 

 Response: The establishment of use fees for areas or uses is not a decision that is 

within the scope of the issues related to this forest plan revision. 

133. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revamp the fee demo program. 

133.1 Establish a sliding fee scale for lower income people 

133.2 Create one annual pass in partnership with adjacent forests

 Response: See response 128. 

134. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement the proposed fee demo 

site at Mueller Park. 

 Response: See response 128. 

135. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make Big and Little Cottonwood 

Canyons fee areas. 

 Response: See response 132. 

136. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not use Mirror Lake Highway fee 

demo funds to harden impacted dispersed camping sites because it encourages 

further damage.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 57 

 Response: The hardening of dispersed sites for resource protection or for recreation 

experience is a site-specific implementation decision that can be related to more 

general forest plan decisions (e.g. perhaps allocation of recreation management 

prescriptions or application of soil standards). Assessment of the relationship of 

damage, use, and local site conditions are all related to the side-specific condition of 

the case at hand and are not forest plan decisions. Paying for any hardening project 

can be done out of whatever funding is available and legal. 

137. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should exempt campers at developed sites 

from fee demo charges. 

 Response: See responses 128 and 132. 

138. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate the fee demonstration 

project. 

Response: See response 128. 

Tollbooths 

139. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should install tollbooths at Big and Little 

Cottonwood Canyons. 

139.1 To improve public environmental sensitivity 

139.2 To educate the public about watershed protection 

139.3 To help control the litter epidemic 

 Response: Suggestions to increase sensitivity for environmental protection are 

valid and we believe education is a key element in an overall strategy for successful 

forest management. The Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan provides an objective that is 

specifically designed to deal with concerns regarding environmental sensitivity and 

enforcement, and several other objectives have public education elements within 

them. Tollbooths could be good contact points for dissemination of information 

about appropriate behavior on the forest. However, these are quite site-specific 

recommendations and are outside the scope of forest plan decisions. 

140. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should install tollbooths at Big and Little 

Cottonwood Canyons to be operated during the summer season. 

140.1 With a special access pass for residents and employees 

140.2 With a portion of each ski lift ticket contributed in the winter 

 Response: The recommendations are interesting but outside the scope of the forest 

plan decisions. These are site-specific and fee demo or cost recovery suggestions 

that are handled under different authorities and decisions. 

141. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should redesign the tollbooth at Mirror 

Lake Highway to improve enforcement of the user fees. 

 Response: See responses 139 and 140. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 58 

Alternatives 

Alternative Development 

Range of Alternatives 

142. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide an adequate range of 

alternatives. 

Response: The 7 Alternatives presented in this FEIS encompass a spectrum of 

approaches to resolving issues and needs for change topics identified through public 

involvement and environmental analysis during the Forest Plan revision process. 

Between Draft and Final, several changes were made to Alternatives in response to 

public comments. These are described in the FEIS section titled “Alternative 

Development, Range of Alternatives” in Chapter 2. 

142.1 By including an alternative that emphasizes multiple use. 

Response: All Alternatives in this FEIS are consistent with the Multiple Use 

Sustained Yield Act. FEIS Appendix D-1 includes an explanation of how 

Management Prescriptions applied to all Alternatives are consistent with MultipleUse and other laws. However, that Act allows for broad discretion and there is a 

wide range of opinions about that mix of goods and services constitute “multiple 

use”. The 7 Alternatives in this FEIS represent that range. 

142.2 By including an alternative that emphasizes scientific management. 

Response: The analysis of environmental effects provided in FEIS Chapter 3 

provides disclosure of the projected results of implementing each of the 7 

Alternatives based on the best available science. Each of the Alternatives provides 

for a different combination of constraints and management of resources that 

respond to both scientific and social concerns. There is a wide range of opinions 

about what would constitute scientific management. With regard to withdrawing 

inventoried roadless areas from harvest, FEIS Appendix CII provides an evaluation 

of values of each inventoried roadless area. Alternative 7 was designed to take these 

values into account when applying management prescriptions in contrast to 

Alternatives 1,3,and 6 that apply the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

142.3 By including a balanced range of non-motorized winter recreation 

designations. 

Response: The range of alternatives for non-motorized winter recreation is 

displayed in this FEIS in Chapter 3 under Topic 4, Table REC-12. The relative 

percentages of non-motorized winter opportunity are based on mapping of specific 

areas for non-motorized winter uses considering accessibility as well as 

incorporating decisions made through wilderness designation. The Alternatives 

respond to specific comments about particular areas for non-motorized use in winter 

rather than on a mathematically even spread of acres among alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 59 

142.4 By including an alternative that further restricts motorized access. 

Response: The decision not to entertain site-specific changes to existing Travel 

Management Plans for summer is explained in the FEIS, Chapter 2, under the 

section titled “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study”. This 

decision is within the discretion of the Forest Supervisor (36 CFR 219.12(b)). 

However concerns raised between Draft and Final about the implications of 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Mapping for future Travel Management Planning 

have now been addressed through clarifying language added in FEIS Chapter 2, 

Common Characteristics of Alternatives, Appendix D, and in the Revised Forest 

Plan Chapter 4. 

 

142.5 By including an alternative that has no roadless or non-motorized 

Designations. 

Response: Update of the roadless area inventory and evaluation of roadless areas 

for potential wilderness recommendation are required components of Forest Plan 

Revision (36 CFR 219.17(a)). Alternatives 4 and 5 recommend no roadless areas 

for wilderness, which would add to non-motorized acres 

142.6 By including an alternative that recommends all roadless areas as 

wilderness. 

Response: This was not considered to be reasonable because not all inventoried 

roadless areas have high quality wilderness characteristics. FEIS Appendix CI 

provides an evaluation of each roadless area for wilderness recommendation. 

142.7 By including a wide range of alternatives for wilderness 

recommendation. 

Response: The FEIS range of Alternatives includes from 0 to 388,900 acres of 

recommended wilderness or 0 to 64% of inventoried roadless areas. Several areas 

were added to recommended wilderness in Alternative 1 in response to public 

comment about specific roadless areas with high quality wilderness characteristics. 

Given that not every inventoried roadless area has these characteristics, the range of 

reasonable alternatives area provided. FEIS Appendix CI provides an evaluation of 

each roadless area for wilderness recommendation. 

142.8 By including an alternative that eliminates timber harvesting and 

grazing. 

Response: FEIS Alternative 1 eliminates timber harvesting. Elimination of 

grazing was not included for reasons explained in FEIS, Chapter 2 under the 

heading “Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study.” 

142.9 By including a full range of alternatives for grazing. 

Response: We have added additional suitability criteria in Alternative 2 to be 

responsive to the concern about the range of alternatives for grazing. See FEIS 

Chapter 2, Alternative 2 and Comparison of Alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 60 

142.10 By including alternatives indicating reductions in animal unit months 

to reflect current demand. 

Response: The FEIS provides a discussion of animal unit months and demand 

variables in Chapter 3, Topic 7, under the heading “Livestock Grazing Levels”. 

142.11 By maintaining the current range of alternatives for grazing. 

Response: See Response 142.9. 

142.12 By including an alternative with large carnivores as management 

indicator species. 

Response: FEIS Chapter 2 under the heading “Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated From Detailed Study” provides a discussion of the appropriateness of 

large carnivores as MIS. FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 2, Wildlife provides a discussion 

of MIS and why they were selected. 

142.13 By including an alternative that protects biodiversity and emphasizes 

ecosystem services. 

Response: Within the range of reasonable alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2 were 

designed to emphasize protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services such as 

clean water, air and diverse habitats. 

Adequacy of Alternatives 

143. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reject all six alternatives until it 

provides further guidelines defining financial, social, and access impacts. 

Response: The FEIS displays the expected effects of 7 Alternatives including 

social, economic and access. See Chapter 2 Comparison of Alternatives, Chapter 3, 

Topic 3 Roads Access Management, and Social and Economic Analysis. 

144. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise alternatives to more 

adequately plan for an increase in off road vehicle use and associated impacts. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan includes Objectives for OHV and NonMotorized Travel Management as well as for Education and Enforcement. Also 

See Response 142.4 

145. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate Alternatives 1 and 5 

because both are too extreme to be acceptable 

Response: While some may view Alternatives 1 and 5 as extreme, they were 

developed in direct response to public comment and provide for disclosure of 

effects for a range of reasonable alternatives as required under NEPA. Selection of 

Alternative 7 reflects the Forest Service desire to provide for some balance between 

these ends of the spectrum. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 61 

Comparison of Alternatives 

146. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should compare the effectiveness of 

Alternatives 1 and 6 in meeting stated goals for preserving ecosystem values 

and wildlife. 

146.1 With respect to management prescriptions.

Response: FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 2, Wildlife provides improved information on 

the effects of each of the Alternatives, their mapped management prescriptions, and 

the allowed activities on groups of wildlife species. Effects on ecosystem values 

for each Alternative are displayed in FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 1, Watershed Health 

and Topic 2, Vegetation. Table VEG-7 summarizes how each of the 7 alternatives 

affects ecosystems in terms of properly functioning conditions. The Record of 

Decision explains why Alternative 7 was selected given its relative effects on 

ecosystem values and wildlife. 

146.2 With respect to motorized recreation. 

 Response: Each of the 7 Alternatives in the FEIS provides for a different mix of 

uses and protections. FEIS Chapter 3, Topics outlined above in Response 146.1 

provide disclosure of effects of motorized recreation on ecosystem values and 

wildlife. The Record of Decision explains why Alternative 7 was selected given 

its’ relative effects on ecosystem values and wildlife. 

146.3 With respect to winter recreation. 

 Response 146.3: See Response 146.2 

146.4 With respect to scenic quality. 

 Response: FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 4, Scenery Management includes a display of 

differences between the 7 Alternatives with regard to scenic integrity. 

146.5 With respect to ecosystem protection. 

 Response: See Response 146.1 

147. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should compare the alternatives with 

respect to risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, insects, and disease. 

 Response: FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 2, Vegetation under the headings “Effects on 

Vegetation Communities from Fire Management” and “Effects on Vegetation 

Communities from Insects, Disease, and Noxious Weeds” provide an improved 

discussion of the effects of the 7 Alternatives with respect to these topics. FEIS 

Appendix B-1 includes a discussion of vegetation modeling used to compare results 

of alternatives on factors influencing wildfire, insects, and disease. 

148. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide resource outputs for each 

alternative. 

 Response: The DEIS clearly displayed outputs in DEIS Chapter 2, Comparison of 

Alternatives, Table 2-2. Again, in FEIS Chapter 2, Comparison of Alternatives, 

Table 2-2 shows projections of outputs for each alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 62 

149. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should compare the alternatives with 

respect to forest health. 

 Response: The best approximation of this comparison is provided in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, topic 2 vegetation, table VEG-7. 

150. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain why Taylor Canyon is 

better protected under Alternative 5 than under Alternative 6. 

 Response: This question resulted in clarification of the intent of management 

prescriptions for watershed emphasis (3.1 and 3.2). The management prescription 

applied to Taylor Canyon in Alternative 7 protects Taylor Canyon by not allowing 

road construction. 

Suggestions for New Alternatives 

151. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should evaluate new alternatives. 

The CUFF Alternative.

 Response: We believe within the range of the 7 Alternatives presented in this 

FEIS, most of the CUFF Alternative components are included and analyzed. 

Alternative 5 includes the suggested prescriptions for suitable timber that ignore 

inventoried roadless areas and allow range and timber production on the same areas. 

Alternatives 2-7 allow timber harvest in prescription category 8. All Alternatives 

make varying degrees of use of prescription 3.2 and 5.1, which are similar to the 

CUFF suggested 5.3. Concerns about big game winter range are addressed through 

both management prescriptions 3.2 and through winter recreation mapping. Visual 

Quality is addressed in all Alternatives through the Scenery Management System. 

The exception is that none of the 7 Alternatives allow for summer cross-country 

motorized travel (CUFF prescription 4.3.1). In the State of Utah, summer 

motorized travel is legal only on routes and areas designated as such. 

151.1 The Balanced Alternative (Alternative 7). 

 Response: We believe within the range of the 7 Alternatives presented in this 

FEIS, the Balanced Alternative components are included and analyzed. Some are 

adopted in Alternative 7. Since the Balanced Alternative starts with Alternative 5 

and adjusts it to incorporate aspects of other Alternatives (such as the commercial 

timber harvest more like Alternative 4, grazing at current levels like Alternative 3, 

watershed protection that is more like Alternative 6, and winter motorized area 

similar to the current Travel Plan for Logan Ranger District like in Alternative 3), 

the analysis has provided for disclosure of effects similar to those of the Balanced 

Alternative. Increased potential for summer motorized trails on the east half of the 

Bear River Range is incorporated into Alternative 7 through management 

prescriptions that allow new trail construction as well as clarification of the 

relationship between ROS and future Travel Management Planning. Alternative 3 

applies the suggested 5.1/6.1 Prescription to the Gibson and Swan Creek IRA’s. 

Portions of the specific suggestions for the Mount Naomi IRA are encompassed by 

the 7 Alternatives in the FEIS however none are exactly as suggested. Alternative 7 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 63 

uses 2.6 rather than the suggested 3.1, providing additional protection of watershed 

and roadless area values. Alternative 3 uses 6.1 for a portion though not all of the 

area consistent with this suggestion. Alternative 3 applies a 3.2 rather than the 

suggested 3.1 to Mount Logan North IRA but these prescriptions have identical 

allowed activities in this Alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 apply the suggested 

3.2 to the Mount Logan West IRA. Alternatives 2 and 6 apply the suggested 3.1 to 

portions of the Mount Logan South IRA, Alternative 7 applies 3.1 as suggested, and 

Alternatives 3 and 6 apply the suggested 5.1/6.1 to at least part of the remainder of 

these areas although not the entire area. There are a very large number of 

combinations of alternative prescription arrangements possible. The range of the 7 

Alternatives analyzed in the FEIS provides for disclosure of the spectrum, although 

not all potential prescription combinations, of options for each roadless area. 

151.2 To create a travel plan alternative. 

 Response: The FEIS includes a range of reasonable alternatives developed in 

response to issues and public comments on Forest Plan revision. Travel 

Management Planning is recognized as an important component of forest 

management and existing Travel Management Plans were assumed to be adequate 

as a baseline for summer travel opportunities in all Alternatives. The Revised 

Forest Plan includes an Objective to address needs for inventorying current trail 

opportunities and completing a roads analysis for maintenance levels 1 and 2 roads 

as well as updating the Salt Lake, Ogden, and Logan Ranger District summer 

Travel Management Plans. Reasons for not analyzing site-specific Travel 

Management decisions within Forest Plan revision analysis are explained in FEIS 

Chapter 2 under the heading “Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail.” 

152. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should create a combined alternative of 1, 

2, and 6, with overall zoning closer to Alternative 1 to ensure appropriate 

wilderness protection. 

 Response: We believe the range of 7 Alternatives analyzed in this FEIS provides 

for a reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of options for 

wilderness protection. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternative 1 

Select Alternative 1 

153. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 1 

153.1 Because it emphasizes wilderness protection 

153.2 Because it protects habitat 

153.3 Because it reduces motorized recreation 

153.4 Because it preserves recreational opportunities 

153.5 Because it protects the environment 

153.6 Because it prohibits other development
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 64 

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views on this Alternative. All views 

were carefully considered during development and evaluation of the existing 

Alternatives. 

154. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 1 as the 

Preferred Alternative. 

 Response: See Response 153. 

Do Not Select Alternative 1 

155. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not select Alternative 1. 

155.1 Because it restricts recreational opportunity 

155.2 Because it promotes wilderness above other uses 

155.3 Because it restricts use 

155.4 Because it harms wildlife habitat

 Response: See Response 153. 

Modify Alternative 1 

156. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify Alternative 1. 

156.1 To allow management

 Response: We agreed that Alternative 1 should be clarified to include active 

rehabilitation of areas damaged by recreation or other uses. The description of this 

Alternative in FEIS Chapter 2 has been modified and effects of this Alternative 

discussed in FEIS Chapter 3 have been adjusted accordingly. 

156.2 To allow heli-skiing 

 Response: There is an infinite combination of Alternative elements possible. The 

FEIS includes 7 Alternatives, 4 of which allow heli-skiing. Given the extent of 

recommended wilderness in the Central Wasatch for Alternative 1, the addition of 

heli-skiing to this alternative would be incompatible. 

Alternative 2 

Select Alternative 2 

157. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 2 

157.1 Because it is a fair compromise 

157.2 Because it preserves the land 

157.3 Because it protects the environment 

157.4 Because it has the least impact on air quality 

157.5 Because there are already enough roads on the forest

 Response: See Response 153. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 65 

Do Not Select Alternative 2 

158. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not select Alternative 2. 

158.1 Because it restricts recreational opportunities 

158.2 Because it promotes wilderness above other use 

158.3 Because it harms wildlife habitat

 Response: See Response 153. 

Modify Alternative 2 

159. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify Alternative 2 to address 

motorized uses of the forest. 

 Response: There is an infinite combination of Alternative elements possible. The 

FEIS includes 7 Alternatives, each with different approaches to motorized uses. 

We believe the range of 7 Alternatives analyzed in this FEIS provides for a 

reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of options for motorized 

uses of the forest. 

Alternative 3 

Select Alternative 3 

160. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 3 because it is 

well balanced 

 Response: See Response 153. 

161. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 3 as the 

Preferred Alternative. 

 Response: See Response 153. 

Do Not Select Alternative 3 

162. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not select Alternative 3. 

 Response: See Response 153. 

Alternative 4 

Select Alternative 4 

163. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 4. 

163.1 Because it maintains existing uses 

163.2 Because it is a fair compromise

 Response: See Response 153. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 66 

Alternative 5 

Select Alternative 5 

164. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 5. 

164.1 Because it is well balanced 

164.2 Because it has wide public support 

164.3 Because it preserves recreational access 

164.4 Because it allows active management 

164.5 Because it allows local control 

164.6 Because it maintains existing uses 

164.7 Because it allows for conversion of natural resources into commodities 

164.8 Because it allows needed flexibility in timber management 

164.9 Because it preserves social values 

164.10 Because more wilderness is not needed 

164.11 Because it will allow ski area expansion 

164.12 As long as it does not interfere with the growth of vegetation

 Response: See Response 153. 

165. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 5 as the 

Preferred Alternative. 

 Response: See Response 153. 

Do Not Select Alternative 5 

166. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not select Alternative 5. 

166.1 Because it allows too much off-road vehicle abuse 

166.2 Because it allows too much development

 Response: See Response 153. 

Modify Alternative 5 

167. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify Alternative 5. 

167.1 To add the big game closure between Little Bear/Logan Canyon Face 

and Right hand Fork 

167.2 To reduce timber harvest outputs 

167.3 To more adequately address extractive activities, restoration, and 

monitoring 

167.4 To coincide with the travel plan

 Response: The range of Alternatives analyzed in this FEIS includes each of the 

suggested components. Since there are an infinite number of combinations of 

alternative elements that could be analyzed, the FEIS includes a spectrum to 

disclose the differences in potential effects. Alternative 7 was developed with 

careful consideration of suggestions for modifications to the 6 Alternatives 

presented in the DEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 67 

Alternative 6, The Preferred Alternative 

Select Alternative 6 

168. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select Alternative 6. 

168.1 Because it is a fair compromise 

168.2 Because it protects recreational opportunities 

168.3 Because it preserves heli-skiing 

168.4 Because it protects the environment

 Response: See Response 153 

Do Not Select Alternative 6 

169. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not select Alternative 6. 

169.1 Because it will reduce funding 

169.2 Because it will reduce motorized recreation opportunities 

169.3 Because it will reduce timber harvesting 

169.4 Because it leans too far toward extreme preservation

 Response: See Response 153 

Modify Alternative 6 

170. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify Alternative 6. 

 170.1 To more adequately protect the environment 

 170.2 To protect wildlife corridors 

 170.3 To protect Canadian lynx habitat 

 170.4 To address carbon sequestration 

 170.5 To increase recommended wilderness 

 170.6 To include the High Uinta Roadless Area in proposed wilderness 

designations 

 170.7 To preserve motorized recreation opportunities 

 170.8 To address recreational conflicts 

 170.9 To create less restrictions

 Response: See Response 167. 

Forest Plan Direction 

Management Prescription Categories 

Management Prescription Category Allocations General 

171. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide a more equitable 

distribution of acres by management prescription categories. 

 Response: The seven alternatives in the FEIS provide a range of management 

prescription category distributions across the landscapes of the WCNF. The 

prescriptions were mapped based on both the capabilitiy and sensitivity of the land 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 68 

and the approach of the particular alternative toward resolving the issues identified. 

See Table 2-1 in FEIS Chapter 2 Comparison of Alternatives to review the range of 

prescription assignments. 

172. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allocate acreage in inverse 

proportion to the degree of impact of each activity using a rating scale based 

on impacts. 

 Response: Alternative 1 provides a distribution of management prescriptions that 

comes closest to accomplishing this suggestion since it places the most acres under 

the most restrictive prescriptions. See Comparison of Alternatives, FEIS Chapter 2. 

173. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should default to Management 

Prescription Categories 5.1/6.1 in roadless areas. 

 Response: Prescriptions were mapped for each alternative based on the capabilities 

and sensitivities of the land along with the approach of the particular alternative for 

resolving the identified issues. Alternative 3 has the highest acreage of these 

prescriptions although it does not specifically target roadless areas. Acres of 

Prescriptions applied to each roadless area are displayed in FEIS Appendix C2. 

 

174. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate more areas to 

Management Prescription Category 1.5 or 2.6 to protect values associated with 

undeveloped areas. 

 Response: Alternative 1 is the alternative that prescribes 1.5 and 2.6 for the most 

acreage of any alternative and effects of this are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

175. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should apply the protections of 

Management Prescription Category 3.0 to all areas of the forest to protect 

habitats and watersheds. 

 Response: Prescriptions were mapped for each alternative based on the capabilities 

and sensitivities of the land along with the approach of the particular alternative for 

resolving the identified issues. Alternatives 6 and 7 apply 3 prescriptions to the 

most acres among the alternatives presented in the FEIS and effects of these are 

disclosed in FEIS Chapter 3. To apply these prescriptions to the entire forest would 

not provide for resolution of some of the issues identified and therefore an 

alternative that did this was not analyzed in detail. Emphasis of other prescriptions 

was needed to provide a balance across the Forest. 

176. The final Forest Plan should clarify that the AHWE management prescription 

category does not apply to private inholdings. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan management prescriptions do not apply to 

private inholdings. Non-National Forest lands are shown in gray on maps and 

discussed under management prescription 7 in the Revised Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 69 

Modifications to Management Prescription Categories 

177. The final Forest Plan should eliminate the differential management 

prescription category activities permitted in inventoried roadless versus nonroadless areas. 

 Response: Alternative 7 does this. 

178. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adjust allowed motorized activities 

in different management prescription categories. 

 Response: Although some of the prescriptions that are focused on recreation do 

have a motorized or non-motorized emphasis, the majority of this is determined and 

displayed based on Travel Mangement Plans, and Recreation Opportunity Class 

Mapping for both winter and summer. The prescription maps do not address 

motorized/non-motorized activities. 

179. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit grazing in Management 

Prescription Category 3 where there is a gross negative impact. 

Response 179: Capability and Suitability for livestock grazing is based on criteria 

described in FEIS Appendix B9. The only Prescription that inherently is classified 

as not suited for livestock grazing is 2.4 Research Natural Areas. Specific areas of 

land that are in unsatisfactory condition were removed from the suitable for grazing 

land base in Alternatives 1,2,6, and 7. These lands occur in Prescription Category 3 

as well as other prescriptions so there was no way to tie suitability based on this 

criterion directly to a Prescription Category. The remainder of the Allotments in 

which these unsatisfactory condition lands occur is still classified as suitable for 

livestock grazing. 

180. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should omit the word “generally” from 

Management Prescription Category 4.2. with regard to non-motorized emphasis. 

 Response: This has been done. 

181. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify what is permitted under 

management prescription categories. 

 Response: In the Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4.A.5 Management Prescriptions 

have been edited for clarity and Standards and Guidelines have been added to 

clarify the intentions for each of the allowed activities. 

182. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should redefine Management Prescription 

Categories 3.1 and 3.2. 

 Response: The request to redefine these Categories so that they prohibit road 

construction, motorized recreation, and recreational development is already 

displayed and analyzed in the FEIS in Alternatives 1,2,3, and 6. In Alternative 7, 

Category 3 Prescriptions have been further subdivided to include areas where these 

activities are allowed and not allowed. See FEIS Chapter 2 Alternatives and 

Allowed Activities Tables. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 70 

183. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify the status of Management 

Prescription Category 7.0. 

 Response: The status of Prescription Category 7 is explained and clarified in the 

Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4.A.5. 

184. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should define the difference between 

Management Prescription Categories 2.6 and 4.1. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan provides descriptions of these Prescription 

Categories in Chapter 4.A.5. Key differences are now highlighted with standards 

and guidelines. 2.6 does not allow vegetation/fuel treatments nor new trail 

construction, but does allow summer motorized recreation on designated routes 

while 4.1 does allow vegetation/fuel treatment, and new trail construction, but does 

not allow summer motorized recreation. 

Management Prescription Category Allocations – Roadless/Proposed Wilderness 

Areas 

185. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should assign more protective 

management prescription categories to all roadless acres. 

185.1 By utilizing Management Prescription Category 2.6 

185.2 By utilizing Management Prescription Categories 1.5 or 2.6. 

185.3 By utilizing Management Prescription Categories 2.4-2.7 

185.4 By utilizing Management Prescription Categories 2.6 or 4.1

 Response: FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 5, under the heading “Management Prescriptions 

and effects on roadless values” provides an evaluation of the degree to which 

roadless areas are protected by alternative through assignment of Prescription 

Categories- see Table RW-9. The range of alternatives evaluated each provide 

varying degrees of protection. 

186. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use non-timber yielding 

management prescription categories in roadless areas. 

 Response: Alternatives 1,2, and 6 do not allow timber harvest in roadless areas. 

Management Prescription Category Allocations – Site-Specific Requests 

Cache Box Elder Management Area 

187. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for Water Canyon to Management Prescription 

Category 1.5. 

 Response: See response 188. 

188. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for Green Canyon to Management Prescription 

Category 1.1 or 1.2 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 71 

 Response: Alternative 1 places the 1.5 prescription in Green Canyon (except the 

canyon bottom which is not qualified for Wilderness because of water 

development). Categories 1.1 and 1.2 are only applied to already Congressionally 

designated wildernesses not areas being recommended. 

189. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the boundary of 

Management Prescription Category 4.3 in Green Canyon. 

 Response: The boundary of this prescription was placed specifically to incorporate 

the recreational uses there now with the remainder of the area emphasizing 

watershed (3.1). Should the proposed development take place in the mouth of the 

canyon and dispersed camping discontinued in the upper portion, the prescription 

map could be changed and the Forest Plan amended to reflect that site-specific 

decision. 

 

190. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories in Mount Naomi Wilderness to Management 

Prescription Category 1.1 

 Response: Category 1.1 is by definition an “unmodified natural environment”. 

Alternatives 1,2,3, and 5 show all areas within Mount Naomi Wilderness except 

existing trails (which cannot qualify as 1.1) as a 1.1 Prescription. 

 

191. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Mount Naomi Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Portions of the specific suggestions for this IRA are encompassed by 

the 7 Alternatives in the FEIS however none are exactly as suggested. Alternative 7 

uses 2.6 rather than the suggested 3.1, providing additional protection of not only 

watershed but roadless area values. Alternative 3 uses 6.1 for a portion though not 

all of the area consistent with this suggestion. There are an very large number of 

combinations of alternative prescription arrangements possible. The range of the 7 

Alternatives analyzed in the FEIS provides for disclosure of the spectrum, although 

not all potential prescription combinations, of options for this roadless area. 

192. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories for the Mount Naomi area by Utilizing Management 

Prescription Category 2.6 

 Response: Alternative 7 does this. 

193. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for the Mount Naomi area. 

193.1 To Management Prescription Category 1.5 

193.2 To Management Prescription Category 4.1

 Response: Alternatives 1,4, and 3 apply these Prescriptions and disclose the effects 

of this on the Mount Naomi roadless area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 72 

194. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt the management 

prescription categories proposed in Alternative 1 for the Logan Canyon and 

Mount Naomi areas. 

 Response: See Response 153. 

195. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for the area surrounding White Pine Lake to 

Management Prescription Category 1.5 

 Response: Alternative 1 does this and discloses the effects. 

196. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Gibson Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternative 3 applies the suggested 5.1/6.1 Prescription to this area. 

This allows for the suggested roading, timber harvest, and trail construction. All 

alternatives allow for road reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource impacts. 

Suggestions about future motorized routes in this area can be considered during 

Travel Management Plan updates. See the Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4.A.6 for a 

discussion of the relationship between Recreation Opportunity Class mapping and 

Travel Management Planning. 

197. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Temple Peak Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternative 5 applies the suggested 5.2/6.2 Prescription to this area. 

This allows for the suggested roading, timber harvest, and trail construction. All 

alternatives allow for road reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource impacts. 

Suggestions about future motorized routes in this area can be considered during 

Travel Management Plan updates. See the Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4.A.6 for a 

discussion of the relationship between Recreation Opportunity Class mapping and 

Travel Management Planning. The suggestion for winter motorized is displayed in 

Alternative 3.

198. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Right Hand Fork Logan Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternative 3 applies the suggested 5.1/6.1 Prescription to this area, 

which also allows for the suggested roading, timber harvest, and trail construction. 

All alternatives allow for road reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource 

impacts. Suggestions about future motorized routes in this area can be considered 

during Travel Management Plan updates. See the Revised Forest Plan Chapter 

4.A.6 for a discussion of the relationship between Recreation Opportunity Class 

mapping and Travel Management Planning. The suggestion for winter motorized is 

displayed in Alternatives 3 and 5. 

199. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories in the Mount Logan area by utilizing Management 

Prescription Categories 3.1/3.2 

 Response: Alternative 7 does this. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 73 

200. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Mount Logan (West) Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternatives 3 and 7 apply the suggested 3.2 Prescription and ROS of 

SPNM; however, neither allows for the suggested timber harvest and roading. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 apply prescriptions that allow these. All alternatives allow for 

road reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource impacts. 

201. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Mount Logan (South) Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternative 3 applies the suggested 3.2 Prescription and Alternatives 4 

and 5 apply a 6.2 (rather than 5.1/6.1) providing for a spectrum of options in this 

area though not exactly the Prescriptions suggested. This spectrum allows for the 

suggested roading and timber harvest. All alternatives allow for road 

reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource impacts. Suggested ROS is partially 

though not entirely encompasses by Alternatives 5 and 7. New trail construction is 

allowed in Alternatives 7,6,5, and 4. Additional suggestions about future motorized 

routes in this area can be considered during Travel Management Plan updates. See 

the Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4.A.6 for a discussion of the relationship between 

Recreation Opportunity Class mapping and Travel Management Planning. The 

suggestion for winter motorized is displayed in Alternative 3. 

 

202. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories in Logan Canyon. 

202.1 To Management Prescription Category 1.5

 Response: Alternatives 1 and 2 display this option for the area. 

202.2 To a 3.x Management Prescription Category 

 Response: None of the Alternatives apply the suggested Prescription to this area 

although the 2.6 Prescription applied in Alternative 7 provides for the watershed 

protection but with less flexibility than a 3.0 Prescription and more than the 1.5 

from which the respondent wanted to see a change. 

203. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Mahogany Range Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternatives 3,6, and 7 apply the suggested 3.2 Prescription to this area 

however these Alternatives do not allow for the suggested roading and timber 

harvest. Alternatives 4 and 5 apply prescriptions that do allow for these activities. 

All alternatives allow for road reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource 

impacts. None of the Alternatives has this area as SPM for summer but Alternative 

4 does apply Roaded Natural. Suggestions about future motorized routes in this 

area can be considered during Travel Management Plan updates. See the Revised 

Forest Plan Chapter 4.A.6 for a discussion of the relationship between Recreation 

Opportunity Class mapping and Travel Management Planning. The suggested 

Winter Non-motorized class is applied to this area in Alternatives 1,2,6, and7. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 74 

204. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Boulder Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternatives 4 and 5 apply the suggested 5.2/6/2 Prescription to this 

area allowing the suggested roading, timber harvest, and new trail construction. All 

alternatives allow for road reconstruction/realignment to reduce resource impacts. 

None of the Alternatives has this entire area as SPM for summer but Alternative 4 

does apply Roaded Natural. Suggestions about future motorized routes in this area 

can be considered during Travel Management Plan updates. See the Revised Forest 

Plan Chapter 4.A.6 for a discussion of the relationship between Recreation 

Opportunity Class mapping and Travel Management Planning. Alternatives 3,4,5,6 

and 7 apply the suggested Winter Motorized class to this area. 

205. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories south of Hardware Ranch. 

205.1 By utilizing Management Prescription Category 2.4 

205.2 By utilizing Management Prescription Category 3.1/3.2

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views in support of these Prescriptions 

applied in this area in DEIS Alternative 6. All views were carefully considered 

during development and evaluation of the existing Alternatives. 

206. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories in the Wellsville Mountains by utilizing Management 

Prescription Category 3.2. 

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views in support of this Prescription 

applied to this area in DEIS Alternative 6. All views were carefully considered 

during development and evaluation of the existing Alternatives. 

207. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories in the Wellsville Mountains to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5 

 Response: Alternative 1 applies Prescription 1.5 to the suggested parcel at the 

northern end of the Wellsville Mountains. Either this or the 3.2 applied in other 

alternatives can provide needed spring protection for wildlife. 

208. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories for the Northern Central Bear River Range by utilizing 

Management Prescription Category 3.2 

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views in support of this Prescription 

applied to this area in DEIS Alternative 6. All views were carefully considered 

during evaluation of the existing Alternatives and development of Alternative 7. 

209. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for the Northern Central Bear River Range to 

Management Prescription Categories 3.1 and 2.1-2.3 

 Response: FEIS Alternative 7 applies Prescription 3.1A to all streams with known 

populations of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout. Suggested Prescriptions 2.1-2.3 have 

not been applied to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest at this time because no 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 75 

suitability determination has been completed for Wild and Scenic River 

designation. Beaver Creek was found eligible in the inventory but until such time 

as a suitability analysis is completed, the Wild and Scenic Prescriptions will not be 

applied. 

210. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories on the Mid Bear River Range. 

210.1 By utilizing Management Prescription Category 3.1/3.2 

210.2 By utilizing Management Prescription Category 2.5

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views in support of these Prescriptions 

applied to these areas in DEIS Alternative 6. All views were carefully considered 

during evaluation of the existing Alternatives and development of Alternative 7. 

211. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories on the Mid Bear River Range to Management 

Prescription Category 3.1/3.2. 

 Response: Alternative 2 applies the suggested Prescriptions to this area displaying 

the effects of this option in the FEIS. 

212. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories in Dry Canyon to Management Prescription Category 

1.5. 

 Response: None of the Alternatives applies a 1.5 Prescription to the Mount Logan 

North Roadless Area. Alternative 1 was developed to reflect one end of the 

spectrum of wilderness recommendations but even it does not recommend all 

roadless areas. Given the existing motorized road and trail intrusions in this area as 

well as the proximity of the already designated Mt. Naomi and Wellsville Mountain 

Wildernesses, this area was not included in the range of alternatives. 

213. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for the Mount Watson area to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5. 

 Response: Alternatives 1 and 2 apply Prescription 1.5 to this area displaying the 

effects of this option in the FEIS. 

North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area 

214. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories for the Upper South Fork Ogden River to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5. 

 Response: See Response 208. 

215. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for Upper South Fork Ogden River to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5. 

 Response: See Response 208. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 76 

216. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in the Burch Creek area to Management Prescription 

Category 4.2 or 4.5. 

 Response: Alternative 5 applies Prescription 4.4 which allows new recreation 

development such as the suggested gondola. 

217. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for the Francis Inventoried Roadless Area to 

Management Prescription Category 2.6. 

 Response: Alternative 2 applies this prescription to the area and displays the 

effects of this option in the FEIS. 

218. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in the Wheeler Creek area. 

218.1 To Management Prescription Category 2.6

 Response: Alternative 7 applies Prescription 3.1W to this area. Prescription 3.1W 

does not allow road construction or recreation development regardless of whether 

the area is inventoried roadless. 

218.2 To Management Prescription Categories 3.1/3.2 

 Response: The sliver of Prescription 4.5 along the old Snow Basin Road which 

was of concern to this respondent has been removed in Alternative 7 and the 

suggested Prescription 3.1 applied to this area. 

219. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in the Morgan/Davis county line area to Management 

Prescription Category 2.6. 

 Response: Alternative 2 applies the suggested prescription. Concern about 

motorized uses in the area, both summer and winter is better addressed with 

Recreation mapping rather than Prescription Categories. 

Central Wasatch/Tri-Canyon Area 

220. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement proposed management 

prescription categories in the Tri-Canyon area by utilizing Management 

Prescription Category 4.5 

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views in support of this Prescription 

applied to this area in DEIS Alternative 6. All views were carefully considered 

during evaluation of the existing Alternatives and development of Alternative 7. 

 

221. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management prescription 

categories in the Tri-Canyon area. 

221.1 To Management Prescription Category 1.5

 Response: Alternatives 1 and 2 do this and display the effects of this option in the 

FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 77 

221.2 To Management Prescription Category 2.6 

 Response: Alternative 2 applies a 2.7 Prescription to this area with very similar 

effects to a 2.6 application although the specific direction to protect the Special 

Area (2.7) values would still need to be developed under this Alternative 

221.2 To Management prescription Category 4.5 

 Response: As suggested, all Alternatives apply Prescription 4.5 to the existing ski 

area permit boundaries. 

222. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reassess its designation for Little 

Cottonwood Creek. 

 Response: The Management Prescription applied to Little Cottonwood Creek is 3.1 

in Alternatives 1-6 and 3.1A in Alternative 7 emphasizing aquatic habitat and 

watershed values. All management prescriptions in the Revised Forest Plan apply 

ONLY to National Forest System lands. Private and other ownerships are shown in 

gray on maps and are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and the 

Forest Plan. 

 

223. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management prescription 

categories for Mount Aire.3 

223.1 To Management Prescription Category 1.5

 Response: Alternative 1 applies the suggested Prescription 1.5 to this area and 

displays the effects of this option in the FEIS. 

223.2 To Management Prescription Category 4.1 

 Response: Alternative 3 applies the suggested Prescription 4.1 to this area and 

displays the effects of this option in the FEIS. 

224. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement the proposed 

management prescription category for Cardiff Fork, Big Cottonwood Canyon 

by utilizing Management Prescription Category 4.1. 

 Response: Alternative 3 applies the suggested Prescription 4.1 to this area and 

displays the effects of this option in the FEIS, however concerns about motorized 

recreation are not completely addressed by Prescriptions. The Recreation 

Opportunity Maps (both summer and winter) and Travel Management Plans 

provide direction for recreation and access. The word “generally” has been 

removed from the description of Prescription 4.2 in reference to non-motorized 

designation. 

225. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management prescription 

categories for White Pine Canyon to Management Prescription Category 4.5. 

 Response: Alternative 5 applies the suggested prescription to this area. Other 

Alternatives applying Prescription 4.1 do not allow new recreation development but 

do allow new trail construction which might allow for limited expansion of the 

adjacent ski area. Alternative 7 applies prescription 2.6 which does not allow either 

new recreation development or new trail construction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 78 

226. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management prescription 

categories for Mill D North Trail to Management Prescription Category 2.6. 

 Response: To provide the watershed protection emphasis you stated, we have 

identified this area as 3.1W for watershed emphasis. This better fits your concern 

than a 2.6 management prescription.

227. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in east Mill D North to 2.6 to accommodate continued 

mountain bike access. 

 Response: All Alternatives with the exception of Alternative 1 allow mountain 

bike access in this area. 

Bear Management Area 

228. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management direction for 

the Swan Creek Inventoried Roadless Area. 

 Response: Alternatives 4 and 5 apply the suggested 5.2/6.2 Prescriptions to this 

area, which also allows for the suggested roading, timber harvest, and trail 

construction. All alternatives allow for road reconstruction/realignment to reduce 

resource impacts. Alternative 5 also applies the suggested Summer ROS SPM and 

Winter Motorized Classes for the area. Suggestions about future motorized routes 

in this area can be considered during Travel Management Plan updates. See the 

Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4.A.6 for a discussion of the relationship between 

Recreation Opportunity Class mapping and Travel Management Planning. 

229. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement the proposed 

management prescription categories in Garden City Canyon by utilizing 

Management Prescription Category 3.2. 

 Response: Thank you for expressing your views in support of this Prescription 

applied to this area in DEIS Alternative 6. All views were carefully considered 

during evaluation of the existing Alternatives and development of the Alternative 7. 

230. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the proposed management 

prescription categories for Garden City Canyon to Management Prescription 

Category 2.7. 

 Response: Without a specific set of reasons why this Canyon should be designated 

a Special Interest Area, the 7 Alternatives do not include this Prescription applied to 

this area. Alternative 1 does apply Prescription 2.6 which has maximum protection 

for the area short of wilderness designation. 

231. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement the proposed 

management prescription categories near Bear Lake Overlake to Management 

Prescription Category 2.5. 

 Response: See Response 229. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 79 

232. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement the proposed 

management prescription categories south of Highway 89 by utilizing 

Management Prescription Category 5.1. 

 Response: See Response 229. 

Stansbury Mountains 

233. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category on lands north and south of the existing Deseret Peak 

Wilderness to Management prescription Category 1.5. 

Response: Alternatives 1 and 2 apply the suggested Prescription to this area and 

display the effects of this option in the FEIS. 

Uinta Mountains 

234. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in the Uinta Mountains 

234.1 To Management Prescription Category 1.5. 

 Response: Alternative 1 applies the suggested Prescription to most of the area and 

Alternative 2 applies it to some of the area with both of these Alternatives 

displaying the effects of these options in the FEIS. 

234.2 To Management Prescription Categories 2.6 or 4.1 

 Response: Alternatives 2,3,and to a lesser degree 6 and 7 apply these Prescriptions 

to parts (mainly upper adjacent to existing Wilderness) but not all of the suggested 

area down to the trailheads. Alternative 2 provides the best display of effects of this 

option in the FEIS. 

235. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in the Lakes backcountry to Management Prescription 

Category 1.5. 

 Response: Alternative 1 applies the suggested Prescription to all and Alternative 2 

to most of the area and effects are displayed in the FEIS. 

236. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category for Boundary Creek to Management Prescription 

Category 1.5. 

 Response: Alternative 1 applies the suggested Prescription to this area and 

displays the effects of this option in the FEIS. 

237. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in Middle Fork Blacks Fork to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5. 

 Response: See Response 236. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 80 

238. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category in Hayden Fork and Upper Main Fork to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5. 

 Response: See Response 236. 

239. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the management 

prescription category for Black’s Fork and Henry’s Fork to Management 

Prescription Category 1.5. 

Response: The boundaries of the 1.5 Prescription for these two areas were drawn 

based on the inventoried roadless area boundary that excludes existing roads. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum General 

240. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain how roadless areas can 

include roaded natural, rural, and urban Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

categories. 

Response: See appendix B-6 for definitions of the physical setting and the criteria 

used to establish evidence of humans, size, and remoteness. In some instances the 

remoteness or size criteria will delineate ROS categories that overlap inventoried 

roadless areas because of a buffer from an adjacent motorized road. In these cases 

the user experience is being affected by the adjacent activities such as motorized 

use or communities. 

241. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add more semi-primitive 

motorized areas. Page 3-31, Content Analysis. 

Response: See FEIS, Chapter 2 / Elements Common to All Alternatives / Past 

Decisions Not Being Revisited in Plan Revision / Travel Management Planning, 

“Although this forest plan revision addresses winter motorized use, the designated 

routes open for summer motorized use remain in place consistent with current 

Travel Plans for all alternatives.” Although, ROS categories identify areas on the 

maps it does not mean that the entire area is open to motorized use, it means that an 

area is being affected by motorized use. Motorized use should occur on designated 

motorized travel routes only. 

See Table 12.2 Comparision of Miles of Motorized Travel ways by ROS Category, 

FEIS, Chapter 3 / Topic 4 Recreation and Scenery Management, Environmental 

Consequences, Dispersed Recreation – Summer. 

242. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that semi-primitive nonmotorized designations can be impacted by motorized designations on adjacent 

lands from the noise. 

Response: See Appendix B – 6 for remoteness and size criteria. 

Because of the capability of the existing GIS layers available at the time of the 

planning process a standard distance criteria was used for remoteness buffers. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 81 

buffer distance was not modified to conform to natural barriers topography and 

vegetative screening, or other relevant features of local topographic relief and 

vegetative cover using GIS for the existing condition mapping. In some 

alternatives, District personnel did make modifications to the buffer based on 

personal knowledge or hard copy mapped data. See appendix B-6 Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum and Winter Recreation Existing Condition and Alternative 

Mapping Process. Since the beginning of the planning process more updated layers 

have been developed for vegetation, and topography. This information will be 

incorporated into the final selected management direction. 

243. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop four winter recreation 

classes: wilderness, non-motorized, motorized, and motorized heli-ski to allow 

development of more accurate travel plan maps. 

Response: We agree see appendix B–6, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Winter Recreation Existing Condition and Alternative Mapping Process. 

244. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change management prescriptions 

and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum determinations. 

Response: See Appendix B6 ROS process and Appendix B-5 for MPC process. 

244.1 So that managers can manage the current and future demand for 

motorized recreation. 

Response: See FEIS, Chapter 2 / Elements Common to All Alternatives / Past 

Decisions Not Being Revisited in Plan Revision / Travel Management Planning, 

“Although this forest plan revision addresses winter motorized use, the designated 

routes open for summer motorized use remain in place consistent with current 

Travel Plans for all alternatives.” Except for Alternatives 1 and 2 where the 

Roadless rule was applied and motorized routes were affected. Since travel 

management planning did not occur during the plan revision motorized ROS 

classifications where only applied to motorized travel ways. As District Travel 

Management Plans are updated in the upcoming planning period, ROS 

classification may need to be amended to reflect the decision made there. 

244.2 By not using roadless area boundaries for determining Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum categories. 

Response: Roadless area boundaries were not used to delineate ROS 

classifications in any of the alternatives. In alternatives that applied the roadless 

rule or MPC 1.5 motorized travel ways were converted from SPM to SPNM. If 

adjacent polygons were SPNM, buffer lines created by the SPM were dropped 

creating a larger polygon of SPNM that could seem to appear to follow Roadless 

area boundaries. 

245. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the applicability of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum to mountain biking because mountain 

biking has increased in popularity since the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

was created. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 82 

Response: The ROS system was developed in the 1980’s. Nationally the system is 

in the process of being updated to recognize new technologies and their effects on 

the recreation experience. Although, mountain biking trails are identified, (see 

table REC-7) ROS does not add or eliminate mountain biking use on travel ways 

the District travel management plan address mountain bike use on travel ways. 

 

246. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum designations in Green Canyon. 

Response: See response to comment 241 and appendix B-6 description of ROS 

process. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Site-Specific Designations 

247. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should give some areas a summer 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum designation of semi-primitive motorized. 

247.1 All Roadless Areas 

247.2 Certain areas in the Logan Ranger District.

Response: All alternatives have areas of SPM, see table REC-11. 

248. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reallocate the area north of the 

High Uintas Wilderness to a winter use that is open to over-the-snow vehicles, 

seasonally, from December 1 to May 1. 

Response: For motorized winter recreation the area north of the High Uinta 

Wilderness is considered as open in Alternative 5. See Winter Recreation maps 

Alternative 5. 

249. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should apply or extend semi-primitive 

motorized corridors to trails. 

Response: See response to comment concern statement 241. 

249.1 For Alternative 1 on the logan Ranger District, Richards Hollow, Seep 

Hollow and Cart Hollow Trails. 

Response: We agree the change has been made to the ROS map of Alternative 1. 

249.2 For Alternative 2 on the Logan Ranger District, Richards Hollow, Seep 

Hollow and Cart Hollow Trails 

Response: We agree the change has been made to the ROS map of Alternative 2. 

249.3 For Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 on the Logan Ranger District, Sink 

Hollow Trail 

Response: We agree the change has been made to the ROS maps of Alternative 1, 

2, 3, 5, and 6 on the Logan Ranger District. 

249.4 For Alternative 1 on the Ogden Ranger District, Skyline Trail from 

North Ogden Pass 

Response: We agree the change has been made to the ROS map of Alternative 1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 83 

249.5 For Alternative 2 on the Ogden Ranger District, Skyline Trail from 

North Ogden Pass 

Response: We agree the change has been made to the ROS map of Alternative 2. 

249.6 For Alternative 6 on the Ogden Ranger District, Skyline Trail from 

North Ogden Pass, 

Response: We agree the change has been made to the ROS map of Alternative 6. 

Affected Environment 

Environmental Values General 

Management General 

250. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should effectively manage forest lands. 

250.1 By providing balanced management 

250.2 By managing for the long term 

Response: This plan is focused on managing for the long-term by moving forested 

ecosystems toward properly functioning conditions and maintaining them into the 

future. We feel that a balance between various uses and outcomes has been an 

important factor in the development of this Forest Plan. 

251. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should preserve natural resources. 

252.1 Before excessive impacts take place 

251.2 While also balancing recreational demands 

251.3 By writing a mission statement which emphasizes protection of 

resources 

Response: We have focused on allowing activities on the Forest, while not 

adversely impacting the natural resources that occur. We have enhanced the public 

education direction in our Forest Plan. 

252. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that environmental 

damage is irreversible. 

Response: While some impacts on the forest are irreversible, especially where soil 

loss has occurred or where development of roads and infrastructure are in place, 

other impacts can be mitigated or reversed. The Forest Plan, with its focus on 

properly functioning conditions, and with recommendations for wilderness, Special 

Interest Areas, and Research Natural Area expansions, recognizes the value of the 

resources we manage. 

253. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize and respond as needed 

to natural ecological changes over given forest landscapes. 

Response: Because of our past management actions, especially fire control, many 

of the ecosystems we manage vary moderately to greatly from historic conditions 

(see Table VEG-2, Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability, Vegetation). One of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 84 

primary focuses of this plan is to move toward the historic range of variation, so 

that these ecosystems can function in a more natural state. 

254. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide protection to all 

representative natural communities. 

 Response: While most acres in wilderness areas of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest protect high elevation ecosystems, many of these areas range in elevation 

and protect a variety of plant communities and wildlife habitat. The Deseret Peak 

Wilderness Area ranges in elevation from near the bottom of Skull Valley up to 

Deseret Peak and includes various varieties of sagebrush as well as pinyon-juniper 

as well as Douglas-fir and limber pine and bristlecone pine. The Wellsville 

Wilderness Area ranges in elevation from near the valley floors in Cache Valley to 

the east and near Brigham City and Honeyville to the west. Juniper, maple, and 

sagebrush communities, as well as Douglas-fir and aspen communities are present. 

This plan proposes one new wilderness area near Causey Reservoir that includes a 

variety of elevations and no alpine areas. In addition, we are including an extension 

of the Morris Creek Research Natural Area east of Farmington, Utah that would 

include oak and mahogany communities at lower elevations, to Douglas-fir, aspen, 

and subalpine fir communities at the upper elevation. The Logan Canyon Special 

Interest Area, which is proposed because of its botanical resources (primarily rare 

plants, but also Douglas-fir, maple and juniper communities). Existing Research 

Natural Areas (Red Butte and Mollens Hollow) are primarily mid- to low-elevation 

ecosystems and provide additional protection. 

255. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue the current forest 

management system because forest health has improved under the current 

plan. 

Response: While some characteristics of the Forest have quite clearly improved, 

some ecosystems are still far from functioning properly. Fire controls, historic 

livestock grazing, and some past timber harvest techniques pushed conditions far 

away from those that occurred historically. This plan focuses on moving more 

closely toward properly functioning conditions. 

256. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that roadless areas and 

watersheds are sufficiently protected under the proposed plan. 

Response: We have added new analysis of each roadless area (Appendix C) and 

feel that under this proposed plan that we have focused on varying levels of 

protection and the different values of each roadless area. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

257. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify its criteria for range and 

watershed condition improvement. 

 Response: The criteria for range improvement (ground cover, desired conditions, 

and rate of improvement) are included in the 1998 Rangeland Health Amendment, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 85 

which is carried forward in this plan. Because of the various resource values and 

economic effects, Alternative 2, was not chosen as the preferred alternative. 

Funding 

258. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not use lack of funding as a 

justification for inadequate resource protection. 

 Response: While inadequate resource protection is undesirable, the Forest cannot 

control the amounts and kinds of funding we receive each year. We are required by 

law to work as funded.

Protection of Specific Areas 

259. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect the Tri-Canyon area to 

preserve solitude. 

Response: Demands on the Tri-Canyon area are indeed intense and diverse. 

Comments on the Draft Preferred Alternative (6) caused us to reexamine the 

management direction developed for this area and to strengthen protection. 

Alternative 7 applies a 3.1w watershed emphasis management prescription to much 

of the non-wilderness, non-ski resort areas of the canyons. This prescription 

includes standards and guidelines that limit activities to protect watersheds which in 

turn provides for wildlife needs. The Revised Plan also has an Objective to 

emphasize education with a focus area on watershed protection so we can engage 

forest users in conserving this resource. The Revised Plan allows no new ski 

resorts and no ski resort boundary expansions during the planning period (10-15 

years). The matter of solitude and human crowding is a difficult one given the 

proximity to the urban population of the Wasatch Front. Recreation opportunity 

classes have been mapped for the area and include semi-primitive non-motorized 

areas. These have user density numbers defined as thresholds. The monitoring 

strategy for these areas is to monitor user densities and when thresholds are 

approached, to initiate a public process for determining whether and how to limit 

user numbers. 

260. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect non-ski area lands in the 

Tri-Canyon area to balance ski resort development. 

Response: See response 259. 

261. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect the Uinta Mountains. 

Response: The FEIS displayed a range of alternatives and their expected 

consequences for the Uinta Mountains. Alternative 7 places management 

prescriptions to allow for some types of uses and development in certain areas while 

protecting other areas from any type of development. Some of the lower elevation 

lands in the Uinta Mountains are managed for timber production and oil and gas 

leasing, much is managed for backcountry recreation uses and wildlife habitat 

protection. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 86 

262. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect the Mount Watson 

wilderness for future generations. 

Response: The range of alternatives considers varying degrees of protection for 

this area. Alternative 7 protects this area through application of management 

prescriptions 1.5 and 2.6 neither of which allow any development. 

263. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a management plan for 

Millcreek Canyon. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan puts in place broad management direction 

including mapped management prescriptions, recreation opportunity maps, and a 

desired future condition description for the Central Wasatch Management Area 

which includes Mill Creek Canyon. However, given that the plan must address the 

entire Wasatch-cache National Forest, it does not provide for very detailed and 

specific items for Mill Creek. Such a plan would need to be developed locally and 

that plan could be guided by the direction of the Revised Forest Plan. 

Effects of Activities/Disturbance 

264. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit activities that damage the 

environment until it can provide adequate monitoring and enforcement. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan includes mapping of management prescriptions 

and recreation opportunities. We have tried to draw boundaries that are manageable 

and that take into account limited resources to monitor. In some cases, as we 

implement we may find that boundaries need to be adjusted to improve 

manageability and we can readily do that through amendment of the Plan. The Plan 

also sets Objectives specifically for education and enforcement with focus areas in 

OHV, user ethics, and watershed protection, and an Objective specifically to focus 

on improved management of grazing. These objectives and the desired future 

condition descriptions in the Plan emphasize gaining assistance from organized user 

groups to monitor, add enforcement presence, and improve our ability to educate 

forest users so they can assist in conserving the resources of the Forest. 

265. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce use levels to minimize 

human impacts. 

Response: Limits on numbers of people using the Forest is not directly decided by 

the Forest Plan. However, given the concerns expressed about this issue, we have 

identified some recreation opportunity classes (semi-primitive) that have user 

density thresholds. When monitoring shows we are approaching these thresholds, 

we will initiate a public process to decide whether and how to limit numbers of 

users in these areas. 

266. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prevent littering. 

 Response: While the Forest cannot prevent littering. Environmental education is 

identified under numerous subgoals within the Forest Plan. Litter prevention is one 

component of this broad program.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 87 

Ecosystem/Restoration Management 

Ecosystem/Restoration Management General 

267. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should preserve public lands in their 

natural state. 

267.1 To prevent costly mitigation 

267.2 For future generations 

267.3 For their intrinsic value 

267.4 For educational values 

Response: An important focus of this Forest Plan is to move ecosystems toward 

properly functioning conditions, while providing various goods and services. As set 

in law, the mission of the Forest Service is to achieve quality land management 

under the sustainable multiple-use management concept, rather than through 

preservation, to meet the diverse needs of people. Timber harvest, where it is 

allowed, will follow best management practices to ensure watershed protection, 

nutrient cycling, and wildlife habitat diversity. Existing and proposed wilderness 

areas will focus on the natural functioning of the ecosystems within them. Existing 

and proposed Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas will be available 

for both educational uses and for research to help us understand the functioning of 

their ecosystems. These will benefit existing as well as future generations. 

268. The final Forest Plan should redefine properly functioning ecosystems to 

reflect their dynamic nature and they should reconsider need for vegetation 

treatments. 

Response: We use the Intermountain Region definition of properly functioning as 

it relates to historical range of variation in composition, structure (age class), and 

patterns on the landscape. These systems are dynamic and do not exist in a static 

state. Because of historic management and fire protection, most of the forested and 

non-forested types are skewed more toward the older age classes. And because of 

these factors, an estimated loss of approximately 65 percent of the aspen forests to 

conifer forests has occurred (O’Brien and Pope 1997). It will require a variety of 

tools, such as prescribed fire, wildland fire use, as well as some timber harvest, to 

help these ecosystems move toward the historic range of variation. 

269. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not rely on intensive management 

to preserve forest resources. 

 Response: While the proposed plan does allow the use of timber harvest as one 

tool to help move the forested ecosystems of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

other tools such as prescribed fire and wildland fire use will do much more to help 

these ecosystems to move toward properly functioning conditions. As illustrated in 

FEIS Table VEG-3 (Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability, Vegetation) only 5 

percent of the acres treated would be treated through the use of timber harvest. 

Nearly 73 percent would be treated through prescribed fire and approximately 22 

percent would be mechanically treated (oak fuels treatment). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 88 

270. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should minimize human interference to 

preserve undeveloped lands. 

Response: We agree that one of the biggest existing challenges and one that will 

continue in the future is population growth and its effects on our resources and 

resource conditions. We recognize that humans are a component of these 

ecosystems, and we want to allow activities that sustain healthy resource conditions 

into the future. Therefore levels of use must be managed for this to occur. By 

establishing desired future conditions, goals, subgoals, and objectives we feel that 

we have laid the framework from which future management decisions can address 

these issues. 

271. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a comprehensive plan for 

ecosystem health and species viability. 

 Response: Guideline 14 in the proposed plan lists, by cover type, the landscape 

structure and patterns of “healthy” or properly functioning conditions. Table VEG4 in FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability, Vegetation identifies the 

acres of different vegetations that would be treated through various actions to help 

move these ecosystems toward these desired conditions. See R 269 for additional 

information. 

272. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address how land will be protected 

to maintain ecological function. 

 Response: The Forest Plan focuses on moving toward properly functioning 

conditions, which include composition, structure, patterns and function of various 

ecosystems at a broad scale. The means to achieve and maintain ecological 

function are outlined through desired conditions, goals, subgoals, standards, and 

guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan. 

273. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider noise pollution, erosion, 

and safety when protecting ecosystems. 

 Response: We have not addressed noise pollution in this Forest Plan, but 

watershed protection is one of the factors we have addressed through a Watershed 

Health Goal, various subgoals, standards and guidelines. Human safety remains 

foremost in our concerns with users on the Forest. 

274. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should define the term “ecological 

legacies.” 

 Response: The term “ecological legacies” has been added to the Forest Plan 

glossary. 

Restoration 

275. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect and restore ecological 

integrity. 

275.1 To offset the impacts of development on surrounding lands 

275.2 To ensure clean water, clean air, and temperature management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 89 

275.3 For their intrinsic value 

275.4 By restoring degraded and damaged areas 

Response: The direction provided in this Forest Plan puts primary focus on 

Properly Functioning Conditions of ecosystems across the Forest. We have taken 

into consideration, actions that occur on adjacent lands (federal, state, private, etc.) 

and viewed the role that this Forest plays in the context of surrounding land uses. 

The plan includes Forestwide direction (desired future conditions, goals and 

subgoals, objectives, and standards and guidelines) on managing the biological 

(plant and animal), physical (soil and water) and social resources that occur on the 

Forest. Restoration is integrated throughout management direction for many 

resources. 

276. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should aggressively restore the historic 

range of variability. 

 Response: This Forest Plan is focused on movement toward properly functioning 

conditions, which are those within the historic range of variability. 

277. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should have timber harvest workers 

perform restoration work. 

 Response: Various tools, including timber harvest, prescribed fire, and wildland 

fire use are identified as treatment methods to move various plant communities 

toward properly functioning condition. 

Effects of Activities/Disturbance 

278. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow activities only to the extent 

that they do not impair ecological integrity. 

 Response: The focus of this Forest Plan has been to move the variety of plant 

communities toward properly functioning conditions and to allow activities that 

help achieve, or that do not interfere with reaching, those desired conditions. 

279. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that fires, erosion, and 

landslides are normal. 

Response: Historically, fires, erosion and landslides occurred naturally on the 

landscape. However, because of various factors such as fire prevention many 

vegetation cover types have moved from fire condition classes 1 and 2 to condition 

classes 2 and 3, respectively (FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 10 – Fire Management). 

There has been an increase in fuels to carry fires beyond their historic frequency 

and intensity. And because of increased human access, unnatural fire starts are 

more common. Various uses such as historical overgrazing and various early 

management actions have resulted in accelerated erosion and landslides that are 

outside the historic range of variation. 

Active Management 

280. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow active forest management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 90 

280.1 To preserve forest health 

280.2 To achieve an increase in water yield 

280.3 To achieve multiple use objectives 

280.4 To address the issue of carbon sequestration 

280.5 To ensure firefighter safety 

Response: Active management is proposed to help improve forest health by 

moving various ecosystems toward properly functioning conditions, including a 

broader array of age class diversity among the different forested types. A result of 

this will likely be an increase in water yield where conifer communities are replaced 

by aspen. This management will allow for a broader compliment of habitat for 

wildlife, forest health, as well as forest products. Forest wide subgoals, and 

guidelines for large or coarse woody materials to provide for habitat and nutrient 

cycling are included in the Plan. More age class diversity within the forested types 

will reduce fire intensity and help to reduce the need for firefighters. 

Multiple Use Management 

Multiple Use Management General 

281. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address the impacts of 

multiple use management. 

Response 281: Impacts of multiple use management (specifically motorized uses 

in this comment) are addressed in this FEIS to the degree that they can be for the 

broad land areas and required decisions to be made in Forest Plan revision. The 

FEIS displays broad sets of effects for each resource from each type of use. For 

summer motorized travel, site-specific environmental analysis is needed to change 

current Travel Management Plans for each Ranger District. The Revised Plan 

identifies as a priority Objective (see Revised Plan Chapter 4.A.3.) the need to 

update these specifically for the Ogden, Salt Lake, and Logan Ranger Districts 

because of issues raised here. It also includes criteria to be used during Travel 

Management Planning. In addition, the issue of education and enforcement was 

heard by the Forest Service and the Revised Plan sets specific priority Objectives 

for increasing these. For winter, the Revised Plan sets direction through Winter 

Recreation Class Maps to separate motorized and non-motorized uses in key areas 

in order to reduce conflicts between users and protect areas of critical big game 

winter ranges. 

282. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the proposed Forest 

Plan allows for balanced recreation and multiple use. 

Response 282: Thank you for expressing your support of the Proposed Forest Plan 

as an attempt to balance many competing uses. 

283. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the multiple use 

mandate has been met because there are enough areas that provide motorized 

use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 91 

Response 283: The range of alternatives in this FEIS provides for display of the 

differing effects of various options for winter motorized and non-motorized use 

areas. We believe the multiple use mandate has been met. Alternative 7 attempts to 

achieve some balance while providing for the growing demands for each type of 

use. Travel Management Plans provide the details of routes designated as open to 

motorized uses in summer. These are reflected as they currently exist in Recreation 

Opportunity Class Maps for the Revised Forest Plan. Based on many concerns 

about the adequacy of Travel Plans for some Ranger Districts, the Revised Plan 

includes a priority Objective to update these Plans as well as an Objective to 

increase education and enforcement. 

284. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize the cumulative impact of 

lost multiple use and recreation opportunities. 

Response 284: The FEIS addresses closure of roads in Chapter 3, Topic 3, under 

the heading “Road Maintenance and Decommissioning”. The effect of this on 

recreation and access is addressed in the FEIS in Chapter 3, Topic 4, under the 

heading “Effects on Recreation from Roads and Access Management.” 

285. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the social, economic, and 

fairness issues related to exclusive use management. 

Response 285: The FEIS addresses the wide range of views about how the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest should be managed through development, analysis 

and display of a broad range of “reasonable” alternatives and their effects on social 

and economic conditions as well as environmental conditions. These Alternatives 

incorporate various degrees of different uses, different types of access, and various 

levels of active management of the land and commodity production, while 

maintaining the basic productivity of that land. The degree of polarization among 

those who commented on the Plan is reflective of the wide diversity of people who 

use and care about the Forest. “Exclusive use” is not intended and is specifically 

addressed in Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4A.5. under the heading “Multiple Use 

and its application in Management Prescriptions”. The Revised Forest Plan has 

been designed to be consistent with the myriad of Laws that apply. Also, see 

Revised Forest Plan Chapter 1 for a discussion on how the Plan is guided by the 

2002 Forest Service Strategic Plan (required under the Government Performance 

and Results Act). 

Follow Traditional Multiple Use Management 

286. The final Forest Plan should include the definition of multiple use used in the 

Black Hills Forest plan. 

Response 286: The suggested definition of multiple use was clearly displayed both 

in the DEIS (Appendix D-1) and in the Proposed Plan (Chapter 4B). It is also 

displayed again in the FEIS (Appendix D-1) and in the Revised Forest Plan 

(Chapter 4.A.5). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 92 

287. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue traditional multiple use 

management. 

287.1 To comply with congressional mandates 

287.2 Because there are already enough wilderness areas 

287.3 To allow the constructive use of resources 

287.4 Because Forest Service experts are not adequately informed 

287.5 To follow the will of the public 

287.6 To prevent environmentalists from pushing their exclusive agenda 

287.7 Rather than restricting uses 

Response 287: See Response 285. 

288. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue traditional multiple use 

management for environmental reasons to achieve forest health. 

Response 288: See Response 285. 

289. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue traditional multiple use 

management for recreational purposes. 

289.1 To preserve the diversity of recreational opportunities 

289.2 To accommodate heli-skiing 

289.3 To accommodate motorized recreation 

289.4 To accommodate hunting 

289.5 To resolve use conflicts 

Response 289: Conflicts between different types of recreationists was identified 

early in the planning process as and issue that would need an array of different 

alternatives to address. Each of the 7 Alternatives included in the FEIS includes an 

explanation of how it addresses this issue. See FEIS Chapter 2 under the heading 

“Alternatives Considered in Detail” for this explanation. FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 3, 

Recreation provides a discussion of the effects of each alternative on various 

recreation uses. 

290. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue traditional multiple use 

management for social reasons. 

290.1 To protect family unity 

290.2 To preserve remaining open spaces 

290.3 To accommodate experiences for stress relief 

290.4 To provide funds for education 

290.5 To protect heritage resources 

290.6 To preserve western culture 

Response 290: See Response 285. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 93 

Topic 1: Watershed Health Management 

Soils, Water, and Geologic Resources 

Soils Management General 

291. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restore full riparian function and 

soil storage capacity to protect water quality and quantity.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The forest-wide desired condition for 

riparian areas as described under the Forestwide Desired Conditions in the revised 

Forest Plan states that riparian areas have a range of vegetative structural stages that 

are at or moving toward properly functioning condition (PFC). In this same section, 

the forest-wide desired condition is for soils have to have at least minimal 

protective ground cover, soil organic matter, and coarse woody material. It is 

expected that water quality and quantity are enhanced when riparian conditions are 

at PFC and soil productivity and quality are maintained or restored. 

292. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise soil disturbance guidelines 

to incorporate scale and environmental sensitivity. 

Response: The scale is considered in the definition of an activity area which is 

described in the Glossary and Acronyms section of the DEIS. 

293. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise the standard SI to include a 

clause based on potential soil erosion by soil classification on slopes between 20 

and 40 percent. 

Response: The scale of soil mapping on the WCNF currently does not delineate 

slope groups between 20 and 40 percent. Because of this a forest-wide standard 

would not be appropriate. Clauses based on slope are best applied when more 

detailed site-specific soil information is obtained during project level analysis. 

294. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce the standard for soil 

displacement in an activity area. 

Response: The 15 percent standard is based on an estimate of the normal amount of 

natural variability and anything greater than 15 percent is assumed to be outside of 

this range and is most likely due to man’s activity. 

295. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that maintaining 

existing soil productivity and water quality is unattainable under the proposed 

plan. 

Response: As defined in the Glossary, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 

1960 guides the management of the WCNF in that the surface resources of the 

national forests is to be utilized in a combination that will best meet the needs of the 

American people without impairment of the productivity of the land. This act and 

the regulations guiding the mission of the Forest Service recognizes that some site 

specific effects to the land and water resources may occur from multiple use 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 94 

activities but the overall productivity of the land and quality of the water is not 

degraded. 

Special Soil Communities 

296. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately consider cryptogamic 

crusts. 

Response: There is very limited information on the distribution of cryptogamic 

crusts and their role on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Additional analysis has 

been completed on the potential occurrence of, and impacts to, cryptogamic crusts 

and is included in Chapter 3, Botanical Resources. This new analysis and 

assessment identified areas of the Forest with the greatest potential for cryptogamic 

crusts and the effects from different uses in each alternative on those crusts. The 

Stansbury Mountains have the greatest potential for cryptogamic crusts because of 

the soil and vegetation characteristics. Because there is not a great difference in 

how the Stansbury Mountains are managed between alternatives with regard to 

livestock grazing and road and trail construction and subsequent unauthorized ORV 

use, there is little difference in potential impacts among alternatives to cryptogamic 

soil crusts. 

297. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should avoid disturbing tundra and talus 

soils. 

Response: Most of the alpine communities on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

occur in designated wilderness. Talus slopes can occur at any elevation, but many 

of these also occur within designated wilderness. The greatest potential for 

additional impacts is in the upper portions of ski areas on the Forest. Site-specific 

assessments and analyses of any activities in these areas will be done to determine 

their potential impacts. We agree that the alpine ecosystems are fragile and that 

they warrant greater protection than most other ecosystems on the Forest. Talus 

communities at higher elevations provide important habitat for some wildlife 

species as well and impacts to associated rare plants and animals will be avoided. 

Geologic Resources Management 

298. The Forest Plan should adequately and consistently discuss geologic units. 

298.1 By adding an appendix on geologic units

Response: We agree that geological information is important for mineral potential. 

However, for the decisions made at the Forest Plan scale, broad-scale geological 

information is used. It is the intent of the Forest Plan revision analysis to focus its 

attention on the major issues relating to Forest Planning. Detailed geological 

information is used in site-specific, project-level analysis when issues relating to 

geology are identified. 

298.2 By providing a map showing where geologic units exist 

Response: Although geology is not directly referenced in the DEIS, we relate 

occurrence of vegetation communities in terms of ecological subregions that uses 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 95 

geology as a basic foundation. For a detailed description of the geology of 

ecological subregions, see McNab and Avers (1994) that is referenced in the section 

Broad Scale North-South Coniferous Corridor in the Affected Environment section 

of Topic 2- Biodiversity and Viability of the DEIS. 

Aquatic Resources Management General 

299. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect riparian areas to preserve 

water quality. 

Response: The proposed Forest Plan protects riparian areas through the use of 

standards such as those under Standards and Guidelines for Watershed Health and 

Biodiversity and Viability. Site-specific projects and mitigation such as placing 

troughs a distance from a spring would be analyzed through a project analysis and 

is not addressed at the planning level. 

For example, in the Standards for Road/Trail and Access Management in Forest 

Management Direction section of the proposed Forest Plan, a standard states that 

‘summer motorized and mechanized access is managed on an “open on designated 

routes” basis’. This standard is carried through the more site-specific analysis for 

Ranger District Travel Plans where decisions regarding management of motor 

vehicle access and areas where motorized use is allowed are identified on specific 

areas. For example, the Salt Lake District travel plan states that all areas and routes 

are closed to motorized use unless designated as open. The travel plan allows motor 

vehicles on designated roads and trails, but not off of these routes, thereby 

protecting riparian areas. The Standards for Road/Trail and Access Management in 

Forest Management Direction section of the proposed Forest Plan, also provides 

protection for riparian areas through the use of Best Management Practices during 

construction and maintenance of roads, trails, and facilities. 

Water Quality 

300. The Forest Plan should state that the Forest Service will not impose more 

regulations regarding water quality than are already legally imposed by Salt 

Lake City.

Response: The WCNF recognizes the states of Utah and Wyoming has regulatory 

authority over water quality within the respective states. Although the WCNF is 

not considering imposing more stringent or inconsistent regulations regarding water 

quality, we don’t feel that we need to explicitly state this. 

301. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide reference to more 

information on aquatic resources and water quality conditions and trends, 

including streams that are impaired and/or in need of improvement.

Response: In addition to listing state assessed impaired water bodies under the 

section Water Quality in Topic 1, Watershed Health of the DEIS, watersheds 

containing resource concerns are listed in the section Watershed Condition 

Assessment that include streams that need improvement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 96 

302. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect water quality from nitro 

aromatic compounds. 

Response: On 04/10/2002, Charles Condrat, WCNF hydrologist talked to Ryan 

Rowland and Dave Naftz of the US Geological Survey regarding the nitroaromatic 

compound (NAC) study. They said the work done was a preliminary study that 

sampled NAC s in snow, soil, and lake sediments. He said that the snow and soil 

samples contained measureable amounts of NACs but not NACs were found in lake 

sediments. They said the study has a very small amount of data and that there is not 

enough information in which to set standards. Since there is very little data to 

support setting standards, standards for NACs in the Forest Plan would not be 

appropriate. 

303. The final Forest Plan should include critical nitrogen load standards, based on 

research protocols developed for Colorado wilderness areas. 

Response: The WCNF has a water quality monitoring program in cooperation with 

the State of Utah as described in the Water Quality section on Topic 1, Watershed 

Health of the FEIS. Nitrogen is one of the parameters analyzed in the water quality 

monitoring program and has not been found to exceed State standards in water 

bodies sampled on the WCNF. Setting critical load standards for nitrogen is not 

needed on the WCNF at this time. 

304. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize the negative effects of 

sediment on the treatment of surface water. 

Response: The WCNF has a cooperative water quality program with the State of 

Utah and samples are analyzed for sediment. Turbidity measurements have been 

effective for monitoring site-specific projects. For forest planning, water quality is 

assessed at a broad scale in order to plan actions to protect, maintain, or improve 

water quality. 

305. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address the issue of 

sewage spills into drinking water. 

Response: In response to your comment, Florence Reynolds, water quality 

administrator for Salt Lake City (SLC), was contacted regarding sewage overflows 

that have occurred in the sewer systems in the canyons east of SLC. Florence said 

that since sewer systems have been operating, SLC has had two sewage overflows 

that were caused by ground surface activities near the sewer lines. Both were 

caused by dirt and gravel dumped into the sewer that caused a backup of sewage. 

The sewage overflows were caused by a construction project and by road 

maintenance. SLC water treatment plant was shut down immediately after being 

notified of the spills and operations resumed after the potential for contamination of 

the treatment plant had passed. The pipe itself is in good condition but it is other 

activities that have affected the sewer. Water quality has been very good before and 

after the sewer was installed in spite of the increase in the use and development of 

the canyons. The waste that has been taken out of the canyon through the sewer 

system contributes to the constant very high water quality in the canyons. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 97 

306. The final Forest Plan should assure non-degradation of state category 1 

streams to comply with Utah State Code R317-2-3.2.

Response: The WCNF is required by State law to meet anti-degradation 

requirements. The Forest Plan has many standards and guidelines that provide 

means to meet anit-degradation requirements such as standards 1 through 5, 16, 17, 

19, and guidelines1 through 10 in the FEIS. 

307. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should specify whether lakes listed with 

water quality problems are reservoirs. 

Response: Pineview Reservoir is a reservoir, China Reservoir and Tony Grove 

Lake are natural lakes with a dam to raise their water level. Bridger Lake, Marsh 

Lake, Lyman Lake, and Mirror Lake are natural lakes. 

Water Quantity 

308. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should enhance water production. 

308.1 By studying rivers, streams, and watersheds for maximum ouput and 

benefits 

308.2 By not recommending management prescription categories or 

wilderness designations that would detract from enhancing water production 

Response: Enhancement of water yield form the WCNF is discussed under the 

section Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Timber Harvest/ Vegetation 

Treatments and in the cumulative effects section of Topic 1, Watershed Health. 

The effects analysis discusses limitations on enhancing water yield and the Forest 

Service has carefully considered water yield increases with other resource needs. 

Increasing water yield on the WCNF is one of many strategies to address water 

needs in Utah and Wyoming. The cumulative effects section describes that State 

water development plans include several strategies for meeting water needs in Utah 

and Wyoming. 

309. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize the potential for 

increased water yield and resulting channel degradation from certain 

activities. 

Response: See response 308. 

310. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address the issue of 

decreased water yield associated with declining aspen stands and growing 

conifer stands. 

Response: In response to your comment a general statement regarding reduction in 

water yield is included in section Surface Water under Topic 1, Watershed Health. 

A detailed water yield analysis is not appropriate for the Forest Plan revision 

because forest planning is at a broad scale, which has many limitations as described 

in the section Effects on Soil and Water Resources from Timber Harvest/ 

Vegetation Treatments in Topic 1, Watershed Health. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 98 

Watershed Health Management General 

311. The Forest Plan should recognize the Department of Interior’s withdrawal of 

specific National Forest System lands for the purposes of the Provo River 

Project and the Provo River Channel Revision. 

Response: The Forest Service recognizes that the Department of Interior withdrew 

lands for purposes of the Provo River Project and recognizes the right of the Provo 

River project to operate its lands and facilities. The Forest Plan Revision DEIS and 

Proposed Plan never intended to alter the operations of the PRWUA and that 

nothing in the proposed plan revision is expected to restrict the PRWUA from 

managing its operations within their authority. 

312. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect watersheds. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. Watershed concerns are identified in 

Issue #5 and considered in alternatives in the FEIS and in desired future conditions, 

goals, and standards and guidelines in the revised Forest Plan. 

312.1 From the pressures of population growth 

Response: Population growth is a factor that is considered in the cumulative effects 

section of Topic 1, Watershed Health in the FEIS. 

312.2 To preserve the water supply for a growing population 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The canyons east of Salt Lake City are 

important public supply watersheds and are recognized as such in the section Water 

Quality and in the cumulative effects section under Topic 1, Watershed Health. 

312.3 To protect groundwater supplies 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

312.4 To hold water for continuous flow 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The ability of land to hold water and 

provide water flow during drier periods of the year is described in section Wetlands, 

Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in Topic 1, Watershed Health. 

312.5 By designating sensitive or damaged watersheds and directing future 

management accordingly 

Response: The FEIS identifies watersheds and resource concerns in Table WA-2 

and the revised Forest Plan identifies priority areas for management activities to 

address livestock grazing impacts under the section Forest Objectives. 

312.6 By prohibiting any activities that degrade watershed health 

Response: Thank you for your comments. The WCNF provides for multiple use 

and the FEIS recognizes that some activities have impacts on Watershed Health. 

The ten Watershed Health guidelines, with the exception of Guideline 9, are 

guidelines because they are not binding limitations placed on management 

activities, but are preferred or advisable actions. Deviation from these guidelines 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 99 

will be documented in the appropriate analysis. In the FEIS, G9 is changed to a 

standard because, by definition, Soil and Water Conservation Practices are required 

during project implementation. 

312.7 Rather than focusing on recreation management 

Response: The WCNF provides for multiple use and recreation is a very important 

activity in the Tri-Canyon area. The alternatives provide a range of uses on the 

WCNF including those in the Tri-Canyon area. 

313. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should rehabilitate existing watershed 

problems rather than increase uses on roadless lands. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The reason for the subgoal “identify 

watersheds not in properly functioning condition” is that resource problems in 

individual watersheds are very site-specific and cause specific and more detailed 

information on the ground is needed to evaluate solutions to the resource problems. 

314. The Final EIS should provide a map depicting current watershed status. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. A map of watersheds has been added to 

the FEIS. 

315. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider adding the Mount Aire 

drainage to the Salt Lake City watershed. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The cumulative effects section describes 

activities at a broad scale on lands adjacent to the WCNF including Salt Lake City 

Watershed Plan. 

316. The Final EIS watershed section should reference the Federal Multi-Agency 

Source Water Agreement. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This reference has been included in the 

FEIS. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

317. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish benchmark landscape 

level watersheds as research control areas. 

 Response: Various uses on the Forest, including livestock grazing and OHV use 

among others, have had and continue to have impacts on vegetation and associated 

watershed conditions. An assessment of wildlife habitats is only done at a broad 

scale with this plan revision. While the forest has some information on forest 

structure and how it relates to goshawk habitat, we have not collected detailed 

monitoring data on vegetation undergrowth characteristics that could affect 

goshawk habitat. The understanding of unaffected conditions would be aided by 

the use of existing and proposed Research Natural Areas (RNAs) and Special 

Interest Areas (SIAs) as well as some areas within wilderness or proposed 

wilderness. We have proposed an expansion of the Morris Creek RNA and have 

proposed new SIAs for botanical purposes and for restoration ecology research. We 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 100 

have also identified other areas as possible additions to the RNA/SIA system in 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 8. 

318. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide detailed strategies 

regarding water management in the final Forest Plan. 

 Response: Water Planning is a statewide issue and the FEIS references the state of 

Utah and Wyoming in the cumulative effects section. State planning describes 

several management strategies for providing water. Additional information on 

water yield opportunities and limitations are discussed in the section Effects on Soil 

and Water Resources from Timber Harvest/ Vegetation Treatments. 

319. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine the current regime for 

watershed management before measuring the degradation of those regimes. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Additional information will need to be 

obtained for site-specific projects that may affect these resources. 

320. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide an adequate analysis of 

erosion processes in canyon streams. 

 Response: The section Geologic Hazards in Topic 1, Watershed Health of the 

FEIS, Utah is among eight states with a “severe” landslide hazard rating. The 

reference by Harty describes debris flows after intense thunderstorm events as 

exiting steep canyons such as those in Davis County and near Willard, Utah. In 

order to clarify the meaning, the term “flash flood” is changed to “debris flow” in 

the section Current Conditions under Revision Topic 1, Watershed Health in 

Chapter 2 of the Revised Forest Plan. Alluvial fans are formed by debris flows 

exiting steep canyons and depositing on a on a lower gradient slope in the valley. 

This is shown in Harty’s publication in a figure showing debris flow deposit 

forming an alluvial fan at the mouth of a steep canyon. 

321. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide a more detailed discussion 

of the effects of Alternative 2 on watershed condition to answer feasibility 

questions. 

 Response: The effects described in section Effects on Soil and Water Resources 

from Livestock Grazing under Topic 1, Watershed Health in the DEIS refer to 

effects on soil and water resources from livestock grazing. From comments on the 

DEIS, the effects were again reviewed and the conclusion made that effects from 

livestock grazing would be similar between most alternatives. These effects are 

described in the FEIS. Assumptions on budget are in FEIS Chapter 2, under Forest 

Plan revision outputs and services. The Forest Plan gives broad-scale planning for 

the WCNF and does not make site-specific decisions. A detailed description of 

effects on individual flora and fauna is not appropriate at this scale of planning 

because no site-specific actions are proposed or specific actions decisions are made. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 101 

Effects of Activities/Disturbance 

322. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately analyze the effects of 

ski resort trash accumulation and avalanche control activities on watershed 

health.

 Response: The Forest Plan revision addresses broad-scale planning for the entire 

WCNF. The issues you raise are best addressed during project-level planning 

and/or during review of ski area annual operating plan when site-specific actions 

can be identified to remedy the problem. 

323. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that road building and 

grazing cause more erosion than off-road vehicles. 

 Response: Road building, grazing and ATV use can cause erosion and the amount 

of erosion is dependent upon many factors including the amount of use, slope 

steepness, type of soil, soil conservation measures in place to reduce erosion. The 

FEIS describes these effects on a broad-scale. However, at the Forest Planning 

scale it is not appropriate to make general statements about one use resulting in less 

erosion than another because of the many factors involved. Differences between 

amount of erosion due to different activities is more appropriate at the site–specific 

project level scale of analysis. 

324. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the magnitude of 

sediment transport attributable to reasonable use by motorized recreationists 

is relatively insignificant compared to the magnitude of natural sediment 

transport. 

 Response: Motorized recreation use can cause erosion and the amount of erosion is 

dependent upon many factors including the amount of use, slope steepness, type of 

soil, soil conservation measures in place to reduce erosion. The FEIS describes 

these effects on a broad-scale. However, at the Forest Planning scale it is not 

appropriate to make general statements about the amount of erosion from motorized 

recreation compared to natural since many factors are involved in the analysis that 

is appropriate at the site–specific project level scale of analysis. 

325. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize the benefits of flooding 

on streams. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The benefits of floodplains are 

recognized in the section Wetland, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in Topic 1, 

Watershed Health. 

326. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit snowmaking. 

 Response: The decision to permit snowmaking at Alta was made after a sitespecific analysis of the Alta master development plan. This is the appropriate 

analysis for a decision on allowing snowmaking because it is site-specific. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 102 

327. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately study the effects of 

snowmaking activities on instream flows. 

 Response: The decision to approve withdrawals of water for snowmaking is based 

on a site-specific analysis using the expertise of hydrologists and fisheries 

biologists. In the record of decision for the Solitude Master Development Plan 

Update, an instream flow study is required as part of mitigation for effects of 

snowmaking withdrawals on Big Cottonwood Creek. 

328. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict the importation of water 

from outside sources to enhance private development in the Tri-Canyon area. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

329. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should amend the Forest Plan and EIS to 

reflect the fact that the impacts of diversions through the Duchesne Tunnel are 

not significant. 

 Response: We understand that there is disagreement regarding the significance of 

the impacts from the Provo River Project. We feel that the Provo River Project has 

had significant effects on the Duchesne River below the Duchesne Tunnel 

Diversion and on the Provo River below the outlet of the Duchesne Tunnel. 

Although the Upper Provo River Easement Maintenance Plan reaches the 

conclusion that no significant effects have occurred, based primarily on a 

hydrologic and hydraulic study, many other effects of increased flows are not 

discussed such as effects of movement of channel substrate on river organisms and 

the effects of stream bank erosion on downstream channel stability. These are a 

couple examples of many effects that have been identified in augmented water 

channel systems. However, the Forest Plan revision process addresses broad-scale 

planning for the entire WCNF and not site-specific projects such as the PRP. Since 

it was never the intent of the Forest Plan revision to make a decision affecting the 

current management of the PRP, it is not appropriate to conduct a detailed analysis 

of the PRP for the Forest Plan Revision. 

330. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain the environmental and 

economic impacts of any reduction in Duchesne tunnel diversions. 

 Response: The Forest Service recognizes that the Duchesne Tunnel diversions as 

an important source of municipal, industrial, domestic, and irrigation water for 

more than one million people. DEIS does not explain the environmental and 

economic impacts of any reduction in Duchesne Tunnel diversions because the final 

Plan does not restrict operations of the Provo River Project. 

331. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify plans to implement 

alternative methods of water diversions. 

 Response: The Forest Plan revision addresses broad-scale planning for the entire 

WCNF. There are many factors that affect the decision on snowmaking, water 

withdrawals, dams, construction, transbasin diversions, and the authority of the 

Forest Service. Some of these factors are location of withdrawal point, amount of 

flow, amount of withdrawal needed, water right, ownership of land, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 103 

environmental effects. These factors are very site specific and vary depending upon 

the location of the point of withdrawal and where or if it crosses Forest System 

Lands. The issues you raise are best addressed during project-level planning when 

site-specific alternatives and mitigation can be identified to come up with the best 

solution. 

Access to Utility Infrastructure 

332. The final Forest Plan should allow continued motorized access to alpine lakes 

that supply water to the Ogden area.

 Response: See response 335. 

333. The final Forest Plan should recognize the Provo River Water User’s 

Association’s right-of-way from the Mirror Lake Highway to the Duchesne 

Diversion. 

 Response: The Forest Service recognizes PRWUA’s right to continued year-round 

motorized access along the gravel road that extends from the Mirror Lake Highway 

to the Duchesne Diversion. In addition, the Forest Service recognizes PRWUA 

need to have access to existing repeater sites. 

334. The final Forest Plan should not restrict motorized access to any Provo River 

Water User’s Association infrastructure. 

 Response: The Forest Service recognizes PRWUA’s need for continued winter 

access to a variety of locations within the Wasatch-Cache Forest by helicopter, 

snowmobile and snow cat on very short notice for the purpose of monitoring 

snowpack conditions and forecasting snow melt runoff. 

335. The final Forest Plan should explicitly mention the Central Utah Water 

Conservancy District’s motorized access rights to its dam facilities in the 

Upper Provo drainage. 

 Response: The Forest Service recognizes the need for access to Federal facilities 

for which you have contractual obligations with the US Bureau of Reclamation. The 

Forest Plan does not intended to alter your operations and nothing in the plan is 

expected to restrict you from managing your existing operations. 

336. The final Forest Plan should not restrict motorized access to any Bureau of 

Reclamation projects. 

 Response: See response 335. 

337. The final Forest Plan should not restrict year-round motorized access to any 

hydroclimatic snow survey data stations. 

 Response: See response 335. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 104 

Other 

338. The Forest Plan should acknowledge and present the reconstruction of the 

Trial, Lost, and Washington dams and the resulting stabilization of 12 

connected lakes. 

 Response: This Information is summarized in the FEIS in the section under 

Western Management Area Descriptions under Topic 1, Watershed Health. 

Air Resources 

Air Resources Management General 

339. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the desired 

condition regarding smoke emissions is not attainable. 

 Response: As described under the section Resource Protection Measures under 

Topic 1, Air Resources, the WCNF coordinates with the State of Utah Department 

of Air Quality to mitigate the effects on public health, public safety, and visibility. 

These efforts should be adequate to meet State air quality standards. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

340. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should calculate off road vehicle 

emissions and obtain an air permit under the Clean Air Act.

 Response: Additional information on effects of 2-stroke engines on air quality has 

been included on the FEIS in the section Effects on Air Quality from Snowmobiles 

under Topic 1, Air Resources. This analysis assumes that the air quality conditions 

due to snowmobiles in the Yellowstone study is worse than those on the WCNF 

because the overall amount of use and the uses in concentrated areas is less on the 

WCNF than at Yellowstone. It is expected that the conclusions in the section 

Effects on Air Quality from Snowmobiles also apply to ATVs and dirt bikes since 

air quality conditions in Utah are generally worse in the winter than in the summer. 

Effects of Activities/Disturbance 

341. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that off road vehicles 

don’t cause major air pollution problems.

 Response: Additional information on effects of 2-stroke engines on air quality has 

been included on the FEIS in the section Effects on Air Quality from Snowmobiles 

under 

342. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restore trees in valley areas to 

mitigate the effects of global warming.

 Response: Thank you for your comments. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 105 

343. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that humans cause only 

5 percent of greenhouse gases.

 Response: Thank you for your comments. 

Topic 2: Biodiversity and Viability Management 

Biodiversity and Viability Management General 

Management General 

344. The Final EIS should include a strong standard of viability to ensure the 

sustainability of all native species. 

 Response: NFMA requires the FS to “provide for diversity of plant and animal 

communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order 

to meet overall multiple-use objectives” (NFMA Sec.6(g)(3)(B). This translates 

into 36CFR 219.19’s requirement to “maintain viable populations of existing native 

and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” These requirements 

make a specific standard unnecessary. 

345. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise the definition of viability. 

 Response: We have revised the definition in the glossary to match the intent of 

36CFR 219.19 that states, “A population which has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well 

distributed in the planning area.” It must be realized, however that there are some 

species such as the yellow-billed cuckoo that the state has identified as not breeding 

in the state that will be classified as not viable on the Forest because of this 

definition. These are species where the Forest is on the edge of their range and 

distribution across the Forest and/or breeding will not likely ever occur as is written 

in the definition. 

346. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should give priority to biodiversity and 

species viability. 

 Response: This commenter was pleased that the Forest was giving priority to 

biodiversity and species viability. Thank you for your comment. 

347. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately discuss disturbance 

ecology and ecosystem resiliency. 

 Response: A section on districution ecology and ecosystem resiliency has been 

added to the Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability Section, Vegetation section.

348. The final Forest Plan should include actions to ensure viability of biological 

communities. The Forest should add specific goals, objectives, standards, 

guidelines and mitigation measures. 

 Response: We have goals, objective, standards, and guidelines to ensure the 

viability of biological communities. MIS are used to see if we are moving in the 

right direction with the management of those communities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 106 

349. The final Forest Plan should improve the discussion of historic range of 

variation. Recognizing that climate change precludes reestablishment of many 

native ecosystems 

 Response: While we recognize that climate changes are occurring, to date we have 

not seen any of our native ecosystems fail to reestablish following disturbance, 

unless those disturbances have been extreme and outside historic levels. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

350. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct microsurveys of flora and 

fauna. 

350.1 To identify geographical components of biodiversity. 

 Response: Table VEG-1 in the FEIS displays different cover types by ecological 

sections on the Forest. 

350.2 To maintain healthy ecosystems. 

 Response: While microsurveys could improve our understanding of biodiversity 

and ecosystem functions, we have not had the ability to conduct them and feel that, 

at the forest plan level, direction is provided that will manage for healthy 

ecosystems and for biodiversity. 

Effects of Activities/Disturbance 

351. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should assess continuing impacts of 

specific activities and compensate for them to effectively ensure population 

viability. 

 Response: The purpose of MIS is to assess impacts of activities on wildlife 

populations. If population trends of MIS decrease on the Forest all activities that 

might affect the decline will be assessed to determine the cause and appropriate 

action taken. 

352. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish controls on grazing 

and motorized recreation in research forest areas to ensure research results on 

silviculture are not distorted.

 Response: The Forest recognizes that silviculture treatments recommended as a 

result of research conducted on one part of the Forest should not be applied to all 

ecosystems across the Forest. We also recognize that research has evolved and will 

continue to change in the future. We can only use the most recent and best 

information we have to make resource management decisions. We will continue to 

manage grazing and motorized recreation to limit their impacts to experimental 

forests. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 107 

Wildlife 

Wildlife General 

353. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address wildlife management. 

353.1 By not allowing human uses of the forest to influence wildlife 

management direction

 Response: By law the Forest Service is a multiple use agency and to that end 

decision makers within the Forest Service strive to find balance to the many uses on 

the Forest. This balance is different from forest to forest and even district to district 

on a given Forest. Knowing that every square foot cannot be managed for every 

use prescriptions have been assigned to different areas on the Forest where a 

particular use will be emphasized but not used exclusively for that prescription. 

With this approach we can better work with state wildlife agencies to help meet 

their management direction. 

353.2 By taking an active role in managing wildlife, especially in managing 

non-native species. 

 Response: The Forest Service role in wildlife management including the 

management of non-native species is outlined in 36 CFR 219.19 and Forest Service 

Manual 2600. 

353.3 By addressing conflicts between guidelines for management of specific 

species 

 Response: We have tried to eliminate any conflicts between guidelines for 

management of specific species and continue to look for any remaining conflicts. 

353.4 By making recommendations regarding the appropriateness of wildlife 

transplants 

 Response: This is done through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources according to direction in Forest Service Manual 

2640. 

353.5 By considering predator control and the reintroduction of bighorn sheep 

 Response: Predator control is conducted by APHIS-Wildlife Services. Their 

Environmental Assessment for Northern Utah allows work to protect wildlife after 

transplant or on important use areas, such as fawning areas, at the request of the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

354. The final Forest Plan should include actions to ensure species viability by 

adding specific goals, objectives, standards, guidelines and mitigation 

measures. 

 Response: See response 344 above. 

355. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase monitoring requirements 

for species population and habitat trends. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 108 

355.1 By adding protocols and numbers of sites

 Response: Protocols and number of sites for management indicator species are 

discussed in Appendix J. Other species and species groups are monitored with 

accepted protocols with the number of sites that the budget allows. The Forest also 

uses inventory and monitoring information from other agencies such as the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources. 

 

355.2 By increasing frequency and site requirements for threatened and 

endangered and management indicator species 

 Response: Monitoring threatened and endangered species is done in coordination 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State. Management indicator species are 

monitored as identified in Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan and in Appendix J 

of the FEIS. 

356. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify its criteria for wildlife 

introductions. 

 Response: Wildlife introductions are covered in Forest Service Manual 2640. 

357. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the presence of 

humans pushes out other species. 

 Response: We recognize this. This is why we have prescriptions assigned to 

different areas of the Forest that limits certain activities within the prescription area. 

See the Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4 (B) Forestwide Allocations for the 

discussion and definition of prescription areas. 

358. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect humans over wildlife. 

 Response: Forest Service policy puts human safety above wildlife. The Standard 

is listed under Fire and Fuels Management in Chapter 4 of the Revised Forest Plan 

Adequacy of Analysis 

359. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add supporting data and habitat 

analysis to the viability section of the Final EIS. 

 Response: This has been done. 

360. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct appropriate data 

collection for the species viability analysis and potentially use modeling. 

 Response: This is done opportunistically as budgets allow. The other approach to 

viability is ecological sustainability and this is discussed in Appendix 2-B. 

Regulations do not specify how viability is to be dwelt with, only that we must 

manage habitat to “maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in the planning area.” 

361. The Final EIS should include an analysis of anticipated changes in habitat 

components and discuss quantity, quality, and distribution. 

 Response: This has been done. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 109 

362. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider the effect of possible 

mortality of wildlife in oil pits. 

 Response: The only pits used in oil and gas operations on the Forest are settlling 

ponds for water used in the drilling of new wells. After use they are buried and 

rehabilitated. There are no oil pits on the Forest. 

363. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify the benefits of reduced tree 

density to wildlife. 

 Response: The section on “The Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife From Oil and Gas 

Activities has been rewritten and the statement is no longer in the document. 

364. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise the section regarding effects 

to terrestrial wildlife from roads management by adding an explanation that 

some species of wildlife are more sensitive to disturbance than others. 

 Response: The words, “...and the species of wildlife,” have been added to the 

second sentence along with another sentence of further explaination. 

Wildlife Habitat 

365. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine acres of high quality 

habitat by vegetation type. 

 Response: The question is, “high quality habitat” for what species? Goshawk and 

snowshoe hare both use the same vegetation type but different age classes. To 

identify “high quality habitat” one enters into single species management, which is 

not practical both from the number of species that have habitat on the forest and 

from the budget aspect. These are reasons why we chose a coarse filter ecological 

sustainability approach in dealing with species-at-risk. 

366. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect critical habitat. 

366.1 By providing adequate direction for wildlife habitat management

 Response: This has been done. 

366.2 By giving priority to actions that enhance habitat 

 Response: This is done through management goals and objectives that guide 

management in the direction of properly functioning condition within the historic 

range of variability. 

366.3 By preserving large tracts of land 

 Response: The Forest presently has 310,500 acres of wilderness which is 40% of 

all Forest Service administered wilderness in the state of Utah. Alternative 7 

recommends another 61,400 which, if Congress chooses to act, would bring the 

total acreage on the Forest to 371,900 acres which would be 45% of wilderness on 

National Forest System lands in Utah. There are also roadless areas and Research 

Natural Areas that protect important habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 110 

366.4 By tying the monitoring of aquatic resources to specific management 

implementation 

 Response: Aquatic resources are monitored on a Forest wide basis through a 

revolving schedule outside of Forest Plan implementation monitoring. 

366.5 By maintaining aquatic habitat through the application of Management 

Prescription Category 3.1 

 Response: Management Prescription 3.1 has been applied wherever it was 

determined to be the most important prescription for an area. We thank you for 

your comment. 

367. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish habitats as Sanctuary 

Preserve areas to protect specific species. 

 Response: Refer to Appendix B for a discussion of species-at-risk and the 

measures taken to protect them and ecosystem sustainability. 

368. The Forest Plan should include the information in the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources’ databases regarding wildlife habitats and streams to protect and 

enhance wildlife habitat. 

 Response: The Forest has used information from the UDWR in the planning 

process and is continually coordinating with them on individual project proposals. 

Wildlife Corridors 

369. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should preserve wildlife habitat corridors. 

369.1 By restoring wildlife habitats within the context of eco-regional planning.

 Response: The Forest is moving in this direction by working for properly 

functioning condition for all vegetation types within the historic range of 

variability. 

369.2 By protecting habitat corridors between forest areas 

 Response: See 369.1 above. 

369.3 By protecting national forest lands sufficiently to offset adverse effects 

caused by management practices on private lands 

 Response: The Forest does this where possible. In the Bear River Range, 

however, approximately 2/3 of the lands within the Congressional boundary are of 

other ownership which severely limits any offsetting adverse effects. 

369.4 By prohibiting extractive uses, motorized vehicles, and grazing in wildlife 

corridors 

 Response: By law the Forest Service is a multiple use agency. The Forest Plan is 

designed to help decision makers find the proper balance of uses in the management 

of the National Forest. The Management Prescriptions discussed in Chapter 4 of 

the Revised Plan and their application to Management Prescription Maps show 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 111 

where certain uses will be emphasized. Management Prescriptions, however, do 

not denote exclusive use since the law mandating multiple use still applies. 

370. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address the effects of 

habitat fragmentation on native wildlife populations. 

 Response: This has been done in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

371. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the effects of wildlife 

corridor protection on grazing allotments. 

 Response: With standards and guidelines for forage utilization, management 

direction that leads to properly functioning condition within the historic range of 

variability, and proper management of livestock through allotment management 

plans corridors (both local between winter and summer range, and the large regional 

corridor that has been identified) can be maintained with livestock grazing in place 

along with other aspects of multiple use. 

372. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close big game migration routes 

during the winter months. 

 Response: Protection of big game migration routes and important winter ranges is 

covered in Travel Management Plans. 

373. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not manage for wildlife corridors, 

because corridor preservation limits multiple use. 

 Response: See the response to 371 above. 

Native and Non-Native Species 

374. The Forest Service should make native biodiversity the primary goal and 

organizing paradigm of management. 

 Response: Native biodiversity is very important to the Forest and we work with 

other agencies within the scope of 36 CFR 219.19 and Forest Service Manuals to 

this end. 

375. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address the 

management of non-native wildlife. 

375.1 By removing non-native species

 Response: Forest Service policy on non-native species is set in 36 CFR 219.19 and 

Forest Service Manual 2640. 

375.2 By prohibiting the introduction of non-native species 

 Response: Forest Service policy on non-native species is set in 36CFR 219.19 and 

Forest Service Manual 2640. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 112 

376. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize mountain goats as a nonnative species. 

 Response: Whether native or non-native, mountain goats are present and have 

been since placed in the Twin Peaks area of Little Cottonwood Canyon in 1967. 

With them being present the Forest follows Forest Service Manual (2642) direction. 

377. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify its actions regarding nonnative goats. 

 Response: See response on # 376, above. 

Game Species 

378. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect big game species on an 

equal basis with other species. 

 Response: The desired condition of the wildlife resource is found in Chapter 4 of 

the Revised Forest Plan and addresses all species of wildlife without regards to any 

special classifications such as “big game.” Where certain components of a 

“groups” or a species habitat is not in properly functioning condition and/or outside 

of its historic range of variability they may be addressed in specific goals, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines. 

379. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect and enhance big game 

winter ranges by closing big game winter migratory routes to human uses. 

 Response: This has been done on different areas on the Forest and is accomplished 

through travel plans. 

380. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize the impact of elk on deer 

populations. 

 Response: Wildlife numbers, composition, and distribution are the responsibility 

of the individual States, are as the number of hunting permits issued. The Forest 

participates in the public input opportunities offered by the States in making 

recommendations that will help prevent adverse effects on the habitat that is within 

the National Forest System. 

Predators 

381.The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address predator management. 

381.1 By implementing predator management practices to meet population 

objectives 

381.2 By maintaining authority over predator control 

 Response: Wildlife population objectives are set by the States. By law (The 

Animal Damage and Control Act of 1931, as amended), predator management is 

under the authority of APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS). Funding for the program 

comes from the Federal Government, the State, and the permitttees. The Forest is 

involved with input into WS NEPA process and having annual operating plan 

meetings with WS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 113 

382. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not reintroduce predators, because 

they are not compatible with humans. 

 Response: There have been no official proposals to reintroduce any predators on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The policy on reintroductions is contained in 

Forest Service Manual 2640. 

383. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should permit the passage of wolves to the 

Uinta Mountains. 

 Response: If wolves return to Utah they will be under the control of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and managed as a threatened species. All activities 

concerning the wolf would be done through the consultation process with the FWS 

as outlined in the Endangered Species Act, Section 7. 

384. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prevent the treeing of cougars with 

motorized vehicles. 

 Response: The hunting and pursuing of cougars is set and controlled by State law. 

385. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect the lynx. 

385.1 By protecting lynx habitat

 Response: The Forest has identified “linkage habitat” and “core habitat” in 

consultation with the FWS and Utah Division of wildlife resources. Lynx Analysis 

Units have been identified in the core habitat as outlined in the “Canada Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy” and appropriate standards and guidelines 

are contained in the Revised Forest Plan. 

385.2 By recognizing the wide variety of factors influencing the status of the 

lynx 

 Response: These factors have been considered and worked with in mapping of 

core habitat and linkage habitat. Standards and guidelines have been developed to 

work within these habitats as well as working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service through the consultation process on all proposed projects. 

385.3 By developing goals and objectives or standards and guidelines 

specifically designed to mitigate impacts on the lynx 

 Response: This has been done in the revised Forest Plan. 

386. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the need for a lynx 

corridor has not been established. 

 Response: The concept of wildlife corridors is well established and the importance 

of the Bear River Range (specifically addressed in this comment) is well shown by 

referring to McNabb’s “Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section 

Descriptions.” This corridor applies not only to lynx but to all mammals that have 

large movement areas and neo tropical avian migrants that depend on forested 

conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 114 

387. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reevaluate any management 

prescription, management designation, or alternative selection made based on 

the Canadian lynx. 

 Response: The lynx was listed as a threatened species by the FWS over its 

historical range, which included Utah, and until the FWS changes that we work 

with them in meeting the intent of the law. 

388. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that studies on lynx 

management are inconclusive. 

 Response: See response to # 387 above. 

389. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the lynx can survive 

along with multiple use activities. 

 Response: This is recognized and that is why the Revised Plan emphasizes 

properly functioning condition, historic range of variation, and ecological 

sustainability. However, when a species is federally listed under the Endangered 

Species Act we are put into a single species management situation that dictates 

some management emphasis outside of the multiple use arenas. Standards and 

guidelines that are specifically for lynx or other single species in most cases act as 

mitigation measures that make it possible for other multiple use activities to 

continue. All proposed projects on the Forest require some level of consultation 

with the FWS when federally listed species have been identified by the FWS as 

being present or having habitat on the Forest. 

390. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove the phrase “to the extent 

possible” regarding lynx management from the Draft EIS. 

 Response: This has been done. 

391. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close access to land because of 

possible lynx habitat. 

 Response: This has not been proposed. 

Other Wildlife Species 

392. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor beaver and snowshoe 

hares. 

 Response: Both beaver and snowshoe hare have been identified as management 

indicator species. 

393. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reintroduce beaver. 

 Response: Where this is not a Forest Plan decision, the Forest has and will 

continue to discuss the reintroduction of beaver, in appropriate locations, with the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 115 

394. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect bats. 

 Response: Two bats, the spotted and Townsend’s big-eared are Regional Forester 

designated sensitive species and are considered in biological evaluations required 

on all proposed projects. Others bats are considered when proposed projects may 

affect their habitat.

Fish 

395. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect native cutthroat trout by 

restoring and expanding its habitat. 

Response: We recognize the role the Forest has in providing habitat for sensitive 

species and appreciate your support. Goals, subgoals, standards, guidelines and the 

identification of management prescription 3.1a provide for the protection of 

cutthroat trout habitat on the forest. In regards to the seven populations that may 

become extirpated with in next 15 years (FEIS, Table AQ-2) additional information 

has been provided. 

Some actions are outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Fish stocking and 

setting harvest limits are under the direction of the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources or the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, for Utah and Wyoming 

respectively. 

396. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the impacts of non-native 

fish species on native cutthroat trout 

Response: See response for comment 395. The Forest is active in participating in 

the cutthroat trout conservation agreements and strategies identified in Appendix B 

of the FEIS. Coordination with the states are an important part of any conservation 

work. 

397. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include the monitoring of trout 

habitat along with monitoring of condition indices to understand the ability of 

a given stream to support larger trout populations. 

Response: We agree that habitat conditions are important to monitor. Habitat 

parameters are collected during fish sampling efforts. Habitat surveys will also 

continue to be conducted although; they are not identified in Chapter 5 of the Forest 

Plan. Chapter 5 of the plan identifies that surveys will be conducted in at least one 

subbasin (4th level HUC) per year. 

398 The Forest Plan should de-emphasize non-native fish species 

Response: It’s important to understand that Native species are all species of plants 

and animals naturally occurring, either presently or historically, in any ecosystem of 

the United States. This is defined in the glossary and is taken from Executive Order 

11987, 42 FR 26949, 1977 WL 23618 as directed by the President of the United 

States, May 24, 1977. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 116 

It is Forest Service Policy (FSM 2640.3) to: 

2640.3 - Policy. It is Forest Service policy to: 

 1. Provide habitat for stocked species and assist in stocking and introduction 

operations to restore locally extinct indigenous species, to recover threatened and 

endangered species, and to introduce new species in coordination with State and 

Federal agencies. 

 2. Provide a variety of fishing, hunting, trapping, viewing, studying, and 

photographing opportunities and experiences in cooperation with the State fish and 

wildlife agencies. 

 3. Emphasize the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of habitats for 

production of wildlife and fish. Introductions or stocking of species may be made 

to restore resources following environmental changes, to provide recreation 

opportunities where reproduction is insufficient to meet demand, or to introduce 

new species desired by the public. 

 4. Favor native or desirable non-native species over new exotic species in stocking 

and introductions. 

399 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should define “undesirable fish.” 

Response: Undesirable fish are those where a joint agreement, between the State 

fish and wildlife agency and the Forest Service, cannot be reached when proposal to 

introduce a species has been made. Undesirable fish may also include species 

found on the Forest where joint agreement has been reached, between the State fish 

and Wildlife agency and the Forest Service, and the determination made that the 

species is undesirable. 

2640.41 - Regional Forester. The Regional Forester shall: 

 1. Reach joint agreement with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies on 

proposals for introductions of the following fish and wildlife on National Forest 

System lands: 

a. Exotic and non indigenous fish and wildlife to a National Forest where they do 

not presently occur. 

b. Federally listed endangered and threatened species. 

 2. Coordinate exotic and Federally listed species introduction proposals with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 117 

 3. Coordinate recommendations on hunting, fishing, or trapping regulations to 

State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies in States with more than one 

Supervisor's Office. 

2642 - INTRODUCTION OF INDIGENOUS AND NONINDIGENOUS 

WILDLIFE AND FISH. Occasionally, areas and conditions are found that would 

best suit fish or wildlife that are not indigenous to a forest. Introductions of wild 

turkeys in certain western forests are an example. Once introduced, further 

introductions are considered stocking and an environmental analysis is not required 

unless the action is determined to be controversial. 

400 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify Table AQ-1 to state that it 

refers to historic rather than current presence of fish species. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This table has been corrected. 

Amphibians 

401 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify its management plan for 

amphibians 

Response: Invertebrate Species Considered section of the FEIS appendix B gives 

the direction for invertebrate species where little information is know. The Provo 

River, below Soapstone Creek, was identified as Management Prescription 3.1A to 

provide protection for known spotted frog populations on Forest. Beaver Creek is 

also designated as 3.1a to provide for aquatic species, which would include historic 

habitat for spotted frogs. 

No known monitoring is occurring in the Red Butte Research Natural Area for 

boreal toads. It is believed that if the boreal toad persists in the drainage the 

population is secure given the direction of management in RNAs. 

Management and reintroduction of species will be done in accordance with Forest 

Service Direction identified in response 399. 

 

402 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should place amphibians on the priority 

list by adequately monitoring amphibians. 

Response: See response to 401 and 402. The forest is working with the State fish 

and wildlife agencies to better understand current distribution of amphibians on the 

forest and provide for their conservation. 

403. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the spotted frog is a 

historically occurring species 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 118 

Birds and Raptors 

404. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should incorporate the U.S.Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s raptor guidelines into all management activities. 

 Response: Although not specifically referred to in the Plan or FEIS the forest uses 

these guidelines whenever it is appropriate in project planning. 

405. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect critical habitat for sensitive 

raptor species. 

 Response: Habitat for Regional Forester designated sensitive species is addressed 

and mitigation proposed in Biological Evaluations for site-specific projects. When 

other raptor species are identified within a proposed project area their presence, 

habitat needs, and mitigation measures to protect them are covered in the NEPA 

document. 

406. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address goshawk 

management. 

406.1 By following recommendations in Conservation Strategy and Agreement 

for the Management of Northern Goshawk Habitat in Utah (HCS). 

 Response: In March 2000 the 1984 Forest Plan was amended to incorporate 

recommendations from the HCS. This has carried into the new plan and is covered 

by several standards and guidelines. 

406.2 By addressing livestock impacts to its habitat and prey base 

 Response: Livestock impacts are addressed in individual allotment management 

plans and covered in the standards and guidelines. 

Management Indicator Species 

407. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not dismiss a species from 

consideration as a management indicator species because it is difficult to 

monitor. 

 Response: One of the criteria used in selecting MIS was, “The MI is relatively 

easy to monitor, i.e. highly visible and in adequate numbers.” To fulfill the purpose 

of MIS there is no need to choose species that are difficult to monitor. The process 

and MIS should be those that meet the requirement and intent of the regulations. 

MIS are discussed in Appendix J. 

408. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve its management of 

management indicator species. 

408.1 By prescribing goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and mitigation 

measures for all management indicator species.

Response: The purpose of MIS is not to manage the species but to monitor it to 

help determine the effects of projects on a broader group of species. MIS are 

protected under regulations on diversity and viability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 119 

408.2 By developing an adequate monitoring program for management 

indicator species. 

 Response: Monitoring of MIS is covered in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan and 

Appendix J of the FEIS. 

408.3 By adequately monitoring macro-invertebrates as management indicator 

species. 

 Response: The Forest is not using macro-invertebrates as MIS in the new plan. 

Cost of analyzing samples was one of the main factors that could preclude doing the 

monitoring. Using the coefficient of condition for cutthroat trout will provide 

needed information on the aquatic health of the system (See the discussion in 

Appendix J of the FEIS). 

408.4 By monitoring management indicator species no more than once a year. 

 Response: Appropriate monitoring techniques and time intervals are identified in 

Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan and in Appendix J of the FEIS. 

408.5 By identifying habitat that is capable of supporting management 

indicator species. 

 Response: This is done in Appendix J of the FEIS. 

408.6 By adequately analyzing the relationships between management 

indicator species, habitat, and other species. 

 Response: The reasons for picking particular MIS and available habitats for them 

are found in Appendix J. CFR 219.19(6) indicates that analyzing the relationships 

between MIS and habitat changes is part of the monitoring report.

408.7 By identifying management indicator species for aquatic ecosystems and 

for botanical resources. 

 Response: The Forest is following Regional direction is the selection of MIS. 

408.8 By selecting additional terrestrial animals as management indicator 

species. 

 Response: The Forest picked species and the number of species needed to monitor 

the terrestrial and aquatic resources identified. 

409. The Forest Plan should provide a detailed discussion of targeted management 

indicator species. 

 Response: MIS are discussed in detail in Appendix J of the FEIS. 

410. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include predators as management 

indicator species, such as the wolverine and the mountain lion.

Response: See discussion on selecting MIS in Appendix J of the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 120 

411. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should rely more heavily on birds as 

management indicator species. 

Response: See Appendix J or the FEIS for the discussion of the selection of MIS.

412. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include neo-tropical migratory 

birds within the MIS/SAR category. 

Response: Neo-tropical migratory birds do not fit the selection criteria for MIS 

because the do not remain in the area year round and changes in population trends 

may be caused by factors outside of the control of the Forest. The subjects of MIS 

and SAR are distinctly different and have been split into two separate areas in the 

final EIS. SAR are discussed in Appendix B and MIS in Appendix J. SAR do 

include neo-tropical migrants where appropriate. 

413. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate the sage grouse as a 

management indicator species instead of the vesper sparrow. 

Response: Sage grouse were considered but are not evenly distributed across the 

sage steppe habitat type on the Forest to be an effective MIS. The vesper sparrow 

has also been dropped. See discussion in 412 above.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species General 

414. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise the definition of sensitive 

species 

 Response: The Regional Forester is responsible for identifying which species will 

be identified as sensitive as directed by Forest Service Manual 2670. 

2672.11 - Identification of Sensitive Species. Regional Foresters shall identify 

sensitive species occurring within the Region. They shall examine the following 

sources as possible candidates for listing as sensitive species: 

 1. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service candidates for 

Federal listing (categories 1 and 2) under Federal Register Notice of Review. 

 2. State lists of endangered, threatened, rare, endemic, unique, or vanishing species, 

especially those listed as threatened under State law. 

 3. Other sources as appropriate in order to focus conservation management 

strategies and to avert the need for Federal or State listing as a result of National 

Forest management activities. 

The changing of the definition and/or the addition or removal of species to or from 

this list is outside the scope of this analysis and decision. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 121 

415. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide a full range of standards 

and procedures for the selection of sensitive species. 

 Response: See response to comment 414. 

416. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage all threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species in the context of the overall, functional 

ecosystem 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The plan tries to address biodiversity. 

See issue 3 in the Plan. 

417. The final Forest Plan should include actions to restore habitat for threatened 

and endangered species such as the Lynx. 

 Response: In the eleven counties in Utah that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) has identified as lynx counties the Forest has consulted with the FWS on 

ongoing activities. In the Forest Plan Revision, standards and guidelines have been 

incorporated to deal with Federally listed species including the lynx. The Plan also 

emphasizes management that moves the forest toward properly functioning 

condition and the historic range of variability which is the habitats and age classes 

that the lynx existed in over time. 

418. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve monitoring of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species 

418.1 By increasing the plan objectives for non-project related monitoring of 

threatened and endangered species

 Response: See the monitoring section in the Forest Plan. These species will be 

monitored as projects that could potentially impact them are planned and 

implemented. 

418.2 By including clear monitoring requirement for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive raptors 

 Response: See the monitoring section in the Forest Plan. These species will be 

monitored as projects that could potentially impact them are planned and 

implemented. The Forest will continue to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the States in these efforts. 

418.3 By monitoring threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants 

 Response: See the monitoring section in the Forest Plan. In addition to broadscale inventory and monitoring of TES plants, these species will also be monitored 

as projects that could potentially impact them are planned and implemented. 

419. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include specific and individual 

conservation and recovery plans for all threatened and endangered species 

including the western boreal toad. 

 Response: The development of conservation and recovery plans is outside the 

scope of this analysis and decision. A number of the species are currently covered 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 122 

by conservation agreements and strategies (see Conservation approaches for 

species-at-risk to maintain existing populations in Appendix B of the FEIS). 

See also response to comment 402. 

420. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include specific and individual 

conservation and recovery plans for all threatened and endangered species 

 Response: Individual species were reviewed along with potential threats. 

Standard and guidelines were then reviewed and/or developed to reduce the threats 

to the species at risk. Site-specific analysis and the development of implementation 

actions will be required to further reduce the potential threats to T, E, and S species. 

These site-specific analyses are beyond the scope of this analysis and decision. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

421. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct surveys for sensitive 

species before allowing certain activities 

 Response: As part of the site-specific planning process, Threatened, Endangered 

and Forest Service Sensitive species are reviewed and an analysis conducted to 

determine potential impacts. This information is maintained in a Biological 

Assessment and Biological Evaluation. 

422. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the reconstruction 

of the Red Butte Reservoir dam and its subsequent maintenance plans to 

provide a refuge for the June sucker are premature 

 Response: This desired future is recognizing Public Law 106-65 dated October 5, 

1999. This law directs the Secretary of the Army to convey Red Butte Dam, 

Reservoir and other improvements to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 

423. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add Botrychium linear to 

Table B-4-1 

 Response: This plant has been added to Table B-4-1 and additional information 

on this species is in Chapter 3, Topic 2, Biodiversity and Viability, Botanical 

Resources, FEIS Appendix F, and in the Forest Plan, Chapter 4C under the Central 

Wasatch Management Area. 

424. The Forest Plan should include a discussion of threatened and endangered 

species in the Environmental Consequences section 

Response: This has been done. Thank you for your comment.

425. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a sentence to the Endangered 

Species Act description stating that each federal agency will ensure that their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize threatened and endangered species 

 Response: This is covered under manual direction: 

Forest Service Manual 2670.11 - Endangered Species Act. Section 2 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 1978, 1979, 1982 and 1988 (16 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 123 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; hereinafter referred to as the act) declares that ". . . all Federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened 

species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act." 

Vegetation 

Vegetation General 

426. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify vegetation management. 

 Response: The forest will be managed for a range of conditions that occurred 

historically, and not for any static state. Should climates change dramatically, the 

conditions the forest would be managed for would evolve accordingly. We have 

not seen, however, these kinds of dramatic changes within a planning period (10-15 

years). 

427. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify its finding of greater 

vegetative diversity in the Wasatch Mountains. 

 Response: No greater inventories have been conducted in the Wasatch Mountains 

than on any other portion of the Forest. In fact, other portions of the Forest have 

been inventoried to a much greater extent because of the timber and livestock 

production that occurs there. The greater diversity has been recognized through 

general observations and recent vegetation mapping which shows that this area 

includes a large variety of vegetation types because of the geological differences, 

which result in different soil characteristics, as well as the annual precipitation. 

428. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide a mix of vegetative age 

classes to maintain biodiversity. 

 Response: Guideline G14 and the associated table describe the desired mix of age 

classes for dominant cover types of the Forest. Alternative 7 is focused on moving 

the vegetation cover types toward properly functioning condition. Table VEG-3 in 

FEIS Chapter 2, Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability, Vegetation shows that 

Alternative 7 treats (harvest, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatments) an average 

of nearly 9,000 acres per year to move toward properly functioning conditions. 

This will help maintain biodiversity. 

429. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should maintain more old growth forest 

to protect threatened and endangered species. 

 Response: The direction outlined in the Forest Plan under Guideline G14, 

illustrates a variety in age classes by cover type; these range from about 20 percent 

in forested communities, to 20-40 percent in oak and mahogany communities. 

Forest wide Standard S13 has been modified to reflect this change in the minimum 

amount of old growth. It states that at least 20 percent of each forested cover type 

within each ecological section of the Forest “shall be maintained with old forest 

landscape structure”. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 124 

430. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should ensure adequate amounts of snags 

and downed wood. 

 Response: Guideline 16 and the associated table describe the amount of snags and 

coarse woody debris that is desired following timber harvest activities. Additional 

management direction for snags and coarse woody debris can be found in Forest 

Service Manual 5150 and FSM 2550. 

431. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use the wetlands Standard as a 

starting point for the development of an alpine vegetation standard. 

 Response: A modification has been made to Guideline 9 that includes avoiding 

soil-disturbing activities in alpine areas as well as on steep, erosive, and unstable 

slopes, and in riparian, wetlands, floodplains, and wet meadows. 

432. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should act to reverse aspen decline. 

 Response: The decision alternative focuses on such a reverse by treating 

approximately 3,700 acres of aspen, conifer, and conifer with aspen each year. 

Many conifer treatments would be focused in areas that historically had aspen and 

that still have the ability to be dominated by aspen following treatment. At this rate, 

aspen would return to its properly functioning condition within 8 decades. 

433. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should classify the treatment in conifer 

and aspen stands for increased water output as a vegetative treatment. 

 Response: One benefit of replacing conifers with aspen, as a part of treatments to 

increase age class diversity in aspen communities (See response 432), is that water 

yield may also increase. The extent of this increase is not easily identified, but 

some research has shown this to occur. 

Increased water yield is considered a secondary benefit for primary treatment needs 

such as vegetative treatments to restore properly functioning condition and timber 

harvest for commercial purposes. The FEIS section on Effects on Soil and Water 

Resources from Timber Harvest/ Vegetation Treatment under Topic 1, Watershed 

Health states that the realities of generating significant water yield are limited 

because of land ownership, land allocation, vegetation type, variable elevations and 

aspects, and multiple resource needs. This is why the Forest Plan FEIS does not 

propose increasing water yield as primary output. 

434. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should maintain sagebrush communities. 

 Response: As noted in the FEIS, (Chapter 3, Topic 10 – Fire Management), 

sagebrush communities are currently classified as being in either Fire Condition 

Class 2 (Moderate alterations to the historic disturbance are clearly evident, such as 

one or more missed fire return intervals) and Condition Class 3 (The disturbance 

regime has been significantly altered) with a fire return interval of 0-35 years. 

Given that fires played an important historical role in the ecology of these 

sagebrush communities on the Forest, we propose to treat approximately 3,000 

acres a year of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper that occurs on lands historically 

dominated by sagebrush to begin to return these communities to properly 

functioning conditions. As a result some of these areas will produce forage for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 125 

livestock, but all acres will provide for a greater variety of wildlife habitat as well 

as maintaining or improving watershed conditions. 

435. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect the habitat for five unique 

species of wildflowers. 

 Response: Guideline G23 has been modified and provides for protection for 

populations of rare plant species across the forest. 

436. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revegetate with seed from native 

plants. 

 Response: The Forest Plan provides Guideline G22, which directs the use of native 

seed in revegetation efforts. 

437. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should preserve nonvascular plant 

species. 

 Response: We noted the value of non-vascular plants in FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 2 

– Biodiversity and Viability, Botanical Resources. Additional information has been 

added on the distribution and value of cryptogamic crusts to this chapter. Difficulty 

of identification of many of these non-vascular plants makes the development of 

species-specific management more difficult. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

438. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should investigate the causes of tree 

mortality and mortality in old growth trees. 

 Response: The dominant cause of tree mortality is an overall aging of exiting 

forest communities as a result of successful fire exclusion. Because of this, age 

classes are skewed toward the older age classes, which means many more acres of 

trees susceptible to disease. There is a lack of diversity in age classes across the 

landscape, a build up of associate fuels, and increased disease, which have 

increased the acres in fire condition class 3 as described in FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 

10 – Fire Management. 

Noxious Weeds 

439. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address noxious weed 

management. 

439.1 By fairly evaluating the spread of noxious weeds 

439.2 By developing a guideline which prohibits certain activities in areas 

where noxious weeds occur 

 Response: We have added information on the location of noxious weeds in FEIS 

Appendix H. A guideline (G25) for the management of noxious weeds has been 

added and Forest Plan Appendix III has been updated. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 126 

440. The final Forest Plan should include a clear definition and list of noxious 

weeds to prevent removal of desirable species. 

 Response: A list of Utah and Wyoming Noxious Weeds found in the different 

ecological sections of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest has been added to FEIS, 

Appendix H. A definition of noxious weed has been added to the Forest Plan and 

FEIS Glossaries. 

441. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should disclose the locations that are 

currently affected by noxious weeds. 

 Response: See response to 439. 

442. The Forest Plan should include all Standards and Guidelines applied by 

vegetative community. 

 Response: The standards and guidelines in Appendix B2 were incorrectly 

displayed and have been removed from that Appendix and have been replaced with 

those in the Forest Plan. 

Effects of Activities/Disturbance 

443. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should fence off representative vegetation 

areas from human and livestock use to study the effects of use. 

 Response: Exclosures have been used in the past to study areas with relatively 

little disturbances. While some of these exclosures have been maintained and some 

new exclosures established within the past 10 years, others have fallen into 

disrepair. Those exclosures that have not fallen into disrepair will likely continue to 

be maintained. In addition, proposed and existing Research Natural Areas are 

available for such studies and additional exclosures may be established on a sitespecific scale to study the effects of various uses and management actions on 

different vegetation types. 

444. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not spray herbicides or synthetic 

chemicals. 

 Response: This plan does not address the treatment methods allowed for noxious 

weeds and these will be addressed through future analysis. While we feel that, 

while the use of herbicides should be limited, the ecological impacts of the spread 

of noxious weeds may outweigh the ability to control them with other methods 

alone. 

445. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not apply snow-stabilizing 

chemicals such as ammonium over ski runs in alpine habitats because the 

chemicals may lead to noxious plant invasion. 

 Response: The use of snow stabilizing chemicals on ski runs in alpine habitats has 

not resulted in noxious weed invasions on the Forest and such invasions are not 

anticipated. We will continue to monitor these areas for such invasions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 127 

446. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit plant collection. 

 Response: Plant collection for sustainable cultural uses is described in a Forestwide subgoal in the Forest Plan. Other direction for the collection of plants is also 

described in Guidelines 31 and 32 in the Forest Plan. These collections will 

ultimately benefit the management and knowledge of plant species on the Forest. 

447. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately address plant 

collection in the Forest Plan. 

 Response: See Response to 446. 

Topic 3: Road and Access Management 

Infrastructure General 

Adequacy of Analysis 

448. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use 2001 as a benchmark for peak 

traffic congestion targets in the Tri-Canyon area Because 2000 was a weak ski 

season. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The wording has been adjusted to set 

parking at 2000 levels not refer to congestion levels. 

Trailhead Access and Parking 

449. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should actively encourage mass transit as 

proposed in the Draft EIS. 

 Response: Thanks for your comment. See the desired future condition for the 

Central Wasatch Management Area Roads/Trails/Access. 

449.1 By limiting the number of cars 

 Response: See the desired future condition for the Central Wasatch Management 

Area Roads/Trails/Access. We are setting parking space limits. 

449.2 By providing shuttle bus services 

 Response: See the desired future condition for the Central Wasatch Management 

Area Roads/Trails/Access. We are setting parking space limits. 

450 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work actively with other agencies 

and parties to develop a comprehensive transportation system for the TriCanyon area and by developing a ride and ski pass. 

 Response: See the desired future condition for the Central Wasatch Management 

Area Roads/Trails/Access. 

451. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should work with the Utah Department of 

Transportation and Snowbird to add a bus pull-out lane and bus stops at the 

White Pine Canyon trailhead. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 128 

 Response: See the desired future condition for the Central Wasatch Management 

Area Roads/Trails/Access. See response 496. 

452. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt the proposed parking 

capacity limit to encourage mass transit. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

453. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the parking lot guideline to 

a standard and reword it. 

 Response: Thanks for your comment. This has been changed. 

454. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide more parking. 

Response: We believe we are at a maximum parking capacity for the Tri-canyon 

area. Other modes of transportation can still be explored. 

 

454.1 By permitting additional resort parking 

 Response: See the desired future condition for the Central Wasatch Management 

Area Roads/Trails/Access. 

454.2 By providing additional parking areas only at the mouths of canyons 

 Response: See “Outside Framework Level of Analysis” as identified in the FEIS. 

This is outside the scope of this analysis. 

454.3 By adding more winter trailhead parking 

 Response: This can best be dealt with during travel management planning. 

Travel management planning is part of the objectives of the Forest Plan. See 

“Outside Framework Level of Analysis” as identified in the FEIS. 

455. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should state in the Forest Plan that it will 

not impose greater parking regulations than those already imposed in 

Snowbird’s Master Development Plan Record of Decision. 

 Response: We believe that we need to maintain flexibility to take appropriate 

action to protect or improve water quality and watershed condition, as more 

information become available. 

456. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop separate parking areas for 

snowmobilers and skiers In Franklin Basin. 

 Response: See response 454.3 The citation listed for Franklin Basin (Draft Plan 

4-73) is the desired future. It is the Forest’s desired future that in the Franklin Basin 

that parking for both motorized and non-motorized winter dispersed recreation use 

is provided and that conflicts between these uses have been minimized through 

some separation of used, clearly marked areas, user cooperation and additional law 

enforcement. Again this is the desired future and does not currently exist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 129 

Trailhead Facilities and Signs 

457. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reconsider placement of High 

Uintas Wilderness trailheads. 

 Response: See response 454.3 

458. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide garbage cans at 

trailheads. 

 Response: This is outside the scope of the Revised Forest Plan, but will forward 

the information to the responsible managers for their consideration. 

459. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide rest room facilities at 

trailheads for year-round recreationists. 

 Response: See response to concern statement 458. 

460. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should focus accessibility efforts on 

developed recreation facilities, rather than providing more motorized 

opportunities. 

 Response: We are trying to make our developed recreational facilities more 

handicap accessible are these facilities are upgraded. This is also the direction for 

the Forest wide goal under recreation 

461. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve signage 

461.1 By replacing existing trail markers with more visible ones 

 Response: The Forest is following the existing National direction in this area as 

identified in “Sign and Poster Guidelines for the Forest Service, Engineering Staff, 

Washington, DC 1998. Publication EM-7100-15”. Trail and road signing; closing, 

leaving open or adjusting road objectives and parking are developed during travel 

management planning. Travel planning is one of the objectives to be dealt with 

during this next planning period. See also “Outside Framework Level of Analysis” 

as identified in the FEIS. 

461.2 By adding more wilderness trail signs 

 Response: See response to 461.1. 

461.3 By adding signs at lakes that list restrictions 

 Response: See response to 461.1. 

461.4 By changing informational signs at trailheads so as not to imply that 

motorized users cause greater damage 

 Response: See response to 461.1. 

461.5 By creating a standard signing convention for travel restrictions to 

reduce confusion. 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

461.6 By making signs larger and using more colors 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 130 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

462. The final Forest Plan should specify use of ACQ lumber in on-forest 

construction projects instead of copper-chromium-arsenate-treated lumber 

due to toxicity concerns. 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

Trailhead – Site-Specific 

463. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add more parking lots at specific 

trailheads in the Beaver and Sinks areas 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

464. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a trailhead at Norway 

Flats. 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

465. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a sign for the Mineral Fork 

Trailhead 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

Road System Management 

Adequacy of Analysis 

466. The Final EIS should include an expanded discussion of road impact 

mitigation. 

 Response: See response 461.1. Additional information is also provided in the 

roads analysis found in the FEIS Appendix B-5. 

467. The final Forest Plan should specify how maintenance workers will apply the 

Watershed Conservation Practices. 

 Response: See response 461.1. Additional information is also provided in the 

roads analysis found in the FEIS Appendix B-5. The training of personnel is 

outside the scope of this analysis. 

468. The Final EIS should include a comparison of the effects of single-track 

motorized trails and roads. 

 Response: Many of the effects from access and travel management, be it from 

roads or trails, are similar. Some of the analysis however did recognize the 

difference in affects as identified in the Aquatic Diversity and Viability section of 

Appendix B in the FEIS. Appendix II in the Forest Plan identifies mitigation efforts 

to reduce sediment runoff from roads and trails. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 131 

Legal Considerations 

469. The Final EIS should evaluate direct and cumulative impacts of road closures 

on Revised Statute 2477 routes 

 Response: See the FEIS under RS2477 road assertions of counties in the Outside 

of Forest Service Authority section. 

470. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize Revised Statute 2477 

road rights-of-way claimed by local governments for all routes in existence 

prior to 1976. 

 Response: See response 469. 

471. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that, by definition, 

Revised Statute 2477 road rights-of-way invalidate roadless areas. 

 Response: See response 469. 

Road Construction and Reconstruction General 

472. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not expand the road and off-road 

vehicle trail network. 

 Response: See response to 461.1. 

473. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should build roads to the center of 

wilderness areas. 

 Response: See response to 461.1. 

474. The final Forest Plan should allow temporary road construction and 

potentially design them for later recreational use. 

 Response: Temporary roads are permitted under the Forest Plan. See also 

response to 461.1. 

475. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reconstruct road and trail 

segments that are causing environmental impacts rather than close them. 

 Response: See response 461.1. 

476. The final Forest Plan should prohibit roads across amphibian travel routes 

and prohibit new construction. 

 Response: See response to 461.1. 

477. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should avoid constructing roads in tundra 

and talus ecosystems due to the environmental sensitivity of these areas. 

 Response: Guidelines 7 and 9 addresses this. 

478. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should delete the first two sentences in the 

second paragraph on page 4-89 of the proposed plan because motorized route 

construction requires separate National Environmental Policy Act analysis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 132 

 Response: This is the desired future for the North Wasatch, Ogden Valley 

Management Area. It is believed that the analysis of the roads in the Public Grove 

area is important to define the future uses in the area. 

Road Construction and Reconstruction in Roadless Areas 

479. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow road realignment and 

reconstruction in roadless areas 

 Response: See Allowed Activities Explanation. “Where Road construction is not 

allowed by Management Prescription the responsible official may authorize road 

construction or reconstruction when: . . . d. Realignment is needed to prevent 

irreparable resource damage by a classified road.” 

480. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow temporary road 

construction in roadless areas and design them for later recreational use. 

 Response: See the roadless area evaluation in Appendix C. of the FEIS and 

response 461.1. 

481. The final Forest Plan should redefine road construction so that trail 

construction in inventoried roadless areas is clearly allowed 

 Response: This is now clearly identified in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

482.1 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit road construction 

in roadless areas. 

 Response: This is within the range of alternatives as identified in the FEIS. 

 

482.2 Mount Naomi area 

 Response: This is within the range of alternatives as identified in the FEIS. 

482.3 South of the North Slope Road 

 Response: This is within the range of alternatives as identified in the FEIS. 

Road Construction and Reconstruction – Site-Specific 

483. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should build a loop trail starting at state 

road sheds in Logan Canyon. 

 Response: Trail and road signing; closing, leaving open or adjusting road 

objectives and parking are developed during travel management planning. Travel 

planning is one of the objectives to be dealt with during this next planning period. 

See also “Outside Framework Level of Analysis” as identified in the FEIS. 

484. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should build an interlink trail for off-road 

vehicles parallel to Highway 152 in Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

 Response: See response 483. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 133 

485. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit road construction in 

Public Grove 

 Response: See response 483. 

Road Maintenance 

486. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should act to address its road 

maintenance backlog 

 Response: See response 483. 

487. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should be more efficient with road 

maintenance funds and personnel. 

 Response: See response 483. 

488. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should raise road maintenance and 

construction standards to lessen environmental impacts. 

 Response: A number of the roads that are adjacent or that pass through the Forest 

are interstate, U.S. or State highways. Counties also own some of these roads. We 

can work cooperatively with the agencies that manage these roads and their rightof-ways but cannot control their activities. Such is the case with State Route 152 up 

Big Cottonwood Creek or US Highway 89 up Logan Canyon. Standards 2 and 19 

provide direction to reduce or eliminate sediment from entering water bodies from 

Forest roads. 

489. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should rewrite S-17 to apply to all roads 

and trails, not just decommissioned ones to ensure proper drainage. 

 Response: Standards 2 and 19 address your concern. 

490. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove all culverts and replace 

them with bridges across permanent streams. 

 Response: It is unrealistic and we believe unnecessary to replace all culverts with 

bridges. We do identify that the broad Forest subgoal is to “Maintain and/or restore 

stream channel integrity, channel processes, and sediment regimes . . .”. We are 

also trying to meet the Forestwide Goal for Toad/Trail and Access Management. 

These goals, as defined in Forestwide Direction, are desired conditions to be 

achieved in the future. They are normally expressed in broad, general terms and are 

timeless. They may not be achieved on every site due to site-specific factors or 

existing condition. 

 

491. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase bridge maintenance. 

 Response: See response 488. 

492. The final Forest Plan should address minimizing the impacts of road 

maintenance near stream channels. 

 Response: See response 488. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 134 

493. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement designated access 

points to streams. 

 Response: We appreciate your support in this area. 

494. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close roads currently being 

maintained by volunteers. 

 Response: We believe that we need to maintain flexibility to take appropriate 

action to protect water quality and watershed health to meet the goals and desired 

future conditions as stated in the Forest Plan. This may require that roads currently 

being maintained through agreement with special user groups would need to be 

closed. Such closures would be identified through site-specific analysis during 

travel management planning. See also “Outside Framework Level of Analysis” in 

the FEIS. 

Road Maintenance – Site-Specific 

495. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase road maintenance in 

roadless areas on the Logan Ranger District. 

 Response: ATV vehicle registration fees are collected and distributed by the 

states. They are not generally transferred to the Forest to maintain Forest roads and 

trails for ATV use. Money used to maintain Forest roads and trails are allocated 

from the Federal and not state funds. 

496. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should grade Forest Road 041 or restrict 

it to off-road vehicles and motorcycles. 

 Response: To address this individual concern through the Forest Plan is outside 

the scope of this analysis and is best dealt with through site-specific analysis during 

travel management planning as identified in the Forest Plan objectives. See also 

“Outside Framework Level of Analysis” in the FEIS and the roads analysis in the 

planning documents. 

497. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should plow the Tony Grove Lake access 

road in the winter. 

 Response: See response 496. 

498. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not oil the Sinks Road. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Road Closure 

499. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should only use signs to close roads rather 

than gates or traps. 

 Response: Roads are closed for a variety of reasons. Some are closed and 

retained in maintenance level 1 standard because administrative access is still 

required. Others are closed are rehabilitated because the no longer deemed 

necessary. The local forests do not establish fines for closure violations. These are 

set at a National level. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 135 

500. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not place tank traps where winter 

motorized users may get stuck in them. 

 Response: See response 496. 

501. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close roads in environmentally 

sensitive areas. 

 Response: See response 496. 

502. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close roads strategically in order 

to link roadless areas to increase connectivity. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Road Removal and Obliteration 

503. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce the miles of roads on the 

forest. 

 Response: See response 496. 

504. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should follow through with closure and 

reclamation of roads after timber projects are complete because cumulative 

environmental effects are occurring. 

 Response: See response 496. The correction of newly created unauthorized roads 

is dealt with in Standard S3, which closes unclassified roads and trails. 

505. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue converting roads to 

single-track trails, but do not restrict bicycling to those routes only. 

 Response: See response to 496. 

506. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider an alternative that 

converts the backlog of unmaintained roads to motorized trails. To provide 

challenging recreation opportunities at lower costs. 

 Response: See response 496. 

507. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prioritize restoration efforts for 

environmentally damaging roads and ways. 

 Response: See response 496. 

508. The Final EIS should accurately address the environmental consequences of 

obliterating roadways. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Road Removal and Obliteration – Site-Specific 

509. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should decommission and restore roads 

and ways in the Bear Management Area. 

 Response: See response 496. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 136 

Ways and Unclassified Roads 

510. The Final EIS should clarify the origin of unclassified roads. 

 Response: We agree that the best way to handle road closures is through sitespecific analysis. See response 496. 

511. The Final EIS should disclose how many miles of ways will be obliterated by 

alternative. 

 Response: Currently there is no set number of roads identified in the Forest Plan 

to be obliterated. This will be dealt with through Objective for OHV and nonmotorized travel management planning when implemented. See also response 496. 

512. The final Forest Plan should include specific road density limits of no more 

than 1 mile per square mile to address ongoing habitat fragmentation. 

 Response: Road density was a factor identified in the roads analysis in the FEIS. 

See response 496. 

513. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow unclassified roads to be 

added to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest system. 

 Response: Standard 3 has been added to avoid the adding of unclassified roads 

and trails. 

514. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prioritize rehabilitation and 

closure of ways. 

 Response: See response 513. 

515. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase funding to continue to 

reclaim off-road vehicle-created roads. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Funding for road decommissioning has 

been a Nation emphasis the past few years. 

516. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should balance the obliteration of 

redundant ways with recreational opportunity values. 

 Response: See response 496. 

517. The Final EIS should discuss the impacts and mitigation of the growing 

problem of braided trails. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Scenic Byways 

518. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not upgrade the scenic byway 

between Red Bank and Beaver to accommodate higher speeds. 

 Response: See response 488. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 137 

519. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should design the proposed Bear Lake 

overlook rest area to minimize impacts to campers at the Sunrise 

Campground. 

 Response: To address this individual concern through the Forest Plan is outside 

the scope of this analysis and is best dealt with through site-specific. See also 

“Outside Framework Level of Analysis” in the FEIS. 

Trail System Management 

Trail System Management General 

520. The final Forest Plan should specifically address non-motorized trail system 

management and work in coordination with local user groups. 

 Response: Public involvement continues to play an import part in planning 

efforts at the local and Forest levels. This is part of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. See Appendix A of the FEIS. 

521. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a comprehensive trails 

plan with local governments and user groups on the Logan Ranger District. 

 Response: See response 496. 

522. The final Forest Plan should retain emphasis on trail system planning in the 

Tri-Canyon area to balance use with watershed protection. 

 Response: See response 496. 

523. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove the “mostly derived from 

existing routes” language from Roads/Trails/Access Desired Condition 

descriptions in the proposed Forest Plan. 

 Response: We have improved the discussion about trails in the management 

prescription areas of the plan and FEIS. The management prescriptions in most 

cases allow for the construction of new trails. However in area of concern for 

wildlife (MPC 3.2) no net increase in trail density is desirable (G3.2D-3). See also 

response 496. 

Trail Construction and Reconstruction General 

524. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should meet trail construction and 

reconstruction targets in the Forest Plan. 

 Response: The ability of a forest to implement a forest plan is dependent on 

budgetary constraints. The Forest was very optimistic in the 1986 plan. We have 

tried to be more realistic in this plan. 

525. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide sufficient summer 

motorized use zones to allow expanded trail systems. 

 Response: With the clarification of allowing or not allowing trail construction 

identified in the FEIS, trail construction is allow in Alternative 5 in all management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 138 

prescriptions with the exception of existing wilderness, research natural areas, and 

undeveloped areas. Alternative 1 provides the other perspective. We believe this 

provide a sufficient range of new trail development opportunities for the analysis. 

526. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum map in Alternative 7 submitted by the public. 

 Response: See response 525. 

527. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand the motorized trail 

network. 

 Response: See response 496. 

527.1 By taking advantage of existing snowmobile parking lots and trail 

corridors 

 Response: See response 496. 

527.2 By reopening some old logging roads as off-road vehicle trails 

 Response: See response 496. 

528. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not expand the motorized trail 

network because there is already sufficient opportunity. 

 Response: See response 525. 

529. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should first maintain and streamline the 

existing motorized trail system before constructing new trails. 

 Response: See response 525. 

530. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide more motorized loop trail 

systems to reduce damage and user-created trails. 

 Response: See response 496. 

531. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop motorized loop trail 

systems at the completion of timber sales to compensate for loss of opportunity 

due to road closures. 

 Response: See responses 525 and 496. 

532. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should spend more money to build 

durable off-road vehicle trails. 

 Response: See response 496. 

533. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should build more single-track 

motorcycle and mountain bike trails. 

 Response: See response to concern statements 525 and 496. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 139 

534. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not designate single use trails to 

prevent increases in trail density 

 Response: See response 525. 

Trail Construction and Reconstruction in Roadless Areas 

535. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow motorized trail construction 

in roadless areas should be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. 

 Response: See response 525 

536. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not build motorized trails in 

roadless areas because there are enough trails already. 

 Response: See response 525 

Trail Construction and Reconstruction – Site Specific 

537. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should complete the Bonneville Shoreline 

Trail. 

 Response: The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is identified as one of the objectives in 

the Forest Plan. 

538. The final Forest Plan should include some means of accommodation for 

routing of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail through roadless and wilderness 

areas. 

 Response: Law sets wilderness designations. It is outside the scope of this 

document to make such recommendation in regards to the Bonneville Shoreline 

Trail until an analysis to address this site-specific concern is completed. 

 

539. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand Objective 20 to assure that 

completion of the Bonneville Shoreline and Great Western trails will not 

adversely impact protected species. 

 Response: We will be following the response to the concern statement 425 in this 

area. 

540. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reconstruct the Pfeifferhorn 

hiking route. 

 Response: See response 496. 

541. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reconstruct the trail to the top of 

Mount Ogden for public safety. 

 Response: See response 496. 

542. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should extend the North American Trail. 

 Response: See response 496. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 140 

543. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should complete the Great Western Trail. 

Adopt proposed Alternative 7 to facilitate future additions. 

 Response: The completion of the Great Western Trail is identified as one of the 

Forest Plan Objectives. 

544. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adjust prescription boundaries to 

increase motorized acreage on the Logan Ranger District so that developing an 

off-road vehicle trail system is possible in the area. 

 Response: See response 525. 

545. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not adjust prescription boundaries 

in order to develop a motorized trail system on the Logan Ranger District. 

 Response: See response 525. 

546. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should create a trail between the Iron 

Mine Trail and the Murdock Basin trail system. (43310) 

 Response: See response 496. 

547. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish a Pullen Creek Trail. 

(43310) 

 Response: See response 496. 

548. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should create parallel two-track trails in 

the Norway Flats area. 

 Response: See response 496. 

549. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should extend the trail system in the 

Monte Cristo area on the Ogden Ranger District. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Trail Maintenance 

550. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase trail maintenance to 

prevent damage caused by rerouting. 

 Response: The Forest tries to balance the management of resources within 

budgetary constraints. Standard 3 directs the Forest to close unauthorized trails and 

roads. 

551. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should invest more resources in trail 

maintenance due to damage caused by increasing off-road vehicle and hiking 

use. 

 Response: See response 550.1 

552. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clear trails early in the season to 

prevent damage caused by rerouting. 

 Response: Thanks for your comment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 141 

553. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt trail maintenance methods 

to reduce stream sedimentation. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

554. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should redesign problem trails rather 

than close them to user groups whenever possible. 

554.1 Mountain bikes 

 554.2 Motorized 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. See response 496. 

555. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve the safety of trails used 

by horses. 

 Response: See response 496. 

556. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase winter grooming and 

snowplowing. 

 Response: See response 496. 

557. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should begin using conveyor belt rubber 

for water bar construction. 

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. 

Trail Closure for Wildlife 

558. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use seasonal rather than 

permanent closures for wildlife wherever possible. 

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. See response 496. 

559. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should only close trails to motorized use if 

negative wildlife impacts are specifically documented. 

 Response: We appreciate your opinion but will continue to provide for wildlife 

through seasonal closures as deemed necessary on a site-specific basis. See 

response 496. 

Trail Removal and Obliteration 

560. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not rip and brush double-track 

trails to convert them to single track. 

 Response: See response 496. 

561. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prevent user-caused conversion of 

single-track trails to off-road vehicle trails through closures and enforcement. 

 Response: See response 496. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 142 

562. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should relocate any routes that would 

otherwise be closed by timber, mining, or grazing activities. 

 Response: See response 496. 

563. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restore the obliterated section of 

the trail seven miles from Oakley starting from the Weber Canyon Road. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Travel Management – Planning 

Adequacy of Analysis 

564. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should inventory and ground-truth all 

roads and trails during the travel management planning process. 

 Response: See response 496. 

565. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add an estimate of the number of 

miles and locations of user-created trails to the Final EIS. 

 Response: See response 496. 

566. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a column to Draft EIS Table 

2-2 for the number of miles of trails closed to mountain bikes by alternative 

listing specific trail closures. 

 Response: The column has been added as table REC-13 in the FEIS. We have 

tried to list individual trail closures in the description of alternative in the FEIS. 

567. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a column for motorized 

recreation to tables that define allowed activities by management prescription 

category. 

 Response: We believe that this is better identified during travel management 

planning. Many management prescription categories allow travel on existing roads 

through the MPC but do not allow new trail construction. A yes or no in the 

description for motorized use allowable activities would not fully address the 

complexity of travel management by management prescription category. 

568. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve the cumulative effects 

analysis in the Final EIS. 

 Response: See response 496. 

568.1 By assessing the number of miles and acres of motorized closures 

 Response: See response 496. 

568.2 By analyzing the cumulative effects of foundation funding of 

environmental groups on motorized access 

 Response: This is beyond the scope of this analysis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 143 

569. The travel management plan should fully consider the issues found in 

publication FS-643, Roads Analysis and evaluate specific questions. 

 Response: The roads analysis, for maintenance level 3-5 roads, has been 

completed and the findings are in the FEIS. Factors deemed appropriate for the 

Wasatch-Cache were analyzed. See also response 569.1 

570. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add more statistics about use 

levels and opportunities for different recreational types. 

 Response: We appreciate your opinion on how an analysis could be done on 

motorized use. We however disagree and have complete what we believe is an 

appropriate level of analysis in the FIES. 

571. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct more research on 

comparative effects of different uses. 

571.1 Relative impacts of recreational uses 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. As opportunities exist attempts will be 

made to do additional research in this area. 

571.2 Relative non-recreational versus recreational impacts 

 Response: Thank you for express your opinion. 

572. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct more research on user 

numbers by recreational type to have accurate numbers for allocation 

decisions. 

 Response: A use survey will be conducted on the Wasatch-Cache during fiscal 

year2003 

573. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a travel management plan 

alternative that better meets motorized recreationists’ needs. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Legal Considerations 

574. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should ensure that the travel plan 

complies with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act by keeping roads and trails 

open to motorized recreation. 

 Response: We believe that the FEIS and the Forest Plan are consistent with the 

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act as identified in the FEIS. See multiple-use as 

defined in the Forest Plan. 

575. The Final EIS should discuss how Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 interfere 

with multiple use management for motorized recreation. 

 Response: We appreciate your opinion in this area. With these two orders being 

Executive Orders, both being in place for over 25 years, and with Code of Federal 

Regulations 36 CFR 295.2 Planning and Designation for Use of Vehicles Off forest 

Development Roads, we believe the discussion of existing condition provide an 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 144 

adequate description of recreation use on the forest with respect to these two 

executive orders. See also response to concern state 496. 

576. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not interpret Executive Orders 

11644 and 11989 to require minimizing user conflicts. Non-motorized users 

who object to motorized uses should stay in non-motorized zones. 

 Response: We appreciate your opinion in this area. However, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 295.2 Planning and Designation for Use of Vehicles 

Off forest Development Roads, it states: “Off-road vehicle management plans shall 

provide vehicle management direction aimed at resource protection, public safety of 

all users, minimizing conflicts among users, and provide for diverse use and 

benefits of the National Forests.”. It goes on to state, “Areas and trails shall be 

located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicles use and other existing or 

proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure 

the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking 

into account noise and other factors.” 

We continue to follow national direction provided in the law, Executive Orders, the 

Coder of Federal Regulation and Forest Service Manuals. See also response 496. 

577. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not convert sections of the 

Continental Divide Trail to non-motorized use. Because it violates the intent of 

the National Trails System Act. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Travel Management Mapping 

578. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should correct Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum mapping errors. 

578.1 Skyline trail 

 Response: Thank you for your comment the change has been made to the ROS 

maps. 

578.2 Lewis Peak spur 

 Response: Thank you for your comment the change has been made to the ROS 

maps. 

578.3 Upper South Fork Roadless Area winter motorized use 

 Response: Thank you for your comment the changes has been made in Winter 

Recreation maps for alternatives 1-6. 

579. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should improve the quality of travel and 

visitor maps. 

 Response: This is outside the scope of this document but the comment will be 

retained and could be considered during the revising of the travel plans and visitor 

maps 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 145 

579.1 By making the format consistent 

 Response: See response 579. 

579.2 By making the format consistent with Bureau of Land Management 

maps 

 Response: See response 579. 

580. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should issue route maps with planning 

documents. 

 Response: You are correct. We are not revising the travel plan maps with this 

document. 

581.1 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make travel management 

maps more readily available 

 Response: See response 579.2. 

581.2 By adding vending machines 

 Response: See response 579.2. 

Travel Management Allocation Decisions 

582. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adjust management prescription 

allocations to match current winter motorized travel maps. 

 Response: The Winter Recreation maps used Management Prescription 

Categories to defined Wilderness and recommended Wilderness and other nonmotorized categories, see all Winter Recreation alternative maps. 

583. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adjust non-motorized boundaries 

so that adjacent motorized trails remain open. 

 Response: We have done this to the best of our knowledge. 

584. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify whether management 

prescription categories are prescriptive or descriptive. By revising Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum maps and plan to clearly state what is allowed where. 

 Response: The Management Prescription Categories are both prescriptive by 

identifying a list of allowed activities in a particular Management Prescription 

Category and descriptive by describing some of the tools that can be used to 

achieve an objective. See Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4, Forestwide Allocations, 

Management Prescription Categories. 

The purpose of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is to provide way to for 

managers to identify and create recreation settings from Primitive to Urban that 

allow recreationists to choose from a spectrum of recreation opportunities that meet 

the desire experience they are seeking. District Travel Plans, Winter Recreation 

Maps, Management Prescription Category Maps, and Oil and Gas Maps provide the 

framework to identify the location on the Forest for what is allowed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 146 

585. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should resolve contradictions between 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum mapping and management prescription 

category descriptions. This is also true for motorized recreation management 

in Management Prescription Category 2.6. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. An analysis was conducted to find 

where conflicts occur in all of the alternatives between the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum and Management Prescription Categories (MPC). Where Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum categories could be adjusted to be compatible the MPC 

category they were. Otherwise if there is a conflict between the two allocations 

Management Prescription Categories takes precedence. See Revised Forest Plan, 

Chapter 4, B. Forestwide Allocations. 

There is no conflict with existing motorized use in this Management Prescription 

Category (MPC) as identified in District Travel Plans and Forestwide Winter 

Recreation Travel plans. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) would have 

recognized the existing motorized use and it would have been mapped accordingly. 

See Alternative ROS and MPC maps. 

586. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should define how conflicts would be 

resolved when Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and management 

prescription categories conflict. 

 Response: Thank you for identifying this potential conflict. As you will notice in 

the introduction to Forstwide Allocations in the Forest Plan we have inserted, 

“However, in the instance of a conflict between direction for a Management 

Prescription and any of the three other layers, the Management Prescription takes 

precedence.” The three other layers identified in the paragraph are Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Winter Recreation (WR) and the Scenery 

Management System (SMS). 

587. The final Forest Plan should state that the Winter Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum category will take precedence over the management prescription 

category if there is a conflict. 

 Response: See response 586. 

588. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove prescriptions that can be 

misinterpreted when Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and management 

prescription categories conflict. 

 Response: See response 586. 

589. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove the summer Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum maps from the final Forest Plan because they make 

site-specific motorized route determinations 

 Response: See FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 4-Recreation/Scenery Management, 

General Effects, Summer Recreation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 147 

590. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not establish different planning 

processes for summer and winter travel management. The Wasatch Cache 

National Forest should make changes to summer and winter Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum maps where necessary. 

Response: There was an attempt to use the ROS process for Winter Recreation, 

but it did not address the questions being ask by the public of “When does Winter 

Recreation Management begin and end? Where can I snowmobile? Where can’t I 

snowmobile? and Where is Heli-skiing allowed?” See FEIS, Appendix B-6, 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Winter Recreation Mapping.

See also response to concern state 496. 

591. Travel planning should differentiate between off-road vehicle and motorcycle 

travel management. 

 Response: The FEIS does recognize the difference between motorcycle and ATV 

travel. See the Recreation section in the FEIS. 

Travel Management – Motorized Access to Forest Resources 

Motorized Access to Forest Resources General 

592. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep existing roads and trails open 

for the benefit of livestock producers. 

 Response: See response 455. We recommend that site-specific comments be 

brought up during travel management planning. See also response 496. 

593. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow winter motorized use to 

facilitate predator management. 

 Response: See response 496. 

594. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep existing roads and trails open 

to allow access for scientific study of paleontological resources. 

 Response: We recommend that site-specific comments be brought up during 

travel management planning. See also response 496. 

595. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep existing roads and trails open 

to allow access for ease of fuels reduction and firefighting. 

 Response: See the roads and fire analysis in the FEIS Chapter 3 and 10. 

596. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep existing roads and trails open 

to allow ease of access for hunting. 

 Response: The Forest is accessible. See roads analysis in the FEIS and the Forest 

Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 148 

Adequacy of Analysis 

597. The Final EIS should analyze the effects of motorized travel restrictions on fire 

and timber management. 

 Response: See response 496. 

Motorized Access and Wildlife 

598. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should only restrict motorized use of 

roads in sensitive big game habitat. 

 Response: See the effects from roads section in chapter 3 of the FEIS. See also 

response 496. 

Travel Management – Roads and Trails 

Roads General 

599. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate dual-purpose roads in 

the travel management plan to allow off-road vehicles to legally use existing 

forest roads. 

 Response: See response 496. 

600. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt the proposed “closed unless 

posted open” standard because it eliminates the motive to destroy signs. 

 Response: See standard 15. Thank you for your support in this area. 

601. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt an “open unless posted 

closed” motorized use policy and include reason for closure on signs. 

 Response: We believe that having that designation route for where motorized use 

is allowed is consistent with 36 CFR 295. Direction is given to administratively 

designate and locate specific areas and trails of National Forest System lands on 

which the use of vehicles travel is allowed, restricted, or prohibited. Standard 16 

reaffirms that summer motorized access is managed on an open on designated route 

basis. 

602. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict all users to designated 

routes. 

 Response: See response to concern statements 601. and 496. 

603. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict snowmobiles to designated 

roads. 

 Response: Restricting snowmobiles to designated routes only was not considered 

as an alternative because of increased management requirements and that resource 

damage held at a minimum once adequate snow depths are achieved.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 149 

604. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should better sign areas closed to 

snowmobiles. 

 Response: This is outside the scope of the Revised Forest Plan, but will forward 

the information to the responsible managers for their consideration.

Trails General 

605. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should identify trail systems by riding 

units rather than individual trail segments. 

 Response: This is a travel management questions that is outside the scope of the 

Forest Plan analysis. Trails are broken down into small segments to track trail 

conditions and maintenance.

606. The final Forest Plan should keep all trails in roadless areas open to motorized 

use. 

 Response: In all alternatives existing motorized trails remained opened, except 

Alternatives 1 & 2 where portions of the Forest were recommended for Wilderness. 

See FEIS, Topic 5-Roadless areas – Effects on Wilderness characteristics and 

roadless area Values, and Wilderness Management for motorized trails that were 

affected by the alternatives. 

607. The final Forest Plan should prohibit motorized travel on all trails due to user 

conflicts and trail damage. 

 Response: Thank you for expressing your feelings. This is beyond the scope of 

the Revised Forest Plan, but we will forward the information to the responsible 

managers for their consideration. 

Specific Roads and Trails 

608. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should exclude Franklin Basin from a 

summer motorized trail network.

 Response: See response 496. 

609. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep Providence and Millville 

Canyon Roads open. 

 Response: See response 496. 

610. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not zone the East Fork Lodge trail 

area as non-motorized. 

 Response: See response 496. 

611. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reopen the Turkey Trail to offroad vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 150 

612. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reopen the Leatham Hollow and 

Card Canyon East Trails to motorcycle use. 

 Response: See response 496. 

613. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the Willard Basin Road due 

to continuing erosion in the area. 

 Response: See response 496. 

614. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open the North Slope Road to offroad vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496. 

615. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close and block the ford across the 

West Fork Blacks Fork to prevent motorized violations of wilderness area 

boundaries. 

 Response: See response 496. 

616. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open Whitney Road (FR22) to offroad vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496. 

617. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close Bear River Smiths Fork 

Trail 091 to motorized use. 

 Response: See response 496. 

618. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Bear River Smiths Fork 

Trail to motorized use. 

 Response: See response 496. 

619. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open specific roads and trails near 

Smith and Morehouse Reservoir to off-road vehicle use. 

619.1 Smith and Morehouse Reservoir to Gardner’s fork road 

 619.2 Smith and Morehouse Reservoir to Little Elk Lake 

 Response: See response 496 

620. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open Hoyt Park to the Swift 

Canyon off-road vehicle Trail to off-road vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496 

621. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open Mineral Fork Trail, in Big 

Cottonwood Canyon, to off-road vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496 

622. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep Mineral Fork road open to 

motorized use. 

 Response: See response 496 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 151 

623. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open Dog Lake Trail, in Big 

Cottonwood Canyon, to off-road vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496 

624. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open Cardiff Fork Trail to offroad vehicle use. 

 Response: See response 496 

625. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Tri-Canyon Trails to 

motorized use and enforce the closures. 

Response: See response 496 

626. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Twin Creeks Road as 

proposed in Alternative 1 due to Sensitive soils and Non-motorized 

recreational values. Response: See response 496 

627. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reopen the jeep road in South 

Fork Canyon. 

 Response: See response 496 

628. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reopen Bunchgrass Road 

 Response: See response 496 

629. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reopen roads to the Old Ephraim 

monument. 

 Response: The road up Temple Fork to the area is currently open in the travel 

plan. 

Specific Areas 

630. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not limit motorized access in the 

Blacksmith Fork area. 

 Response: See response 496. The selection of an alternative for the management 

of the Forest is one made by the Forest Supervisor. It is not a vote. 

631. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow motorcycle use in Ricks 

Canyon. 

 Response: See response 496 

632 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop an off-road vehicle system 

on the Logan Ranger District. 

632.1 Because it is a requirement under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

 Response: We are using ROS as a description of recreational experience. The 

use of this description does not require that all categories be used on any one area. 

See the description of ROS in the Forest Plan and response 496 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 152 

632.2 To meet growing and projected demands 

 Response: See response 496. We recognize that we will not be able to meet the 

demands of all recreational groups on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

633. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicle use in 

Logan Canyon. 

 Response: See response 496. ATV use in Logan Drainage is not closed with this 

FEIS. See the Desired Future Condition as identified in the Forest Plan. 

634. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Temple Peak Roadless Area (Swan Creek 

Drainage) to allow construction of motorized trails. 

 Response: See response 496 

635. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Swan Creek Roadless Area to allow 

construction of motorized trails.

Response: Alternative 5 ROS map shows this area as being managed as SemiPrimitive Motorized, but it does not allow the construction of new motorized trails. 

New motorized trail construction is outside of the scope of the Revised Forest Plan. 

Also see response to concern statement 496.

636. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the summer Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Beaver Mountain area. 

 Response: See response 496 

637. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Mount Logan South Roadless Area to allow 

construction of motorized trails. 

 Response: See response 496 

638. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Mount Logan North Roadless Area to allow 

construction of motorized trails. 

 Response: See response 496 

639. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Gibson Roadless Area to allow construction of 

motorized trails. 

 Response: See response 496 

640. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Right Hand Fork Roadless Area to allow 

construction of motorized trails. 

 Response: See response 496 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 153 

641. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce motorized acreage on the 

Logan Ranger District due to environmental and human health impacts 

 Response: See response 496 

642. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate Bunchgrass Hollow 

White Pine Canyon, Steam Mill Canyon, Hells Kitchen Canyon, Steep Hollow, 

Blind Hollow, and Logan Dry Canyon as non-motorized. 

Response: These areas were considered closed to motorized travel in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. See Winter Recreation maps Alternatives 1 and 2. 

643. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep summer motorized closures 

in the Mahogany Ridge Roadless Area for wildlife. 

 Response: See response 496. 

644. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum for the Mahogany Range Roadless Area to allow 

construction of motorized trails. 

 Response: See response 496. 

645. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate Providence Canyon 

quarry open as a motorized challenge park area. Change management 

prescription category to read “Open on Designated routes and Areas” 

 Response: See response 496. 

646. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict summer motorized use in 

Public Grove to existing designated routes. 

 Response: See response 496 

647. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate the Lewis Peak Roadless 

Area non-motorized or limit motorized users to alternate days by adding 

language to Forest Plan. 

 Response: See response 496.

648. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate the Willard Roadless 

Area non-motorized. 

 Response: See response to 496. 

649. The final Forest Plan should include new language to allow closure of Willard 

Basin to motorized travel if mitigation of off-road vehicle damage is not 

possible. 

 Response: See response 496. 

650. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Taylor Canyon to motorized 

use and development. 

 Response: See response 496. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 154 

651. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should leave the area on the West Fork of 

Blacks Forks accessible by vehicles in all of the alternatives. 

 Response: The West Fork of Blacks Fork is accessible by vehicles in all 

alternatives. 

652. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit all recreational motorized 

use in the Tri-Canyon area for watershed protection. 

 Response: See response 496. 

653. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit all recreational motorized 

use in Mineral Fork in Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

 Response: See response 496. 

654. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prevent motorized recreation by 

cabin owners in closed areas of Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

 Response: 

655. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open White Pine Canyon to 

motorized vehicle access. 

 Response: See response 496 

656. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should zone Mineral Basin in American 

Fork Canyon as a summer non-motorized recreational zone. 

 Response: This are is on the Uinta National Forest and is outside the scope of the 

analysis. 

657. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow motorized use in American 

Fork Canyon. 

 Response: This are is on the Uinta National Forest and is outside the scope of the 

analysis. 

Travel Management – Motorized Seasonal Restrictions 

Motorized Seasonal Restrictions General 

658. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should institute seasonal closures for 

infrastructure along stream corridors. 

 Response: See response 496 

659. The final Forest Plan should institute diurnal closures of existing roads across 

amphibian travel routes during the breeding season. 

 Response: We encourage the commenter to assist in identifying such routes 

during travel management planning. This would allow an interdisciplinary team to 

identify appropriate mitigation measures. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 155 

660. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate seasonal closures during 

hunting seasons for hunter safety. 

 Response: We believe we need the flexibility to close roads to prevent resource 

damage. The use of firearms, no matter what the concentration of the public, is 

dangerous. Hunters should be aware of this and take appropriate action. 

661. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should further restrict mountain biking in 

Millcreek Canyon by limiting the number of days mountain bikes can use the 

Lower Pipeline Trail. 

 Response: See response 496 

662. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close trails to mountain biking 

in the Tri-Canyon area especially Mill D North Trails. 

Response: See response 496 

663. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict mountain biking in Big 

and Little Cottonwood Canyons. 

 Response: See response 496 

664. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict mountain biking on the 

east slopes of the Mount Naomi Wilderness by recommending wilderness 

designation. 

Response: This action is considered in Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6 in varying 

amounts depending upon the areas considered for Recommended Wilderness. See 

FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 4 Recreation/Scenery Managements, section Effects on 

Recreation from Inventoried Roadless Area Management. 

Motorized Seasonal Restrictions – Site-Specific 

665. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should seasonally close FR 086 to any 

vehicle over 500 pounds. 

 Response: See response 496 

Travel Management – Winter Motorized 

Winter Motorized General 

666. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not override Forest Plan 

management prescription category closures with special winter motorized 

travel maps. 

 Response: Management prescriptions are defined as “management practices, 

intensity selected and scheduled for application on a specific area to attain 

multiple-use and other goals and objectives”. Management Prescription Categories 

provide a general sense of the management or treatment of the land intended to 

result in a particular condition being achieved or set of values being restored or 

maintained. Emphasis as used in these prescriptions is defined as focus or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 156 

highlighting, not exclusive or “dominant” use. In the event of a conflict between 

uses, resolution will be based on the specific merits of the situation rather than 

assuming that the Prescription implies a “trumping “ of one resource over another. 

The entire Management Direction Package for the area must be considered, not just 

the prescription. This package includes a winter recreation map displaying areas 

open for or closed to motorized use. Most MPC’s do not define whether or not 

winter recreation is allowed. Designated wilderness 1.1-1.4 is the only MPC that by 

definition does not allow motorized use. 

667. The final Forest Plan should adopt clear and enforceable winter motorized 

closures throughout the forest. 

 Response: The Forest Service enforces existing laws and regulations through law 

enforcement and forest personnel. Travel management decisions, similar to all other 

decisions, made in the Forest Plan are based upon a variety of factors such as 

current use and public expectations, watershed and resource protection and 

ecosystem management. Mapping of decisions made in the Forest plan is the first 

step. This will be followed by signing, education and enforcement. The Forest 

Service will continue to work to educate user groups and individuals to prevent 

violations as well as through law enforcement activities. 

Winter Motorized – Site-Specific 

668. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Smithfield Canyon to motorized 

vehicles in the winter. 

 Response: In the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS, Alternatives 1, 6, and 7 close 

Smithfield Canyon to Winter Motorized use. 

 

669. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Smithfield Canyon to winter 

snowmobile use due to damage occurring in low snow conditions. 

 Response: See response 668. The Wasatch- Cache Forest plan establishes a 

minimum snow depth of 12 inches. This snow depth is believed to be enough to 

protect the underlying resources and block most non-over the snow motorized use. 

670. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate Logan Dry Canyon as 

winter non-motorized for safety reasons. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan provides for Broad Scale Forest wide 

direction for management of Forest Lands. Specific travel management decisions 

such as this are based upon a variety of factors, including current public use and 

expectations, resource protection safety and compliance with applicable direction. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 6& 7 in the Final EIS close Dry Canyon to Motorized use. 

671. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow winter off-road vehicle use 

on the Hoyt Peak Trail. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan provides for Broad Scale Forest wide 

direction for management of Forest Lands. Specific travel management decisions 

such as this are based upon a variety of factors, including current public use and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 157 

expectations, resource protection and compliance with applicable direction. Every 

Alternative in the Final EIS except for Alternative 1 and 2 allows off road winter 

motorized use on the Hoyt Peak Trail. 

672. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobile use in the 

Willard area. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan provides for Broad Scale Forest wide 

direction for management of Forest Lands. Specific travel management decisions 

such as this are based upon a variety of factors, including current public use and 

expectations, resource protection and compliance with applicable direction. In the 

Final EIS, Alternatives 1 and 2 allow winter motorized use on the existing road in 

the Willard area. In addition, Alternative 3 allows winter-motorized use off road in 

the Willard Area. 

673. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close Tony Grove and adjacent 

areas to snowmobiles because closures are unmanageable due to surrounding 

open areas. 

 Response: Alternatives 3,4 and 5 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS allow increased 

motorized use in the Tony Grove area. 

674. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Tony Grove area to winter 

snowmobile use. This would also make the wilderness boundary 

enforceability. 

 Response: Alternatives 1&2 in the Final EIS close the Tony Grove area winter 

motorized use in this area. The Mt. Naomi Wilderness Boundary is well mapped 

and properly signed. It is every one’s responsibility using this area to know where 

the wilderness boundary is and to obey the rules and laws governing that area’s use. 

675. The final Forest Plan should increase winter non-motorized zones to protect 

the yurt system on the Logan Ranger District from snowmobile intrusions. 

 Response: Alternatives 1 & 2 close this area for motorized use. Alternative 7 in 

the Wasach-Cache Final Environmental Impact Statement does not allow motorized 

use in a specific area between the Bunchgrass and Steep Hollow drainages within 

the Mt. Naomi roadless area. Please refer to the winter recreation maps in the 

Revised Forest Plan. 

676. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the area from Tony Grove 

turnoff to the Idaho border to winter motorized use. 

 Response: Winter motorized use along with non-motorized use will continue to be 

allowed. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides many types of recreational 

opportunities, one being snowmobile use. There will be areas of winter motorized 

use and areas of winter non-motorized use identified on winter recreation maps. 

Refer to response 675. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 158 

677. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the area west of Franklin 

Basin Road to winter motorized use so that boundaries follow terrain features 

for ease of enforcement. 

 Response: Please refer to responses 675 & 676. 

678. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should create a ski-only trail in Franklin 

Basin. 

 Response: Please refer to responses 675 & 676. 

679. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close Garden City Canyon and the 

adjacent area to winter motorized use. 

 Response: Please refer to responses 675 & 676. 

680. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the area west of Highway 89 

in Sink Hollow to winter motorized use because Skiing and Snowmobiling are 

incompatible uses. 

 Response: Winter motorized use along with non-motorized use will continue to be 

allowed. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides many types of recreational 

opportunities, one of them being snowmobile use. Please refer to winter ROS maps 

in Revised Forest Plan that show areas which are open and which areas are closed 

to winter motorized use. 

681. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close the area in Sink Hollow 

to winter motorized use. 

 Response: Refer to response’s 676 and 680. 

682. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand winter non-motorized 

zones in the Logan area. 

 Response: Alternatives 1 & 2 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS reduce the amount 

of motorized use on the Forest. Alternative 4 leaves the amount of motorize use the 

same. Alternative 6 does not allow motorized use in recommended Wilderness. 

Please refer to the Winter ROS maps in the Revised Forest Plan that show which 

areas are open and which areas are closed to winter motorized use in the Logan 

area. 

682.1 Into areas with adequate snow coverage. 

 Response: There will be areas of winter motorized and winter non-motorized use 

mapped on the winter recreation maps as part of the Forest Plan and on District 

Travel Plans. 

682.2 Into less hazardous terrain for avalanche safety reasons. 

 Response: There is a large amount of terrain in the Logan area mountains that has 

low slope angles and low avalanche hazard and is open only to winter nonmotorized use. Alternative 7 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS makes the area from 

the Bunch Grass through the Steep Hollow drainages open to non-motorize use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 159 

683. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep Green Canyon closed to 

snowmobiles. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan keeps Green Canyon closed to Motorized use. 

684. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiles in Green 

Canyon. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan keeps Green Canyon closed to Motorized use 

to allow for easily accessible non-motorized opportunity. 

685. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the Temple drainage to 

winter motorized use due to conflicts with skiers. 

 Response: The Forest Plan provides for broad scale management prescriptions and 

direction on how various areas will be managed. Areas of winter-motorized use 

along with areas of non-motorized use will continue to be allowed across the Forest. 

In Alternatives 1 & 2, winter motorized use is limited to existing roadways only 

with no off road use. Please refer to the Winter Recreation maps in the Forest Plan. 

Alternative 7 closes the Temple Fork drainage to winter motorized use to protect 

critical wildlife winter range. Areas of winter-motorized use along with areas of 

non-motorized use will continue to be allowed in specific areas of the Forest. The 

Forest will continue to look for ways to reduce conflicts with skiers. 

686. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep the Twin Creeks area closed 

to snowmobile use. 

 Response: In Alternatives 1, 2 & 6 of the Final Wasatch-Cache EIS, the Twin 

Creeks area is closed to winter motorized use. 

687. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the Amazon Basin area to 

snowmobile use with one travel corridor for snowmobiles. 

 Response: In Alternatives 1 & 2 of the Final Wasatch-Cache EIS, Amazon Basin 

is closed to winter motorized use. 

 

688. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change proposed winter motorized 

areas near the Wellsville Wilderness Area to non-motorized. 

 Response: Winter motorized use along with non-motorized use will continue to be 

allowed. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides many types of recreational 

opportunities, one being snowmobile use. There will be areas of winter motorized 

use and areas of winter non-motorized use designed through management 

prescription allocations. Please refer to the Winter ROS maps in the Revised Forest 

Plan that show which areas are open and which areas are closed to winter motorized 

use in the Ogden area. 

689. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should ban snowmobiles in Public Grove 

or restrict them to alternate days. 

 Response: There will be areas of winter motorized use and areas of winter nonmotorized use designed through management prescription allocations. Please refer 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 160 

to the Winter ROS maps in the Revised Forest Plan that show which areas are open 

and which areas are closed to winter motorized use in the Logan area. 

690. The final Forest Plan should adopt the proposed snowmobile closure in the 

Lewis Peak area. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides many types of 

recreational opportunities, one of them being snowmobile use. Winter motorized 

use along with non-motorized use will continue to be allowed. The Forest Service 

will continue to work to provide an appropriate mix of recreational uses in this area. 

Please refer to the Winter ROS maps in the Revised Forest Plan that show which 

areas are open and which areas are closed to winter motorized use in the Logan area 

mountains. 

691. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit snowmobiling in the 

Snowbasin Land Exchange lands to offset the loss of cross-country skiing 

opportunities on the traded lands. 

. 

 Response: Alternatives 1 & 2 significantly reduce the amount of snowmobile use 

across the forest including the Snowbasin Land Exchange lands. The cross-country 

skiing opportunities have likely increased with the addition of approximately 

10,000 acres of private lands becoming public lands as a result of the Snowbasin 

Land Exchange. 

692. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt Winter Travel Plan 

Alternative 3 for the Evanston District. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache Final EIS covers a broad range of Alternatives 

affecting winter motorized travel across the Forest. Alternative 7 was chosen to 

provide a even balance between motorized and non-motorized use while trying to 

reduce conflicts between user groups. 

 693. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the area south of North Slope 

Road and the Lakes Roadless Area to snowmobile use in the absence of 

monitoring and complete lynx effects analysis. 

 Response: There will be areas of winter motorized use and areas of winter nonmotorized use mapped on the Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District. The 

Endangered Species Act directs all government agencies to protect species listed as 

threatened and endangered. This includes habitat. Eleven counties in Northern 

Utah are included as Lynx habitat by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The 

Forest will work closely with the FWS on all mitigation requirements outlined for 

this species. 

694. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt the High Uinta Preservation 

Council’s modified winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum map for the 

North Slope which will reduce wilderness violations while leaving large open 

areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 161 

 Response: Alternatives 1, 2 & 6 in the Final EIS do not allow winter-motorized 

use in roadless areas. 

695. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open the North Slope of the High 

Uintas to snowmobiling. 

 Response: Many areas of the North Slope of the High Uintas are already open to 

snowmobiling. 

695.1 Because the need statements are unsupported 

 Response: Please refer to the Travel Management Section in the Wasatch-Cache 

EIS. 

695.2 Because lynx habitat requirements are not proven 

 Response: The Endangered Species Act directs all government agencies to protect 

species listed as threatened and endangered. This includes habitat. 11 counties in 

Northern Utah are included as lynx habitat by the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS.) This includes the North Slope. The Forest will work closely with the FWS 

on all mitigation requirements they outlined for this species. 

696. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the north end of the Upper 

South Fork Roadless Area to snowmobile use along with FR 073 and 201. 

 Response: Please refer to the Winter ROS maps in the Revised Forest Plan that 

show which areas are open and which areas are closed to winter motorized use in 

this area. 

697. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit winter motorized 

recreation in the Wasatch Front Range. 

 Response: Winter motorized use along with non-motorized use will continue to be 

allowed in selected areas along the Wasatch Front. The Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest provides many types of recreational opportunities, one being snowmobile 

use. There will be areas of winter motorized use and areas of winter non-motorized 

use designed through management prescription allocations. Please refer to the 

Winter ROS maps in the Revised Forest Plan that show which areas are open and 

which areas are closed to winter motorized use in this area. 

698. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit winter motorized 

recreation in the Tri-Canyon area. 

 Response: The only land where snowmobiling is allowed in the Tri-Canyon area is 

Guardsman’s Pass. Nearly all of the land in the Guardsman’s Pass area, which is 

open to snowmobiling, is private. The Forest Service has no jurisdiction on private 

lands. 

 

699. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit winter motorized use in 

the Guardmans Pass area to protect the watershed. 

 Response: The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over private lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 162 

700. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit snowmobiling in roadless 

areas. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache Final EIS covers a broad range of Alternatives 

covering winter motorized use. Alternatives 1, 2 & 6 of the EIS prohibits motorize 

use in roadless areas. 

701. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiling in roadless 

areas. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache Final EIS covers a broad range of Alternatives 

covering winter motorized use. Alternative’s 3 & 5 of the EIS allows motorize use 

in roadless areas. 

Travel Management – Mechanized 

Mechanized – Site-Specific. 

702. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep the Big Water Trail open to 

mountain bikes. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides many types of 

recreational opportunities including mountain biking. Please refer to the Salt Lake 

Ranger District Travel Management Plan for specific areas that are open to 

mountain biking. Trail managers at the Salt Lake Ranger District will continue to 

evaluate the existing trail system and will implement strategies to better manage the 

increasing use. 

Topic 4: Recreation and Scenery Management 

Recreation and Scenery Management 

General Management 

703. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should promote recreation as a primary 

goal of the Forest Plan. 

 Response: Recreation is recognized as one of the primary uses on the WCNF. 

Goals for recreation are found in the Forest Plan Chapter 4, 2. Forestwide Goals and 

Subgoals. 

704. The Forest Service should include new language to emphasize providing 

beneficial recreation experiences in Guideline 41. 

 Response: “Beneficial recreation experiences” was added to the Recreation 

Guideline. See Chapter 4 Revised Forest Plan, Recreation, Guidelines for 

Recreation Management. 

 

705. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement the Forest Plan because 

it provides balanced recreation opportunities. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 163 

706. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should responsibly manage recreation 

and other forest uses. 

 Response: See the Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4, Forest Management Direction. 

This direction is intended to take the broad conceptual goals, allocations, standards 

and guidelines for a number of resources and uses and fit them together in a clear 

complementary way, given a particular area’s land capabilities, needs and 

opportunities. 

706.1 In a balanced manner 

 Response: See response 706.1. 

706.2 By making agency-authorized changes in forest policy. 

 Response: The Forest is making agency-authorized changes in forest policy to 

responsibly managing recreation and other forest uses by following the NEPA 

process. See FEIS Chapter 1 Purpose and Need. 

706.3 By developing strict and enforceable standards to prohibit increased 

human use of the forests 

 Response: The alternatives of the FEIS displays a range of human uses on the 

WCNF based on concerns such as recreation use conflicts, biodiversity and 

viability. The Forest Plan contains standards and guidelines that sets limits or 

courses of action to protect Forest resources. The intent of Forest Plan revision is 

not to prohibit increased human use of the Forest but to manage the Forest 

Resources. 

706.4 By recognizing that they do not have the resources to manage and 

mitigate impacts of the recreation based activities they are encouraging 

 Response: Thank you for your comments. The WCNF manages the Forest within 

the funding that is available as described in the Social and Economic analysis 

section of the FEIS. During the Forest Plan revision process, we consider many 

ways to manage the WCNF and we feel that the direction for the management of 

resources and mitigation of impacts is adequate to managing activities on the 

WCNF. 

706.5 By adopting the principle of maximum tolerable impact for each visitor 

day 

 Response: We feel that this type of assessment is appropriate at a site-specific 

analysis and not in Forest Plan revision. This is because Forest Plan revision 

considers the overall broad-scale management of the Forest. Site-specific analysis 

and use of specific methods for determining use or impacts would become so 

detailed that broad-level Forest planning would not be meaningful. Broad level 

Forest planning is the scale expected for Forest Plan revision. 

706.6 By allowing appropriate densities for motorized and non motorized 

routes based on ecological parameters 

 Response: See response 706.5. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 164 

707. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should treat all user groups fairly. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. It is the intent of the Forest Plan 

revision process to treat all user groups fairly. 

707.1 By reallocating recreation boundaries to accommodate all recreation 

groups 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The FEIS presents seven alternatives 

that have various levels of motorized and non-motorized use on the WCNF. Within 

these alternatives a wide variety of recreation experience is being managed for from 

Primitive to Urban. See Table REC-11 for acres of Summer Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum, Winter Recreation Table REC-12 for acres of Winter 

Recreation and FEIS Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail. 

707.2 By applying restrictions fairly to all user groups 

 Response: Trail overuse and erosional impacts are usually analyzed at the sitespecific level and the WCNF tries to make decisions on these issues fairly. 

707.3 By considering that favoring wilderness type activities in roadless areas 

only serves a narrow segment of the recreating public 

 Response: The alternatives of the FEIS displays a range of uses allowed on the 

WCNF. The revised Forest Plan takes into account the diverse recreation 

population by allocating areas to different uses and is not intended to favor one 

group over another, but to manage use on the forest to avoid conflicts and manage 

multiple use. 

707.4 Because every activity has an impact 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

708. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should disperse recreational users. 

 Response: The alternatives of the FEIS display a range of allowed uses for 

motorized vehicles. The amount of area allowed for motorized-recreation is 

considered in the decision. 

708.1 To lower the impact on the environment 

 Response: The effects of motorized recreation are analyzed for each alternative 

and are considered in the decision. 

708.2 To lower the impacts on popular areas 

 Response: See response to concern statement 708.2. 

709 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not restrict access 

709.1 To avoid elitism 

 Response: It is not the intent of Forest Plan revision to provide opportunities for 

use on public lands for wealthy special interest groups. We feel that the range of 

use allowed on lands within the WCNF as described in the alternatives of the FEIS 

is in response to issues and concerns identified through public participation and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 165 

does not eliminate the public from public land and is not elitist as indicated by the 

range of alternatives and uses considered in the FEIS. 

709.2 To protect freedom values 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Forest Plan revision considers both 

motorized and non-motorized uses on the WCNF because Forest System lands are 

managed for multiple-use. The WCNF does not close roads to restrict freedom, but 

may do so for other purposes such as watershed protection or other non-motorized 

uses that are considered important. That is one of the purposes of Forest Plan 

revision, that is, to display alternative uses of Forest System lands based on public 

participation and then decide how to manage the uses. 

710. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise the winter recreation 

section in the Draft EIS to provide a more equitable and logical balance of 

winter recreation opportunities. 

 Response: The FEIS considers the balance of winter recreation use in the range of 

alternatives and Alternative 7 specifically addresses non-motorized recreation in the 

Bear River Range. See Alternative 7 Winter Recreation maps and write-up in 

Appendix B-6 for development of Alternative 7 Winter Recreation maps. 

711. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop winter recreation as one 

of the allocation tools used in the Forest Plan. 

 Response: The WCNF does consider Winter Recreation in its land allocation as 

described in FEIS Appendix D – Allocation Framework D-3. 

712. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise the Roadless Desired 

Condition to accommodate backcountry values, not wilderness values. 

 Response: Roadless Desired Condition description has been revised and states 

that these areas are managed according to the management prescription applied. 

This includes areas where motorized uses are allowed, according to the prescription, 

but no road construction is allowed. 

713. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide opportunities for quiet 

and solitude in ridgeline environments. 

 Response: The alternatives of the FEIS display a range of allowed uses that 

provide opportunities for quiet and solitude. The desire of the public for various 

uses on the WCNF will be considered in the final decision. 

714. The final Forest Plan should adopt a more specific definition of “new 

recreation development.” 

 Response: New recreation development has been changed to “New Campgrounds” 

in Comparison of Alternatives, Chapter 2, FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 166 

715. The Forest Service should include stricter criteria for new recreation 

development in Guideline 41. 

 Response: Since the issuance of the draft Forest Plan, guidelines for recreation 

development have been revised. We thank you for your comment. We feel that if 

these guidelines are tightened substantially, as you suggest, it will make it very 

difficult to manage recreation development for the needs of the public. We feel that 

concerns that are listed in your proposed guideline is best met during site-specific 

project implementation and that the revised Forest Plan should give broader 

guidance for recreation management. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

716. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately analyze recreational 

impacts. 

 Response: The “Guidelines for Recreation Management” were considered in the 

analysis of effects in the FEIS, Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences. 

716. 1 On wilderness 

 Response: The effects of activities are addressed at a broad level which is the 

appropriate scale for Forest Planning. See response 706.5. 

716.2 By considering the impacts of future or new recreational activities, Such 

as paint ball. 

 Response: See response 706.5. The revised Forest Plan provides direction to 

“Manage use of new recreation technology to reduce effects on the Forest”. 

716.3 By determining, in cooperation with SLPU, what backcountry uses 

adversely impact the environment 

 Response: See response 706.5. 

716.4 By studying all aspects of human impact on the canyons, highway, and 

parking capacity, and all recreation including resort and backcountry use 

 Response: See response 706.5. 

716.5 By addressing the ecological and social impacts that result from each 

type of recreation and deciding which habitat type is suitable for each activity 

 Response: The FEIS identifies ecological and economic and social impacts of 

recreation activities in environmental consequences sections with primary 

discussions under Watershed Health and Biodiversity and Viability and Economic 

and Social Analysis. Regarding the concern of appropriate use of OHVs, the Forest 

Plan has a standard for “summer motorized and mechanized access is managed on 

an open on designated routes”, under Standards for Road/Trail and Access 

Management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 167 

716.6 By studying ways to control highway traffic and backcountry use 

 Response: See response 706.5. 

716.7 By discarding the flawed Bradford study and using more accurate data 

on dispersed users 

 Response: The analysis that you refer to is part of a previous site-specific analysis 

of heli-skiing and is not part of the analysis in the Forest Plan. Multiple-use of the 

forest resources, including heli-skiing, is an important factor that is considered in 

the decisions that will be made during Forest Plan revision. 

717. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct a carrying capacity 

analysis. 

717.1 For the entire Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

717.2 For the Wasatch Front Canyons 

717.3 For the Tri-Canyons area 

717.4 For all uses that allow for the protection of the water supply 

717.5 To decide what activities to restrict or encourage 

717.6 To limit the number of canyon users 

717.7 To address use and plan beyond the next 15 years 

717.8 Include the study in the Forest Plan immediately 

717.9 Consistent with restoration and sustainability of wildlife, natural, and 

scenic values 

717.10 Before new developments are allowed

 Response: The WCNF would like to have completed a carrying capacity study for 

the Tri-canyons area and there are many very good reasons for doing so, but chose 

not to for several reasons. A carrying capacity study is a very complex process 

involving many different jurisdictions, partners, landowners, and users on the 

Forest; is mid-level assessment that is much more complicated than broad-level 

Forest Plan assessment; takes a large amount of time for the assessment that would 

take it beyond the time frame for completing the Forest Plan revision; and is not a 

top priority for the WCNF at this time. A carrying capacity study for the entire 

WCNF would be more complicated than one for the Tri-canyon area. 

718. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish recreation use data 

collection points. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache will be conducting National Use Visitor Surveys 

beginning in October of 2002, which will be carried through until end of September 

of 2003 and will repeat every 5 years there after. 

718.1 For off-road vehicle users 

 Response: See above response to concern statement 718.1. Part of the process of 

Revising the Forest Plan is to review and analysis existing information that pertains 

to the revision. The knowledge gained from studies such as Off Highway Vehicle 

Use and Owner Preference in Utah (revised) January 18, 2002, Professional Report 

IORT PR2001-02 other reports were used in the development of this analysis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 168 

Education 

719. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should educate the public. 

719.1 On how to use and care for the land 

 719.2 About the effects of their activities 

 719.3 On the rules and the trails that are open for their use 

 719.4 On maintaining the 200 foot buffer around riparian areas 

 719.5 On low impact camping ethics 

 719.6 In conjunction with public school systems 

 719.7 Instead of restricting activities 

Response: In response to comments received from the public, environmental 

education is now one of the main objectives of the WCNF in the next planning 

period. Education has always been an important part of the Forest Service 

nationally and locally, and it is emphasized in the revised Forest Plan in Chapter 4, 

Forestwide Direction, Goals and Subgoals. 

720. The final Forest Plan should include specific direction to increase user 

education. 

720.1 Through nature education programs 

 721.2 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should begin an educational 

campaign to encourage use of quieter motorized recreational vehicles.

 Response: See response 719. 

 

Allow Activities 

722. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow recreational activities for 

environmental reasons by allowing low impact recreational activities. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Several alternatives respond to the issue 

of impacts by lowering the amount of impact from activities. 

723. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow recreational activities for 

social reasons. 

723.1 To promote family values 

723.2 To prevent crime 

723.3 To accommodate the growing population 

 Response: Thank you for your comments. The WCNF recognizes the values of 

recreation on the WCNF as shown by the fact that it is one of the main issues raised 

in the Needs for Change and is a main topic in the FEIS and Forest Plan. 

724. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow recreational activities for 

economic reasons because of the economic benefit to adjacent communities. 

 Response: See concern statement 723.1. Economic analysis is contained in the 

Social and Economic Analysis section in the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 169 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Activities 

725. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should control/restrict recreational 

activities in order to enhance and maintain other goals. 

 Response: The alternatives in the FEIS display a range of allowed uses in response 

to issues and concerns raised by the public including the amount of certain types of 

recreation on the WCNF. We have also addressed these through the recreation 

opportunity spectrum (ROS) that have a range of recreation opportunities from 

primitive to urban. See ROS maps for each alternative, and alternative descriptions 

and allowed activities for allocations in the FEIS. 

726. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should control/restrict recreational 

activities for environmental reasons. 

726.1 To protect the environment 

726.2 To protect forest health 

726.3 To protect riparian areas

 Response: See concern statement response 725. 

727. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should control/restrict recreational 

activities for social reasons because of impacts to quiet and solitude. 

 Response: See concern statement response 725. 

728. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct seasonal recreational 

closures in the Elkhorn Wildlife Management Area to accommodate multiple 

use while protecting wildlife. 

 Response: We’ve done this where we believe it to be appropriate. If you have sitespecific concerns these can be addressed during travel management planning. 

729. The final Forest Plan should limit major special permit recreational events to 

ski area boundaries and require an EIS for permit approval. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. We feel that the current language is 

adequate because it is broads enough to cover most events and that issues you raise 

such as substantial light and sound pollution should be addressed at the site-specific 

NEPA analysis. We feel that the level of NEPA analysis should be determined after 

a specific proposal is brought to the WCNF. 

730. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit parking lots, commercial 

development, campgrounds or vehicle routes along recreational corridors. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The range of alternatives in the FEIS 

addresses your concern. 

731. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider that “larger scale public 

facilities” and “modest and unobtrusive marinas” are not compatible with 

largely primitive and undeveloped shorelines and watersheds. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 170 

732. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should favor non-noise, non polluting, 

and non fossil fuel using recreational activities. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The range of alternatives in the FEIS 

addresses your concern. 

User Conflict/Monitoring and Enforcement 

User Conflicts 

733. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address user conflicts. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The range of alternatives in the FEIS 

addresses your concern. The WCNF is considering many ways to manage user 

conflicts and travel management it is one of the main objectives in the revised 

Forest Plan. 

733.1 By considering examples of how other forests have reduced winter 

recreational conflicts 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

733.2 By protecting forest resources above user groups 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. One of the main sections that protect 

forest resources is the standards and guidelines section of the Forest Plan. 

733.3 By segregating users 

 Response: The range of alternatives in the FEIS addresses your concern by 

presenting a range of allowable uses on the WCNF. 

733.4 By separating hiking trails from all other users 

 Response: See response 733.3. 

733.5 By separating foot and horse travel, motorized recreation, and research 

 Response: See response 733.3. 

733.6 By implementing a variety of solutions to user conflicts before closing an 

area 

 Response: Thank you for the information. We feel this type of information you 

provided could be used as one of many tools for resolving recreation conflicts. 

However, we do not plan to add your recommendation to the revised Forest Plan 

because the WCNF does not want to have only one method in which recreation 

conflicts would be assessed. 

733.7 In the winter 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 171 

734. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should set aside a 1000-2000 acre 

preserve for summer and winter motorized recreation. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

735. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not segregate users because 

everyone should have equal opportunity to use public lands. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The WCNF recognizes that there are 

conflicts between users and the Forest will try to make the best decision it can given 

the many view points of the users. 

736. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize that the plan does little 

to resolve user conflict and current Draft EIS designations are likely to 

increase them. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Monitoring and Enforcement 

737. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor motorized recreation and 

enforce regulations. 

 Response: The WCNF are conducting visitor use surveys and uses studies such as 

noted in Comment 718.1. The WCNF enforces regulations according to the law. 

737.1 According to executive orders and the National Forest Management Act 

 Response: Recent studies that evaluate motorized use in northern Utah have been 

used in the Recreation effects section of the FEIS. 

737.2 For multiple reasons 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The range of alternatives in the FEIS 

addresses your concern by presenting a range of allowable uses on the WCNF. 

737.3 To prevent environmental damage 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. See response 733. 

737.4 To prevent ghost roads 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

737.5 For both winter and summer recreation 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

737.6 Don’t let a few spoil it for the rest 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

737.7 Because opening more areas to motorized vehicles will only increase the 

problem 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. See response 733. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 172 

737.8 Instead of restricting motorized activities 

Response: Thank you for your comment. See response 733. 

738. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor motorized recreation and 

enforce regulations in certain areas. 

738.1 In wilderness and roadless areas 

738.2 Restrict access adjacent to wilderness 

738.3 Enforce Mount Naomi Wilderness Area boundaries 

738.4 In Green Canyon 

738.5 Northern Central Bear River Range 

738.6 East Slopes of Mount Naomi Wilderness 

738.7 Temple Fork area 

 Response: Monitoring for motorized recreation and enforcement of regulations are 

addressed in several areas of the Forest Plan. The Objective for Education and 

Enforcement in the revised Forest Plan intends to integrate key messages that teach 

appropriate behavior while using the forest. The focus areas for key messages 

include OHV use with a purpose of reducing conflicts between recreation users. 

One of the items in the revised Forest Plan monitoring plan is monitoring to 

determine if the WCNF is delivering key education/enforcement messages that 

include OHV use. It also has monitoring to determine whether the WCNF is 

providing recreational opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized users 

while protecting and restoring watersheds, providing for the needs of wildlife. The 

monitoring section identifies indicators and how to measure the monitoring items 

that includes the use of surveys. When surveys are set up for monitoring, specific 

areas will be identified and the areas described in Comments 738.1 through738.7 

will be considered at that time. 

739. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor and enforce snowmobile 

regulations. 

 739.1 On public lands 

 739.2 In Cardiff Fork 

 739.3 West of Tony Grove 

 739.4 Issue citations to violators

 Response: See response 738. When surveys are set up for monitoring, specific 

areas will be identified and considered at that time. Forest law enforcement officers 

have the authority to issue citations when people violate the law. This is one of the 

methods the WCNF uses to assist in compliance with the law. 

740. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should have personnel on the Big Water 

Trail on the no-bike days to monitor illegal use. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The Objective for Education and 

Enforcement in the revised Forest Plan intends to address this type of problem. 

Your comment will be sent to the Ranger District and means to address it will be 

considered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 173 

741. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should patrol, monitor, and educate 

dispersed campers 

741.1 In the area south of Highway 89 to Temple Fork 

741.2 And minimize inappropriate off-road travel and ghost roads 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Objective for Education and 

Enforcement in the revised Forest Plan intends to address this type of problem. 

When surveys are set up for monitoring and plans developed for patrolling and 

education, specific areas will be identified and considered at that time. 

742. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should enforce the Forest Plan by using 

more signs. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The Objective for Education and 

Enforcement in the revised Forest Plan intends to address this type of problem. 

Signing is one of the methods by which to meet this objective. 

743. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase enforcement of motorized 

travel rules rather than build new logging roads and motorized trails. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The WCNF considers how to allocate 

funds to meet the needs of the forest. 

744. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a monitoring method for 

reducing user conflicts. 

 Response: The revised Forest Plan has included monitoring to address user 

conflicts such as the monitoring item that determines whether the WCNF is 

providing recreational opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized users 

while protecting and restoring watersheds, providing for the needs of wildlife. 

745. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a monitoring method for 

stewardship education efforts. 

 Response: Monitoring to address this objective is included in the monitoring plan 

of the revised Forest Plan. 

746. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not assume non-compliance 

increases with increased user numbers. Some problems can be mitigated. 

 Response: We have seen many more user created ATV trails in just the last couple 

of years and that has happened at the same time as a large increase in numbers of 

ATV users. An objective of the revised Forest Plan is to provide recreational 

opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized users while protecting and 

restoring watersheds, providing for the needs of wildlife. 

747. The final Forest Plan should not increase its enforcement problems by closing 

additional areas to recreational users. 

 Response: Enforcement and signing are ways to implement the Forest Plan. The 

Forest Plan has an objective of providing recreational opportunities for both 

motorized and nonmotorized users while protecting and restoring watersheds, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 174 

providing for the needs of wildlife. The alternatives give a range of allowed 

activities that have varying amounts of area closed to certain activities. 

User Regulations 

748. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require off-road vehicles to have 

license plates that are readable. 

748.1 In conjunction with the state of Utah 

748.2 To facilitate identification of rule violators 

 Response: Thank you for your comment on ways to help implement the Forest 

Plan. Comments such as yours will be considered when the WCNF considers 

specific ways to assist users in complying with Travel Plans. 

749. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should impose strict noise standards and 

speed limits. 

 Response: The FEIS addresses the issue of noise by separating the motorized and 

non-motorized uses. Travel planning is the time when these issues should be 

addressed because the large variation across the WCNF makes it not appropriate to 

address at the Forest Plan scale. 

750. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should impose a 5 mph speed limit near 

campgrounds to minimize dust. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. A Forest-wide goal is for a roads and 

Trails system that is safe, responsive to public and agency needs. 

751. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should impose noise and clean engine 

restriction,s rather than close areas to motorized recreation. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. In the section Effects of Recreation on 

Recreation under Topic Recreation /Scenic Management in the FEIS, the WCNF 

recognizes that new technology is available to make snowmobiles quieter and 

cleaner. This will be considered along with many factors when the decision is 

made. 

752. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should impose temporary or permanent 

closure of access to areas that result in frequent motorized trespassing. 

 Response: The WCNF recognizes this issue and addresses it with goals to increase 

Forest Service field presence in key areas, improve effectiveness of public 

information on restrictions, and increase participation of individuals and organized 

groups in monitoring uses in the Forest Plan Forestwide Subgoal- Road/Trail and 

Access Management and Forestwide Goal 8– Enforcement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 175 

Motorized Recreation 

Motorized Recreation General 

753. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide more information about 

motorized recreation opportunities to comply with the requirements of 

environmental justice. 

 Response: Information concerning motorized recreation opportunities are found on 

the ROS maps per each alternative and discussed in the FEIS, chapter 3, Topic 4-

Recreation/Scenery Management. 

754. The Final EIS should address compliance with P.L. 105-359 to improve 

outdoor recreational access for the disabled. 

 Response: This is National direction and the Forest is working to comply with the 

direction. See Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4, Recreation, Desire Condition. 

Cumulative Impacts on Motorized Recreationists 

755. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should evaluate the cumulative impact of 

the proposed action and other decisions on environmental justice and the 

standards of living for multiple-use and motorized visitors. 

 Response: See response 753. 

756. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should evaluate the social and economic 

impact to motorized recreationists of not having recreational opportunities in 

the nearby forests. 

 Response: See response 753. 

757. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should evaluate the cumulative impacts 

and environmental justice issues surrounding the lack of national motorized 

trails on motorized recreationists. And then, identify and implement measures 

necessary to mitigate these impacts on motorized recreationists. 

 Response: See response 753. 

758. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine the number of miles of 

off-road vehicle trails versus the miles of trails and acres of cross-country 

travel opportunities to address the cumulative effects on motorized 

recreationists. 

 Response: This information on the numbers of roads on the Forest is displayed in 

the affected environment under Topic 3 - Roads and Access management and trails 

under Topic 4 – Recreation /Scenery Management. There currently are no crosscountry travel opportunities since all of the District travel plans allow summer 

motorized use only on designated roads and trails. Motorized cumulative effects is 

addressed in the Cumulative Effects section under Topic 4 – Recreation /Scenery 

Management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 176 

759. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider the U.S. Department Of 

Transportation document, “Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the 

Literature and State of the Practice.” because it is an excellent resource on 

user conflict and trail sharing. 

 Response: Thank you for this internet reference site. 

Allow Motorized Recreation 

760. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow motorized use.

760.1 In roadless areas 

 760.2 Except in areas where it interferes with wildlife 

 760.3 For tourism 

 760.4 Because motorized use is a legitimate activity 

Response: The WCNF allows motorized use in many areas and the various 

alternatives provide a range of motorized vehicle use that may be considered by the 

decision maker. 

761. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not close roads and trails to 

motorized use for environmental reasons because motorized users don’t harm 

the environment. 

 Response: The WCNF must consider the effects of roads and trails based on 

significant issues that are raised, including environmental issues. Most road 

closures are a result of site-specific analysis and during Travel Plan updates at 

which time specific information is reviewed to make a determination on whether to 

close or not close a road. 

762. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not eliminate access based on 

premature decisions about lynx, bear, and wolves. The Canada Lynx should 

not be used as an excuse to stop motorized use. 

 Response: See response 753. 

763. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open a new motorized route for 

every route closed to avoid further cumulative impacts to motorized 

recreationists. 

 Response: The WCNF considers issues and effects of roads and trails on resources 

and the public when it evaluates whether to close or not close a road. Using criteria 

such as a new motorized route should be opened for every closed route does not 

provide a good process for evaluating issues related to access management. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Motorized Recreation 

764. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict motorized 

recreation. 

764.1 In roadless areas 

 764.2 In sensitive areas 

 764.3 In riparian areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 177 

 764.4 In the backcountry 

 764.5 Because it affects non-motorized users’ quality of experience 

764.6 Because it will be harder to restrict uses in the future 

764.7 Because there are many opportunities elsewhere in Utah 

764.8 For anything but emergency use 

 764.9 Don’t support the use of petroleum products 

Response: Thank you for your comments. The FEIS address these concerns in the 

various alternatives, particularly Alternatives 1 and 2, and the effects are analyzed 

in the section on Environmental Effects of Recreation on Recreation in Topic 4 – 

Recreation /Scenery Management. 

765. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should proscribe future motorized uses in 

roadless areas where there are no motorized uses now. 

 Response: Thank you for your comments. The FEIS address these concerns in the 

various alternatives, particularly Alternatives 4 and 5, and the effects are analyzed 

in the section on Environmental Effects of Recreation on Recreation in Topic 4 – 

Recreation /Scenery Management. 

766. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close large blocks of land around 

roadless and wilderness areas and entire watersheds to protect the 

environment from motorized users. 

 Response: The FEIS address these concerns in Alternative 1 by prescribing large 

areas of the WCNF for ensuring biodiversity and species viability including 

watershed functions. 

767. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow motorized use right up 

to wilderness boundaries to meet the National Strategic goal. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment and reference to the USFS National 

Strategic Goals. Section 303 of The Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-

428) prohibits buffer zones around designated wilderness areas in the State of Utah. 

It states that “ The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard 

from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses 

up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” The WCNF abides by this law when 

managing areas adjacent to wilderness areas in the State of Utah. 

768. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should limit motorized zones to areas 

where natural features make cross-country travel impossible. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. During travel planning analysis, 

characteristics of the landscape such as steepness are considered for where 

motorized travel is allowed. Currently, there are no cross-country travel 

opportunities since all of the District travel plans allow summer motorized use only 

on designated roads and trails. The alternatives of the FEIS have a range of areas 

where motorized use is allowed that is based on issues that were raised during the 

Forest Plan revision. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 178 

Motorized Recreation – Off-Road Vehicles 

Motorized Recreation – Off-Road Vehicles General 

769. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider off-road vehicles and 

motorcycles separately. 

 Response: The FEIS and revised Forest Plan revision places motorcycles and 

ATVs in the same category of vehicles because planning is at a broad scale. 

Separating these vehicle types would be appropriate for site-specific analysis during 

District travel planning. 

770. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage off-road vehicles. 

770.1 By developing comprehensive management strategies 

770.2 According to the Motorcycle Industry Council triangle of educationopportunity-law enforcement 

Response: The FEIS and revised Forest Plan recognizes the issue of managing offroad vehicles in section Road/Trail and Access Management under Forestwide 

Subgoals, and in sections Objectives for Education and Enforcement and Objectives 

for OHV and Non-motorized Travel Management under Forest-wide Objectives of 

the revised Forest Plan. The revised Forest Plan sets the goals and objectives of 

developing a plan for addressing these issues but does not develop the specific 

strategies to accomplish it. 

771. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a travel plan for summer 

motorized vehicles to prevent resource damage. 

 Response: Travel plans have been completed recently for Kamas RD, Salt Lake 

RD, Ogden and Logan RD and the Evanston/Mt. View RD will have a revised 

travel plan very soon. Also, See response 770. 

772. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should that consider more resources are 

needed to manage motorized recreation because of environmental impacts on 

the Logan Ranger District. 

 Response: See response 770. 

773. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct public outreach with 

motorized recreationists to fairly present their needs. 

 Response: The WCNF has provided public participation throughout the Forest 

Plan revision process. Many of the people who attended public meetings and who 

gave many comments are motorized recreationists. Through our public 

participation efforts we feel we have given more than adequate ability to express 

opinions and comments on how to manage the WCNF. 

774. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage off-road vehicle use rather 

than close areas because motorized users will ignore closures. 

 Response: See response 770. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 179 

Adequacy of Analysis 

775. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct a National Environmental 

Policy Act analysis for any off-road vehicle use. 

 Response: The WCNF is required to conduct a NEPA analysis on all proposed 

projects. District travel plans provide the site-specific NEPA analysis for where 

OHV use is allowed on the WCNF. 

Education 

776. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should alter the Preferred Alternative to 

include more management and education pertaining to off-road vehicle in the 

forest. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. As a result of comments such as yours, 

the WCNF has developed goals and objectives that focus on education and 

enforcement of OHV use. See response 770. 

777. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require all off-road vehicle riders 

to take a course for a permit to ride on the forest. 

 Response: The State of Utah has training courses for operators of OHVs. We feel 

that it is best that the State of Utah and not the USFS be responsible for OHV 

training and certification. 

Allow Off-Road Vehicles 

778. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicles. 

778.1 For multiple use 

778.2 Because the majority of the public supports it 

 778.3 Because off-road vehicle use is increasing 

778.4 Do not make it an illegal activity 

Response: The FEIS addresses the issue of OHV use in the section Effects of 

recreation on Recreation under Topic 4 – Recreation / Scenery Management. The 

alternatives provide a range of allowed uses by OHVs and the decision will 

consider those concerns that you have expressed. Also see response 770. 

779. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicles for 

environmental reasons. 

 779.1 Because all terrain vehicles are environmentally safe and do not impact 

the scenery 

 779.2 To protect wetlands 

 779.3 Do not use sound level to justify motorized closures 

 779.4 Because motorized users don’t harm the environment 

 779.5 Because only those who cause damage should be punished 

 779.6 Because education of motorized users is working 

 779.7 Because motorized access leads to higher public appreciation of nature

 Response: See response 778. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 180 

780. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicles for 

economic reasons. This should be allow in areas where jobs have been lost. 

 Response: The FEIS recognizes the contribution of OHV use to the economy in 

the Social and Economic Analysis. 

781. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicles for social 

reasons. 

781.1 For families 

781.2 For the disabled and elderly 

 781.3 For future generations 

 781.4 For safety or emergency use 

 781.5 For intrinsic values 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The FEIS recognizes that OHV use is 

important to many people for many reasons in the recreation issues, alternatives, 

and effects section Effects on Recreation from Recreation under Topic 4 

Recreation/Scenery Management. 

782. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicles in certain 

areas. 

782.1 In roadless areas 

 782.2 In remote and primitive areas where some degree of challenge is found 

Response: The alternatives in the FEIS contain a range of areas where summer 

motorized recreation is allowed, including alternative with prohibition in roadless 

areas. The revised Forest Plan contains an objective for OHV management that 

includes the need to update Travel plans on some Districts and to provide 

opportunities for OHV use such as loop trails and adequate amount of trails. 

783. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow off-road vehicles by 

maintaining access. 

783.1 By keeping areas open 

 783.2 By keeping the current level of motorized access 

 783.3 By opening more trails to motorized users 

 783.4 By increasing the acreage open to motorized use 

 783.5 By providing equal opportunity for motorized and non-motorized uses 

 783.6 By developing logging and pioneer roads for all off-road vehicles

 783.7 By expanding public areas for play areas and trials bikes 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The alternatives in the FEIS contain a 

range of areas where summer motorized recreation is allowed. This range was 

developed in response to issues raised about the management of the WCNF. Also 

See responses 781 and 782.1. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Off-Road Vehicles 

784. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict off-road vehicles 

for environmental reasons. 

 784.1 To protect remote areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 181 

 784.2 To protect watersheds 

 784.3 To prevent erosion-prone user-created trails 

 784.4 Because of the cumulative impact as a result of the exponential increase 

in numbers of motorized users 

 784.5 Because opening more areas will increase degradation 

 784.6 Because users often inflict more damage over a larger area 

 784.7 Because of noise and air pollution 

 784.8 Because of disturbance to nesting birds 

 784.9 Because of impacts to the reproductive success of birds 

Response: The FEIS recognizes that many people for various reasons feel that 

OHV use should be prohibited or restricted in the section Effects on Recreation 

from Recreation under Topic 4 Recreation/Scenery Management and in Effects on 

Soil and Water Resources from Recreation under Topic 1 Watershed Health. The 

FEIS recognizes that motorized use effects wildlife as described in section Effects 

on Terrestrial Wildlife from Recreation under Topic 2 –Biodiversity and Viability. 

785. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict off-road vehicles 

for social reasons because many elderly people like non-motorized activities. 

 Response: See response 784. 

786. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should control off-road vehicles through 

restrictions. 

 786.1 By seasonal restrictions 

 786.2 By controlling use during the spring runoff 

 786.3 By restricting to existing paved roads and non-paved roads that 

currently have significant use 

 786.4 By closing/restricting areas until it can be demonstrated that there is no 

environmental impact 

 786.5 By temporarily closing access to areas experiencing use by vehicles off of 

designated routes until further analysis 

 786.6 By either requiring off road vehicles to conform to pollution regulations 

or keeping them out of canyons 

 786.7 By adding a standard to prohibit off-road and off-trail cross country 

travel 

 786.8 By having a trail policy of closed unless posted open 

 786.9 By limiting group size to six to eight 

 786.10 By prohibiting vehicles on dirt roads in the Cottonwood Canyons, 

except for property owners 

 Response: There currently are no summer motorized cross-country travel 

opportunities since all of the District travel plans allow summer motorized use only 

on designated roads and trails. The revised Forest Plan has a standard for “summer 

motorized and mechanized access is managed on an open on designated routes”, 

under Standards for Road/Trail and Access Management. Travel Plans also have 

information on proper OHV use in the Tread Lightly section. Other travel 

management issues should be resolved at the site-specific Travel Plan analysis 

because specific information needs to be analyzed such as access requirements 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 182 

through public land, ski area management needs, and access to campgrounds. See 

also response 770. 

787. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not expand public areas for 

activities like rock crawls and trials because it can damage the visual 

environment. 

 Response: See response 786 

Motorized Recreation – Snowmobiles 

Motorized Recreation – Snowmobiles General. 

788. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a designation other than 

roadless for the type of terrain snowmobilers use because snowmobiles don’t 

use roads. 

 Response: Roadless is inventory not a designation of any type of use. The Forest 

uses the designation winter motorized for terrain that snowmobilers use. 

789. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change Guideline G47 to a 

Standard and increase the snow depth required for winter motorized use. 

 Response: Currently, scientific studies are limited on the effects of compacted 

snow due to snowmobiling. These studies have shown there can be some effects. 

Whether or not these effects are significant has not been clearly established. The 

Guideline referring to snow depth is G54. This will remain a Guideline and the 

depth will remain the same. 

790. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate bias in the proposed 

Forest Plan toward motorized recreation. 

 Response: The Forest Plan and accompanying EIS cover a broad range of 

alternatives. For example alternatives 1 & 2 significantly reduce the amount of 

roads and terrain open to motorized recreation. Alternative 3 expands the amount of 

roads and terrain open to motorized recreation. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

 

791. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the potential 

environmental impacts of having massive areas of compacted snow due to 

snowmobile use. 

 Response: Currently, scientific studies are limited on the effects of compacted 

snow due to snowmobiling. These limited studies have shown there can be some 

effects. Whether or not these effects are significant relative to normal snow 

compaction has not been clearly established. 

792. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should re-evaluate whether snowmobile 

use should be allowed when snow cover is less than or equal to 12 inches 

because of environmental impacts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 183 

 Response: Currently, scientific studies are limited on the effects of compacted 

snow due to snowmobiling. These limited studies have shown there can be some 

effects. Whether or not these effects are significant relative to normal snow 

compaction has not been clearly established. When new, relevant scientific 

evidence indicating adverse effects, the depth and impacts will be re-evaluated. 

793. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should incorporate new data into travel 

management planning about the effects of 2-stroke engines on the 

environment. 

 Response: Current data has been incorporated in the analysis for the Forest Plan 

and EIS. At such time as new data becomes available it will be looked at and 

analyzed. 

794. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should evaluate the potential for 

snowmobile pollution, especially evaluate the impacts of pollution to 

watersheds. 

 Response: This topic is discussed in Section 3 under Environmental Consequences 

in the Final EIS. 

795. The Final EIS should include an analysis of the effects of snowmobiling on air 

quality, watersheds, and wildlife habitat. 

 Response: This topic is discussed in Section 3 under Environmental Consequences 

“Effects on air Quality from Snowmobiles.” 

796. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately evaluate the impact of 

snowmobiling in the Lakes backcountry. 

 Response: This topic was adequately discussed in Topic 3 Roads Access 

Management and Topic 4 Recreation and Scenery Management in the Final EIS. 

797. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine the limits of 

snowmobile use due to impacts on wintering wildlife. 

 Response: The Forest continues to monitor winter motorize use areas. These areas 

are mapped in the Final EIS as well as in the Revised Forest Plan. Please refer to 

these maps for determining the limits of snowmobile use on the Forest. Winter 

motorized use and wildlife winter ranges have been looked at relative to each other 

and adjustments to terrain available for motorized use were made. 

Allow Snowmobiles 

798. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiles. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest will continue to provide a wide 

range of recreational opportunities both winter motorized and winter non-motorized 

use through management prescription allocations. Mapping of Winter Motorized 

use terrain is displayed in winter recreation mapping in the Revised Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 184 

798.1 By preserving the level of snowmobiling opportunity that exists today. 

 Response: Alternatives 3 and 5 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS increase the 

amount of snowmobiling opportunity available in the Forest EIS, alternative 4 

keeps the level of snowmobiling opportunity the same while Alternative 6 does not 

allow snowmobile use in recommended wilderness. Alternative 7 in the EIS allows 

snowmobile use in recommended wilderness. 

798.2 By providing specific areas for snowmobilers and parking. 

 Response: The Forest does provide areas for snowmobilers and non-snowmobilers 

alike. Please Refer to Topic 4 Recreation Management in the Final EIS for a 

discussion of this issue. In addition, refer to winter recreation maps in the Revised 

Forest Plan. 

798.3 If the final plan recommends additional wilderness. 

 Response: The current plan will allow winter motorized use to continue in newly 

proposed Wilderness in areas where it was allowed previously before the proposed 

Wilderness management prescription. 

799. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiles for 

environmental reasons. 

799.1 Because snowmobiles do not cause any environmental damage. 

 799.2 Because the Draft EIS has not proven any measurable impact or coflicts. 

 799.3 Because snowmobiles do not harm wildlife. 

 Response: The Forest will continue to allow snowmobiles in areas designated for 

winter-motorized use. Please refer to the winter recreation maps in the Revised 

Forest Plan showing areas open to winter motorized use. See also response 798.

800. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiles for social 

reasons because they are needed for search and rescue. 

 Response: Please refer to Topic 4 Recreation and Scenery Management in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and look at table REC-12 for the amount of 

acres open to snowmobiling by alternatives. 

801. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiles for economic 

reasons because snowmobilers contribute to the economy and money for trail 

grooming. 

 Response: The Forest will continue to allow snowmobiling. The economic effects 

of snowmobiling are discussed in Appendix B11 of the Final Environmental Impact 

statement. Please refer to the Social and Economics Section of the FEIS for a 

discussion of the economic effects of snowmobiling on local economies. 

802. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow snowmobiles in certain 

areas. 

Response: See response 798 

802.1 In inventoried roadless areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 185 

 Response: The Forest Plan and FEIS cover a broad range of alternatives. Some 

alternatives increase the amount of winter motorized acreage such as Alternatives 3 

& 5 and some alternatives decrease the amount of acreage available for winter 

motorized use such as in alternatives 1 & 2. Alternative 6 does not allow 

snowmobiling in recommended Wilderness. Alternative 7, the preferred 

alternative, allows snowmobiles in recommended Wilderness. The final decision 

will try to balance an appropriate mix of winter motorized and winter nonmotorized terrain. 

802.2 In all currently open areas. 

 Response: The Forest Plan and FEIS cover a broad range of alternatives. Some 

alternatives increase the amount of winter motorized acreage and some alternatives 

decrease the amount of acreage available for winter-motorized use. The final 

decision will try to a balance an appropriate mix of winter motorized and winter 

non-motorized terrain. 

802.3 Re-open winter non-motorized areas on the Uinta’s North Slope. 

 Response: See response 802. 

802.4 Open semi-primitive non-motorized areas to snowmobile use seasonally. 

 Response: Areas with a Semi-primitive Non-Motorized ROS Classification will 

remain closed to motorized use. 

802.5 In the Bunchgrass area east of Tony Grove Lake and the area east of 

Swan Peak and south of Swan Lake. 

 Response: The Forest Plan and FEIS cover a broad range of alternatives. Some 

alternatives increase the amount of winter motorized acreage and some alternatives 

decrease the amount of acreage available for winter-motorized use. Alternatives 3, 5 

& 6 allow snowmobiling in this area. 

802.6 In Garden City Canyon. 

 Response: The Forest Plan and FEIS cover a broad range of alternatives. Some 

alternatives increase the amount of winter motorized acreage and some alternatives 

decrease the amount of acreage available for winter-motorized use. Alternatives 3, 5 

& 6 allow winter motorize use in the Garden City Canyon area. 

803. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not reduce winter motorized 

acreage because user numbers are increasing. 

 Response: The Forest Plan and FEIS cover a broad range of alternatives. Some 

alternative increase the amount of winter motorized acreage and some alternatives 

decrease the amount of acreage available for winter motorized use. Alternatives 3 & 

5 increase the number of acres available for winter motorized use. Alternative 7, the 

preferred alternative, allows snowmobile use in recommended Wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 186 

804. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not restrict winter motorized use 

because of economic impacts. 

 Response: Snowmobile use, along with many other recreational uses, is and will 

continue to be an allowed form of recreation on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest will continue to provide a wide range of 

recreational opportunities both winter motorized and winter non-motorized use 

through management prescription allocations, Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) Classification, and subsequent winter recreation management. 

805. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not restrict snowmobiles based on 

the application of the Canadian Lynx Conservation Assessment, until 

conclusive studies have been completed within the appropriate lynx analysis 

units. 

 Response: The Endangered Species Act directs all government agencies to protect 

species listed as threatened and endangered. This includes habitat. Eleven 

counties in Northern Utah are included as lynx habitat by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) The Forest will work closely with the FWS on all mitigation 

requirements outlined for this species. 

806. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow continued winter access to a 

variety of locations by snowmobile, helicopter and snow cat for the purpose of 

monitoring snowpack conditions and forecasting snow runoff. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan will continue to allow access for the purpose 

of monitoring snowpack conditions for forecasting snow runoff. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Snowmobiles. 

807. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict snowmobile use. 

Completely ban all winter motorized vehicles until resources for policing the 

areas can be increased. 

 Response: Snowmobile use, along with many other recreational uses, is and will 

continue to be an allowed form of recreation on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest will continue to provide a wide range of 

recreational opportunities both winter motorized and winter non-motorized use 

through management prescription allocations, Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) Classification, and subsequent winter recreation maps. The Forest will 

continue to enforce applicable laws and regulations for winter-motorized use to the 

level allowed by current budgets and personnel available for enforcement tasks. 

808. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict snowmobile use 

for environmental reasons. 

808.1 Because of off-road snowmobiling impacts. 

 808.2 Because of noise and air pollution. 

 808.3 Because of impacts to wildlife. 

 808.4 Because of impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 187 

 Response: This topic was discussed in several areas including Chapter 3-Affected 

Environment, Forest-wide recreation and Environmental Consequences under Topic 

2- Biodiversity and Viability. 

809. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict snowmobile use 

for social reasons. 

809.1 Because it impacts social values. 

809.2 Because it caters to the wealthy. 

Response: Snowmobile use, along with many other recreational uses, is and will 

continue to be an allowed form of recreation on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest will continue to provide a wide range of 

recreational opportunities both winter motorized and winter non-motorized use 

through management prescription allocations, Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) Classification, and subsequent winter recreation maps. The Forest will 

continue to enforce applicable laws and regulations for winter-motorized use to the 

level allowed by current budgets and personnel available for enforcement tasks. The 

FEIS examines a range of Alternatives for separation of winter motorized and nonmotorized uses. 

810. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict snowmobile use in 

certain areas. 

810.1 In roadless areas 

 810.2 In the Lily Lake Cross-country Ski Area expansion 

810.3 On the east slopes of Mount Naomi.

Response: All of the Alternatives in the Final EIS restrict snowmobiles to certain 

areas to a great extent. Alternatives 1, 2 & 6 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS 

significantly restrict winter motorized use in specific areas across the forest. 

Alternative 1 restricts winter motorized use in roadless areas. Alternatives 1 & 2 in 

the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS restricts use in the Lily Lake Cross-country Ski Area. 

Alternatives 1, 6 and 7 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS restricts use on the east 

slopes of Mount Naomi. 

811. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should control snowmobiles through 

restrictions. 

 Response: There are restrictions on winter motorized use on the Forest. 

811.1 Restrict to currently open areas. 

 Response: Alternative 4 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS leaves winter motorized 

use the same. 

811.2 Don’t open new areas 

Alternative 4 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS leaves winter motorized use the 

same. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 188 

811.3 Broaden Guideline 34 to allow more flexibility for imposing winter 

recreational closures. 

 Response: Guideline 34 was changed to Guideline 39 in the Revised Forest Plan 

and has remained the same. 

811.4 Impose seasonal restrictions. 

 Response: Winter motorized use is controlled through winter recreation 

management described in the Revised Forest Plan under Forestwide AllocationsWinter Recreation. Winter recreation management begins when there is 12 inches 

of snow present on the ground. 

811.5 Close areas with potential lynx habitat to winter motorized use. 

 Response: The Endangered Species Act directs all government agencies to protect 

species listed as threatened and endangered. This includes habitat. Eleven 

counties in Northern Utah are included as lynx habitat by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). The Forest will work closely with the FWS on all mitigation 

requirements outlined for this species. 

811.6 Regulate user numbers 

 Response: Regulating users is one tool to regulate use. The Forest will continue to 

manage winter motorized use through standards and guidelines, management area 

prescriptions, ROS and winter recreation management strategies. Please refer to 

Chapter 4 of the Revised Forest Plan under Forest Wide Allocations and in 

Management Area Prescriptions for a description on how Winter Motorized use will 

be managed. 

812. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not issue a special use permit to 

snowmobilers in Cardiff Fork to access mining claims because snowmobiles 

are not using these permits legitimately. 

 Response: The Forest Service is required to provide “reasonable” access to a 

person owning private land surrounded by National Forest. Special Use Permits 

(SUP) are issued to the private landowner allowing them to cross National Forest so 

that they are able to access their private land. The Forest Service needs to continue 

to make sure all persons who are allowed to access their private land through a SUP 

are complying with the terms and conditions set out in that SUP. Several courses of 

action are available to the SUP administrator if the SUP holder is violating the 

terms of the SUP. 

Motorized Recreation – Heli-skiing 

Motorized Recreation – Heli-skiing General 

813. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use the description from the 

Forest Plan to define the area of permitted heli-ski terrain to be exchanged. 

 Response: The terrain where helicopter skiing is allowed is well described in the 

Special Use Permit allowing this activity to occur. In addition, helicopter ski terrain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 189 

is well described by alternative in the Final EIS and in the Revised Forest Plan 

Winter Recreation Maps. Please refer to the September1999 Environmental Impact 

Statement completed for the helicopter skiing permit renewal. 

Adequacy of Analysis. 

814. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain the issue of eliminating 

recreational helicopter activities to allow eagles to effectively reproduce in the 

Tri-Canyons. 

 Response: A thorough analysis was completed on the effects of helicopter skiing 

on nesting raptors in the September1999 Environmental Impact Statement on 

Wasatch Powderbird Guides helicopter skiing permit renewal. 

Allow Heli-skiing. 

815. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow heli-skiing because it is good 

for everyone. 

815.1 Because eliminating this activity is in contrast to stated forest goals. 

 815.2 For multiple use. 

 815.3 Since the cumulative impacts of the EIS and the Special Use Permit 

(SUP) may have already placed the future of this activity in jeopardy. 

 815.4 By allowing heli-skiing on Sunday and Monday.

 Response: This issue was thoroughly analyzed in the September1999 

Environmental Impact Statement completed for the helicopter skiing permit 

renewal. Wasatch-Powderbird Guides will continue to operate under the terms and 

condition of their 5-year Outfitter and Guide SUP. 

 

816. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow heli-skiing for 

environmental reasons because it does not harm the environment because 

noise is a minimal impact. 

 Response: See response 815. 

817. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow heli-skiing for social reasons. 

817.1 For safety. 

 817.2 For the disabled. 

Response: See response 815. 

818 The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow heli-skiing for economic 

reasons because of its impact to the economy. 

 Response: See response 815. 

819. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow heli-skiing in certain areas. 

819.1 In wilderness areas. 

 Response: The Wilderness Act prohibits motorized use in Wilderness areas. 

819.2 In the Cascade area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 190 

 Response: The Uinta NF allows heli-skiing in the Cascade Ridge area. 

819.3 In Mill Creek Canyon. 

 Response: Helicopter skiing is allowed in the Gobblers Knob area of Millcreek 

Canyon. 

820. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow Wasatch Powderbird Guides 

heli-skiing use. 

820.1 Because they are stewards of the environment. 

820.2 Because they contribute to the economy. 

820.3 Do not discriminate against the Wasatch Powderbird Guides. 

Response: The Revised Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan allows helicopter skiing to 

continue on the Forest under a 5-year SUP. The Forest Service does not 

discriminate against any Outfitter and Guide permittee. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Helis-skiing 

821. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict heli-skiing. 

821.1 By the year 2004 

821.2 Terminate or phase out helicopter permits. 

821.3 Because there is ample opportunity on private land. 

821.4 If allowed, make them fly farther to avoid areas frequently accessed by 

others.

Response: The Forest Plan provides broad program-level direction for 

management of the land and its resources. The Forest Plan, under Forest Wide 

Allocations, allows helicopter skiing. Wasatch Powderbird Guides (WPG) currently 

operates under a 5-year Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permit. The Revised Forest 

Plan continues to allow WPG to operate under the terms and conditions of their 

current 5-year SUP. 

822. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict heli-skiing for 

environmental reasons because it negatively impacts wildlife because it 

negatively impacts birds. 

 Response: Please refer to the September 1999 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement on Wasatch Powderbird Guides Permit Renewal for a thorough 

discussion of the effects of heli-skiing on wildlife. In this EIS a comprehensive 

mitigation plan was established with the advice and consent of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). Due to WPG’s season of operation, elevations at which 

they operate, the nature of the disturbance they generate, and the mitigation 

measures in place, their potential impact to wildlife is minimal. 

823. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict heli-skiing in 

certain areas. 

823.1 In the canyon areas. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides a wide variety of 

recreational uses and opportunities to many user groups. The Forest Plan continues 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 191 

to allow Wasatch Powerbird Guides to operate under the terms and conditions of 

their current 5-year Outfitter and Guide Special Use permit. 

823.2 Along the entire Wasatch Range. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides a wide variety of 

recreational uses and opportunities to many user groups. WPG is one use and is 

currently allowed to operate under a 5-year SUP. 

823.3 In the Tri-Canyon area. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides a wide variety of 

recreational uses and opportunities to many user groups. WPG is one use and is 

currently allowed to operate in the Tri-Canyon area under a 5- year SUP. 

823.4 In Gobbler’s Knob. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides a wide variety of 

recreational uses and opportunities to many user groups. WPG is one use and is 

currently allowed to operate in the Gobblers Knob area under a 5-year SUP. 

823.5 In semi-primitive non-motorized areas. 

 Response: Alternatives 1 & 2 do this. In the Revised Forest Plan helicopter skiing 

will continue to operate as a component of the recreation picture in the Central 

Wasatch. 

824. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit. Wasatch Powderbird 

Guides heli-skiing use in the Tri-Canyon area. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest provides a wide variety of 

recreational uses and opportunities to many user groups. Wasatch-Powderbird 

Guides is one use and is currently allowed to operate in the Tri-Canyon area under a 

5-year Outfitter and Guide Special User Permit. 

Other 

825. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit scenic commercial 

aircraft overflights. 

 Response: Management of scenic overflights is under the juristiction of the 

Federal Aviation Administration, not the Forest Service. 

Motorized Recreation - Watercraft 

Allow Motorized Watercraft 

826. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow motorized watercraft by 

allowing personal watercraft. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache NF does allow boats with 5hp motors on lakes that 

are large enough not create user conflicts. Personal watercraft currently used on 

larger reservoirs would create unacceptable user conflicts on small National Forest 

lakes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 192 

827. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should open all lakes to boats with electric 

motors because there is no threat to the environment and this will permit the 

disabled to enjoy lakes. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache NF does allow boats with 5hp motors on lakes that 

are large enough not create user conflicts. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Motorized Watercraft 

828. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow motorized watercraft. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache NF does allow boats with small motors on lakes 

that are large enough not create user conflicts. 

Mechanized Recreation General 

829. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage mountain bikes as a 

distinct form of recreation, separate from motorized activities. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest manages mountain bike use 

appropriately through management prescriptions; travel management plans and 

current trail management guidelines. 

830. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recognize the importance of 

singletrack trails to bicyclists. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest does recognize the importance of 

single-track trails to bicyclist. Not all trails are open to Mountain Bike use however. 

831. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider that designating the 

Mount Naomi roadless area as wilderness will lead to increased mechanized 

use and potential for conflict. 

 Response: The Mount Naomi roadless area is not being considered for proposed 

wilderness. 

832. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require bikers and hikers to share 

restrictions. 

 Response: Because of safety, conflicts with other users and resources issues, 

mountain bike use requires a higher or more intense level of management and 

therefore requires more restrictions to manage use. 

Allow Mechanized Recreation. 

833. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow mechanized activities. 

833.1 On designated days and on trails that can sustain their travel 

833.2 On roads and trails only. 

 833.3 Allow bikes off of designated trails.

 Response: Mountain bike use will continue to be restricted to trails where it is 

allowed. Please refer the District Travel Management Plans for locations of trails 

open to mountain bike use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 193 

834. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow mechanized activities for 

environmental reasons. 

834.1 Because mountain bikes do not impact the environment. 

834.2 Because mountain bikes do not affect water quality. 

 Response: The Current Plan allows mountain bike on designated trails. We 

believe that mountain bikes can impact water quality indirectly. 

835. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow mechanized activities for 

social reasons because there is no information to support the claim that the 

presence of bicycles on shared-use trails increases the risk to other trail users’ 

safety. 

 Response: The Forest Plan allows mountain biking to continue on designated 

trails. The Forest Service feels every user’s safety is extremely important. If shared 

trail use creates an unacceptably dangerous situation then that shared use will have 

to be evaluated and mitigated. 

836. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow mechanized activities for 

economic reasons because mountain biking contributes to the local or regional 

tourism economy. 

 Response: The Forest Plan continues to allow mountain biking on designated 

trails across the forest. Please refer to District Travel Plans. 

837. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow mechanized activities in 

certain areas. 

837.1 In wilderness areas 

 Response: The Wilderness Act prohibits mechanized activities in Designated 

Wilderness areas. 

837.2 In limited areas 

 Response: The Forest allows mechanized use on designated roads and trails. Refer 

to District Travel plans and winter motorized use plans to find out where 

mechanized use is allowed. 

838. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not restrict mountain biking 

because most users cause no damage. 

 Response: The Forest Plan continues to allow mountain biking on designated 

trails. Refer to District Travel Plans to find out information on where you can 

mountain bike. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Mechanized Recreation 

839. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict mechanized 

activities because it is dangerous to hikers and the environment. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest will continue to allow mechanized 

and non-mechanized activities in appropriate areas on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 194 

Non-Motorized Recreation 

Adequacy of Analysis 

840. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider the displacement effect of 

motorized recreation on non-motorized users. 

 Response: Motorized recreation use will continue to allow motorized activities on 

designated trails. However, the forest will continue to monitor recreational use and 

will re-examine the forest role as a provider of outdoor recreation and plan for ways 

to reduce recreational conflicts between users. The Revised Forest Plan identifies 

recreation use conflicts as a significant issue and will continue to identify areas for 

separation of non-motorized use consistent with growing demand. 

Allow Non-Motorized Recreation. 

841. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow non-motorized activities. 

 841.1 By giving non-motorized users the highest priority. 

 841.2 By designating all remaining roadless areas for non-motorized use. 

 841.3 By designating areas as non-motorized which fulfill non-motorized 

recreation needs. 

 841.4 By setting aside more areas. 

 841.5 By designating/providing areas that meet a variety of non-motorized 

activities. 

 841.6 By resource allocation. 

 841.7 By allowing horses. 

 841.8 By improving trail signs, displays, restroom facilities, and educational 

programs for non-motorized recreationists.

 Response: The Forest has evaluated a wide variety of alternatives when it comes to 

providing for non-motorized activities. Some of the alternative provide for 

increasing opportunities in non-motorized recreation, specifically alternatives 1 and 

2. The Forest is continually improving trail signs, displays and restroom facilities. 

The Forest Service is continually improving educational curriculums it delivers 

through campfire talks, nature walks, avalanche and Ski with the Ranger programs. 

842. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow non-motorized activities for 

social reasons because it is good for health and social values. They should also 

provid more non-motorized recreation opportunities for the disabled. 

 Response: There are many areas the Forest that only allows non-motorized 

activity. The Forest is constantly improving existing campgrounds, picnic areas, 

recreation facilities and trails to better accommodate and serve persons with 

disabilities. 

843. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow only non-motorized 

activities in some areas by allowing off highway foot traffic only. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache NF management prescriptions provide for a broad 

range of recreational opportunities. Some areas allow motorized recreation, Some 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 195 

areas do not allow any motorized activities such as in Wilderness. Refer to the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for comparisons of alternatives by 

management prescription. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Non-Motorized Recreation 

844. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict non-motorized 

activities 

844.1 By prohibiting any wheeled non-motorized device except bicycles where 

permitted and wheelchairs. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache NF management prescriptions provide for a broad 

range of recreational opportunities. Some areas allow motorized recreation, some 

areas do not allow any motorized activities such as in Wilderness. In some areas 

only hiking is allowed. Please refer to the Revised Forest Plan for descriptions of 

management prescriptions and management areas. Also, refer to the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for comparisons of alternatives by management 

prescriptions. 

844.2 By prohibiting horses. 

 Response: Horses are restricted in the Tri-Canyon and other specific areas for 

watershed protection and/or other reasons. Otherwise horse use is recognized as a 

legitimate recreational use and will continue to be allowed. 

845. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict non-motorized 

activities for environmental reasons. 

845.1 To control environmental impacts

 Response: The Forest Service is continually monitoring impacts to the Forest from 

all activities including non-motorized. 

845.2 Because hikers disturb wildlife more than motorized users 

 Response: The Forest Service will continue to provide a broad range of 

recreational opportunities for all Forest users. There is no credible evidence that 

hikers disturb wildlife more than motorized use. However, there is a substantial 

body of scientific evidence that loud noises created by motorize vehicles like 

ATV’s or four wheelers tend to disturb wildlife significantly more when compared 

to a person walking quietly in the woods. 

Other 

846. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop standards and guidelines 

to manage rock climbing and extreme sports because of environmental 

impacts. 

 Response: Some standards and guidelines have been incorporated in the Forest 

Plan Direct for Climbing. The analysis of extreme sports and their routes are 

beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. Environmental impacts associated with those 

sports will be analyzed and managed on a site-specific basis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 196 

847. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not let sport climbing routes be 

ruined. 

 Response: See response 846. 

Ski Areas 

Ski Areas General 

848. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address ski areas in the document 

because this use is important in terms of user days and impacts. 

 Response: The Forest Plan and the Final EIS do address ski areas and their use. 

Please refer to Revised Forest Plan under Forest Wide Desired Future Conditions, 

Forest Wide Allocations and Management Area Descriptions for discussions of this 

issue. 

849. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should substantially strengthen the 

desired future conditions description for ski areas. 

849.1 To minimize future development and impacts.

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

discuss this issue through a broad range of alternatives and the Ecosystem 

Management Framework and Forest Plan Model. 

849.2 To avoid facility construction designed to divert customers from other 

resorts. 

 Response: This is beyond the scope and context of the Forest Plan. This issue will 

be discussed with site specific ski area proposals. 

850. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a travel plan to bus people 

from the mouth of the canyon to ski areas. 

 Response: This is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. The Utah Transit Authority 

already provides public bus service to the four ski resorts in Little Big and Little 

Cottonwood Canyons during the winter months. 

851. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make guideline G73 a standard 

and enforce its direction that special uses “meet the tests of prudent, 

reasonable, and absolutely in the public interest.” to prohibit uses that aren’t 

in the best interest of the public. 

 Response: Guideline 73 has been removed. Please refer to G 80 & G 81 for 

guidelines for Special Uses. 

852. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include clearly stated visual 

quality standards to avoid further deterioration. 

 Response: The Forest Service has adopted a new tool called the Scenery 

Management System for integrating the benefits, values, desires, and preferences 

regarding aesthetics and scenery for all levels of land management. Though many 

of the terms used in the previous Visual Management System have similar meaning 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 197 

there are different key words being used. Visual quality of the Visual Management 

System is no longer used. The new terms used in understanding how the Forest is 

being managed are Landscape Character Themes, Landscape Character and Scenic 

Integrity Guidelines. See the Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 4, Section 3. Forestwide 

Standards and Guidelines, Scenic Resources for Forestwide Standards and 

Guidelines. 

853. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider that the ‘high’ Scenic 

Integrity Objective within the Resort Natural Setting is an oxymoron. 

 Response: Oxymoron is “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words” as 

stated in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Based on this definition you have stated 

you think or feel “high” Scenic Integrity is contradictory or incongruous with a 

Landscape Character Theme of Resort Natural Setting. 

The basis for the use of Landscape Character Themes is to address existing or 

future land use, and the general image of the forest that is being managed. Resort 

Natural Setting Landscape Character theme for the purpose of the Revised Forest 

Plan is confined to the permit boundaries of the resorts. It recognizes that cultural 

modification to mountain is a function of activities and their supporting amenities. 

Scenic Integrity provides a way to measure the degree to which a landscape is 

visually perceived to be complete. The highest scenic integrity rating was given to 

the landscape, which has little or no deviation from the described landscape 

character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. See Revised Forest Plan, 

Chapter 4, Wasatch-Cache National Forest Landscape Character Theme and Scenic 

Integrity Guideline Definition Table. The landscape character of this culturally 

modified landscape is rating integrity of the modifications based on its harmony 

with the surrounding natural appearing landscape setting and provides baseline 

attributes to be able a meet a particular level of integrity. 

If the ski resorts where being managed under another Landscape Character Theme 

and its accompanying landscape character description the Scenic Integrity could be 

lower or higher based on the amount of deviation from the described valued 

landscape character. Therefore the delineated areas on the Forest for each 

Landscape Character Theme must be judged against it own landscape character 

description for the degree of integrity that can be achieved. 

854. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a standard requiring ski areas 

to reseed cuts, runs, and other cleared areas. 

Response: Current Forest Service and County “Best Management Practices” 

require ski areas to reseed cuts, runs and other cleared areas with native species. 

855. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require ski area managers to work 

with their staff to change attitudes about wildlife and minimize direct wildlife 

impacts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 198 

 Response: Ski areas operating on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest work closely 

and carefully with Forest Service Wildlife Biologist and other staff persons to 

minimize potential effects to wildlife. Forest Service personnel accomplishe this 

through environmental reviews of all ski area proposals as well as yearly operating 

plans and through frequent monitoring activities. 

856. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require all ski resorts operating 

under special use permits to hire an environmental administrator and have a 

peer review board in order to operate on public lands. 

 Response: Refer to response 855. 

857. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should request resorts close a half hour 

earlier each night where night skiing occurs for safety and to reduce light 

pollution. 

 Response: This issue is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. Brighton is the only 

ski resort with a significant night skiing program on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. The effects of night skiing lighting were carefully analyzed and thoroughly 

discussed in the 1999 Brighton Ski Resort Master Plan EIS. 

858. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adjust ski area trail widths or 

create new trails to deal with the increase of traffic caused by higher speed and 

higher capacity lifts to keep a competitive edge. 

 Response: This issue is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. This issue has been 

thoroughly analyzed and discussed in several recent EIS’s completed for local Ski 

Resort Master Development plans. 

 

859. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should redraw the national forest 

boundary so that Snowbird ski and summer resort is under the jurisdiction of 

one national forest, not two. This would be less confusing and lead to less 

miscommunication. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest administers Snowbirds Special Use 

Permit, allowing them to operate on National Forest System lands. Snowbirds 

permit area boundary encompasses public and private land, crosses county and 

Forest boundaries and includes separate and distinct watersheds. Each County and 

Forest has jurisdictional responsibilities related to Snowbirds operations and each 

will continue exercise those responsibilities. Only Congress has the authority to 

change Forest Boundaries. 

860. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the degradation of 

watershed health due to ski resort expansion and operations. A description of 

the effects of ski resorts on aquatic resources should be included. 

 Response: The Forest Plan discusses watershed management within the framework 

of ecosystem management and sustainability. Please refer to the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Topic 1 (Watershed Health) and Topic 2 (Aquatic Resources), Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest for a thorough discussion of this issue. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 199 

861. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should disclose skier density so the public 

can make informed comment on the acceptability of the rapid increase in the 

amount of land allocated per skier. 

 Response: Skier densities are difficult to measure accurately and vary widely 

depending upon time of day, weekday or weekend and time of year, such as a 

holiday weekend, and vary widely from year to year. In addition, skier density can 

vary widely due to run difficulty, snow conditions, grooming conditions etc. 

Consequently, calculating accurate skier densities is extremely difficult and 

unreliable. 

862. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should estimate the number of skier days 

attributable to snowmaking to differentiate the portion of growth attributable 

to snowmaking because it has no bearing on whether there is demand for more 

terrain for skiing. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest did not calculate the number of 

skier days attributed to snowmaking since reliable data is unavailable. Skier visits 

at individual ski resorts vary annually due to differences in natural snow, marketing 

trends, or factors other than snowmaking. To distinguish between the numbers of 

skier days attributed to snowmaking would be questionable at best. 

863. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should assess the importance of nonmotorized winter recreation areas and the yurt system. 

 Response: Non–motorized winter recreation is an important component of the total 

recreational use on the forest. Alternatives 1 & 2 of the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS 

discuss the importance of minimizing human interference and reducing motorized 

use. Alternative 7 in the Final EIS and The Revised Forest Plan create a nonmotorized area in the Bunch Grass and Steam Mill peak area in the Logan Area 

Mountains. 

Education. 

864. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should increase public education about 

the stewardship benefits of ski areas. 

 Response: The Forest Service and Wasatch-Cache ski areas in partnership have 

created Ski With the Ranger Programs and “Ski-Cology.” Both of these programs 

educate forest users on the stewardship benefits of ski areas. 

Skiing 

865. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow skiing. 

865.1 By designating non-motorized winter recreation areas with enforceable 

boundaries or banning snowmobiles from the surrounding areas. 

 Response: All of the alternatives in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS designate nonmotorized areas with enforceable boundaries to varying degrees. In the 

Alternatives 1 & 2, non-motorize use is emphasized and snowmobiling is banned in 

most areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 200 

865.2 By including quality skiing experiences in the Desired Future Conditions 

 Response: Desired Future Condition is an integrated visualization of what the 

forest or management area should look like in the future. Skiing is a recreational 

activity, which people do on the forest. A quality skiing experience whether it 

occurs at a ski area or in a backcountry setting has always been an important 

component of the forests desired future condition for recreation management. 

866. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should encourage cross-country skiers to 

ski in wilderness areas. 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has always and will continue to 

encourage responsible recreational use that is allowed in Wilderness. 

Ski Area Expansion 

867. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address ski area expansion by 

defining year round resort development and requiring that each proposal be 

linked to a need that can only be met in an alpine setting. 

 Response: This is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. Any ski area expansion 

proposal is thoroughly analyzed through the development of ski area master plans 

an accompanying NEPA review. A needs analysis is a required component of any 

NEPA document. 

867.1 By establishing a reasonable process other than a Forest Plan 

amendment for potential adjustment or expansion of resort permit boundaries 

during the life of this plan. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan states: “New resort developments on National 

Forest System land will be confined to the permit area boundaries in effect at the 

time of revision, though small-scale site-specific adjustment could be considered to 

address important management issues.” The process for forest plan amendments 

can be found in Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan. 

867.2 By clarifying that language on page 4-99 of the Forest Plan does not 

prohibit the Forest Service from considering proposals for boundary 

expansion. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan on page 4-99 reads, “New resort developments 

on National Forest System lands will be confined to the permit area boundaries in 

effect at the time of revision, though small scale site specific adjustments could be 

considered to address important management issues.” The process for forest plan 

amendments can be found in Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan. 

867.3 By recognizing that the issue of ski area expansion onto private lands is 

still under consideration. 

 Response: The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over private lands. State, 

Counties and Municipalities typically have various types of jurisdictional authority 

over private land. Refer to response above. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 201 

867.4 By suggesting that the ski areas apply better resource management 

while they are open rather than expand. 

 Response: Ski areas operate on public land under a Special Use Permit 

administered by the Forest Service. The Forest Services manages the terms and 

conditions of the SUP, not the day-to-day operation of the resort. 

868. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should change language in the Forest 

Plan. 

868.1 On page 4-99 regarding ski resort developments.

 Response: The Statement in the Revised Forest Plan reads, “New Resort 

Developments on National Forest System Lands will be confined to permit 

boundaries in effect at the time of revision....” 

868.2 On page 4-99 regarding opportunities that build on public land values. 

 Response: We have chosen not to change the language in the Revised Forest Plan. 

868.3 On pages 53 and 54 because the language pertaining to ski area 

development is too permissive. 

 Response: We were unable to find sentence the statement that was being referred 

to on pages 53 and 54. 

869. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain in the Forest Plan that 

regular maintenance or replacement of existing resort equipment and/or 

facilities are categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy 

Act analysis. 

 Response: A Forest Plan provides broad program level direction for management 

of the land and its resources. A Forest plan does not contain commitments to 

implement specific projects. All proposed projects involve some level of 

environmental analysis and public involvement and that is where these decisions 

will be made. 

870. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should write a directive into the TriCanyon Crisis Plan regarding approval for modifications of existing 

developments. 

 Response: All major or significant modifications of existing developments on 

private or public land in the Tri-Canyons require various approvals either from the 

State of Utah, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City and/or the Forest Service and 

sometimes all four. 

871. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the concern over the total 

number of gallons of petroleum fuel planned to be stored within the Hidden 

Peak expansion. 

 Response: This is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. This issue was thoroughly 

analyzed in the recent Snowbird Master Development Plan and accompanying 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 202 

Allow Ski Area Expansion 

872. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not place restrictions on the ski 

industry based on the speculative possibility that the, or other species, will be 

placed on the endangered species list because a flexible policy will allow the 

Forest Service to react as science develops rather than make premature 

restrictions. 

 Response: The Endangered Species Act directs all government agencies to protect 

species listed as threatened and endangered. This includes habitat. Eleven 

counties in Northern Utah are included as lynx habitat by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). Salt Lake County is one of those counties. The Forest will work 

closely with the FWS on all mitigation requirements they outlined for this species. 

The Forest Plan provides broad program-level direction for management of the land 

and its resources. Future projects carry out the direction in the Forest Plan. Ski areas 

fall into a subset of recreation goals and objectives affecting Forest lands. Within 

the framework of the Forest Plans effort for ecosystem management, these topics 

are adequately addressed. 

873. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand the new swing because it is 

the only environmentally safe way to drop users off without damaging the 

ecosystem. 

 Response: The question cannot be answered as it is worded. 

874. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate the visual integrity of 

ridgelines requirement for Mount Ogden to allow gondola construction. 

 Response: This is a Recreation Desired Future Condition for the Snowbasin Ski 

Area and the integrity of the ridgeline would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

and is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Ski Area Expansion. 

875. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict ski area 

expansion and infrastructure development. 

875.1 Do not expand beyond the year 2000 boundaries 

875.2 Do not allow activities resembling expansion beyond current 

boundaries. 

875.3 Do not use public land to subsidize real estate development. 

875.4 Do not justify expansion by claiming to protect backcountry travelers 

from dangers such as avalanches. 

875.5 Prohibit infrastructure development. 

875.6 Because the industry has not experienced significant growth. 

875.7 Because of increased dispersed recreation. 

875.8 Because it is taking away non-motorized areas.

 Response: The expansion issue is addressed in the Revised Forest Plan and 

through the broad range of alternatives displayed in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. The Forest Plan in Chapter 4 under the Central Wasatch Management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 203 

area states: New resort developments on National Forest System lands will be 

confined to the permit boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though smallscale site-specific adjustments could be considered to address important 

management issues. Any proposed ski resort expansion and infrastructure 

development is studied and approved through a site specific Resort Development 

Master Plan. This includes a thorough NEPA review. 

876. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict ski area 

expansion and infrastructure development for environmental reasons. 

876.1 Because of cumulative impacts. 

876.2 Because of the artificial and substantial increases of human impacts. 

876.3 To protect watersheds. 

876.4 To protect wildlife. 

876.5 To protect nesting birds. 

876.6 Because of night sky pollution. 

876.7 Because it affects aesthetic qualities. 

876.8 Have clear language in the Forest Plan setting standards for forest 

preservation. 

876.9 Until provisions are met for monitoring, enforcement, clean up, and 

maintenance.

 Response: The expansion issue is addressed in the Revised Forest Plan and 

through the broad range of alternatives displayed in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. The Forest Plan in Chapter 4 under the Central Wasatch Management 

area states, “New resort developments on National Forest System lands will be 

confined to the permit boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though smallscale site-specific adjustments could be considered to address important 

management issues.” Any proposed ski resort expansion and infrastructure 

development is studied and approved through a site specific Resort Development 

Master Plan. This includes a thorough NEPA review. 

 

877. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict ski area 

expansion and infrastructure development for social reasons 

877.1 Because it does not benefit everyone. 

 Response: Alternatives 1 & 2 do this. 

877.2 Because crowding and safety issues do not justify expansion 

 Response: The expansions issue is addressed in the Revised Forest Plan and 

through the broad range of alternatives displayed in the Environmental Impact 

Statement. The Forest Plan in Chapter 4 under the Central Wasatch Management 

area states, “New resort developments on National Forest System lands will be 

confined to the permit boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though smallscale site-specific adjustments could be considered to address important 

management issues.” Alternative 7 in the Final EIS covers this issue. Any proposed 

ski resort expansion and infrastructure development is studied and approved 

through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and accompanying NEPA 

review. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 204 

878. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict ski area 

expansion and infrastructure development in certain areas and specific resorts. 

 Response: The expansions issue is addressed in the Revised Forest Plan and 

through the broad range of alternatives displayed in the Environmental Impact 

Statement. The Forest Plan in Chapter 4 under the Central Wasatch Management 

area states, “New resort developments on National Forest System lands will be 

confined to the permit boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though smallscale site-specific adjustments could be considered to address important 

management issues.” Alternative 7 in the Final EIS covers this issue. Any proposed 

ski resort expansion and infrastructure development is studied and approved 

through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and accompanying NEPA 

review. 

 

879. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit avalanche control outside 

of ski resort boundaries and traffic corridors. 

 Response: This issue was analyzed in the final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch Powderbird Guide (WPG) permit renewal. WPG is allowed to use 

explosives for snow stability evaluation as part of the safe operation of their 

business. This use is authorized under the terms of their Special Use Permit. 

880. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a standard that prohibits 

ski and snowboard area expansions and prohibits development of new 

ski/snowboarding areas on a forest-wide basis. 

 Response: See Response to question 878 

881. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit resort building on 

prominent ridges because it alters the viewshed 

 Response: Any proposed ski resort expansion and infrastructure development is 

studied and approved through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and 

accompanying Environmental Impact Statements. This issue is addressed in the 

Forest Plan and through the broad range of alternatives displayed in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

882. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow ski resorts to turn into 

all season recreation areas or destination resorts because of impacts to wildlife. 

 Response: See response 876. 

 

883. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit the development of trams 

or lifts in roadless areas. 

 Response: The Forest Plan does this. 

884. The Forest Plan should state that lift-served expansion at Snowbasin will be 

discouraged outside current boundaries. 

 Response: The expansion issue is also addressed in the Forest plan and through the 

broad range of alternatives displayed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The 

Forest Plan in Chapter 4 under the Central Wasatch Management area states, “New 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 205 

resort developments on National Forest System lands will be confined to the permit 

boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though small-scale site-specific 

adjustments could be considered to address important management issues.” 

Alternative 7 in the Wasatch-Cache Final EIS covers this issue. Any proposed ski 

resort expansion and infrastructure development is studied and approved through 

site specific Resort Development Master Plans and accompanying NEPA review. 

Ski Area Interconnects 

885. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow ski area interconnects. 

 Response: The Forest Plan provides broad program-level direction for 

management of the land and its resources. The forest plan, in chapter four in the 

Central Wasatch Management Area talks about new resort developments on 

National Forest System lands will be confined to the permit boundaries in effect at 

the time of revision. Any proposed resort expansion and infrastructure development 

within the existing resort boundaries or ski area interconnects will be studied 

through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and accompanying NEPA 

Review. 

886. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should keep open the possibility of 

allowing future construction of a gondola connecting Ogden City with 

Snowbasin Resort. 

 Response: Any proposed ski resort expansion and infrastructure development is 

studied and approved through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and 

accompanying Environmental Impact Statements. 

887. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit interconnection of ski 

areas because they are not needed. 

 Response: The Forest Plan provides broad program-level direction for 

management of the land and its resources. The Forest Plan, in Chapter 4 in the 

Central Wasatch Management Area, states that new resort developments on 

National Forest System lands will be confined to the permit boundaries in effect at 

the time of revision. Any proposed resort expansion and infrastructure development 

within the existing resort boundaries and ski area interconnection will be studied 

through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and accompanying NEPA 

Review. 

888. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify that the prohibition of ski 

area expansion includes ski area interconnects. 

 Response: The Forest Plan provides broad program-level direction for 

management of the land and its resources. The forest plan, in chapter four in the 

Central Wasatch Management Area talks about how new resort developments on 

National Forest System lands will be confined to the permit boundaries in effect at 

the time of revision. Any proposed resort expansion or infrastructure development 

within the existing resort boundaries and ski area interconnections will be studied 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 206 

through site specific Resort Development Master Plans and accompanying NEPA 

Review. 

Hunting and Fishing 

889. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit hunting. 

 889.1 In the Wasatch Range 

 889.2 In the Cottonwood Canyons 

 Response: See response 65. 

Outfitter-Guides/Special Use Permits 

890. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow guided access. 

Response: The need for guided access will be determined by the criteria noted in 

Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan and in conjunction with the Revised Forest 

Plan Goals and Sub-goals and Standards and Guidelines. 

890.1 Because this will bring more funding for motorized trail upkeep 

Response: See response 890.

890.2 For safety reasons 

Response: See response 890. 

891. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should retain designations for special use 

permit holders. 

 Response: The Forest will continue with current special uses as identified in 

Revised Forest Plan Chapter 4, A.4. Forestwide Standards and Guidelines. 

892. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make it easy to obtain guiding 

licenses. 

 Response: See response 890. 

893. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider a permit system for 

wilderness areas when other plans to reduce use are not successful. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. A permit system could be one of the 

management options for reducing use in the Wilderness. 

 894. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should document the public demand for 

outfitters/guides. 

Response: See Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 5, and Monitoring. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 207 

Camping 

Camping General 

895. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider that the Preferred 

Alternative best meets the recreation demand b ecause it allows additional 

facility development in the more developed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

classes, but emphasizes replacement of current facilities and site hardening. 

 Response: Thank your for your comment. 

896. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine which recreation sites 

need to be hardened to protect the environment and natural landscape. 

Response: Considering site hardening at recreation sites would be completed at the 

project level and is beyond the scope of the Revised Forest Plan analysis.

897. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not harden campsites. 

 Response: See response 896. 

898. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove and relocated 

campgrounds in riparian zones and flood plains to upland sites so that riparian 

areas can be reclaimed. 

Response: Removing and relocating campgrounds would be a project level 

decision, which is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. At the program level 

however, direction is giving in the Revised Forest Plan, MPC 3.1-Aquatic Habitat 

(3.1A) /Watershed (3.1W) where emphasis is on maintaining or improving quality 

of watershed conditions and aquatic habitats. This would be a consideration when 

projects are proposed and one option that could be considered is removal and 

relocation of a campground. 

899. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue using concessionaires to 

encourage small businesses. 

Response: Thank you for your comment the WCNF will continue to 

concessionaires to help in the management of their recreation facilities. 

900. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address its management of 

camping areas in Logan Canyon because current management is driving 

people away. 

 Response: This is to specific and beyond the scope of the Forest Plan, but we will 

pass this information on to the managing unit. 

901. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow only minor further 

development of existing campgrounds and picnic sites in Logan Canyon. 

Response: See response 900. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 208 

Allow Camping 

902. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide more areas for camping. 

 Response: New developed recreation facilities are proposed in all alternatives 

except Alternative 1. See Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

902.1 By keeping campgrounds open 

 Response: See response 900. 

902.2 By providing all season camping areas in Little Cottonwood Canyon 

 Response: See response 900. 

902.3 By extending the camping area in Tony Grove 

 Response: See response to concern statement 900. 

902.4 By allowing natural unplanned campgrounds 

 Response: As per the Revised Forest Plan in Recreation goals and objectives the 

WCNF will inventory and develop concentrated use area plans for recreation where 

site amenities will focus on protection of the Forest resources. This will meet your 

definition of unplanned campgrounds. 

902.5 By allowing larger campsites to accommodate larger camping vehicles 

 Response: See response 900. 

902.6 By creating a horse camp in Franklin Basin 

 Response: See response 900. 

903. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should maintain present camping 

opportunities and winter and summer recreational activities. 

 Response: Alternative 7 for recreation is very close to the existing condition for 

winter and summer recreational opportunities. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Camping 

904. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit large organizational 

camping groups in the Prove River drainage and Hayden Fork. 

 Response: See response 900.

905. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should control scout troops. 

 Response: See response 900.

906. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should confiscate unattended property for 

those who disregard the fourteen-day camping restriction. 

Response: See response 900.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 209 

Dogs 

Dogs General 

907. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address management of dogs and 

the health of the forest 

Response: The issue of managing dogs on the Forest is indeed not addressed in 

the Revised Forest Plan. This issue is an important one at this time primarily in 

the Central Wasatch Management Area (Tri-Canyon) watersheds and is being 

addressed jointly by the Salt Lake County and the Salt Lake Ranger District. It 

was too site-specific to be adequately addressed in the broad environmental 

analysis for Forest Plan Revision. 

Allow Dogs 

908. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow dogs. 

908.1 Allow dogs in all canyons 

908.2 Allow dogs in Millcreek Canyon 

908.3 Implement a permit system to allow dogs in watershed areas 

908.4 Provide for dispersed dog-friendly recreation opportunities 

908.5 Set land aside for off-leash dog areas or conduct studies and open all 

canyons to dogs 

Response: See response 907. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Dogs 

909. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit/restrict dog visits. 

Ban dogs in Mill Creek Canyon 

Incorporate regulations for dogs 

 Response: See response 907. 

Miscellaneous Activities 

910. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit concerts and resortsponsored activities because of light and noise pollution. 

 Response: Activities within ski area boundaries are regulated through the Special 

Use Permit and Operating Plans rather than in the broad forestwide direction of the 

Revised Forest Plan. Activities adjacent to ski area permit boundaries will be 

subject to the management prescriptions mapped there in the Revised Forest Plan. 

These prescriptions include standards and guidelines that spell out the types of 

activities that are allowed or not allowed there including new trail construction. 

Outfitter guide services are regulated by the specific Special Use Permit issued for 

that service and are not addressed by the broad direction of the Revised Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 210 

911. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage the people who use the 

national forests to party because they disrupt other people. 

 Response: Management Direction included in the Revised Forest Plan does include 

recreation opportunity class maps that show where one should expect to find 

different degrees of solitude and facility development. In those areas where the 

user densities are expected to be relatively high, interactions between visitors are to 

be expected. The Revised Plan also includes an Objective to increase the amount of 

education and enforcement in order to reduce conflicts between forest users. User 

ethics is an area of focus for the education and enforcement that we expect to 

emphasize over the life of the Plan. 

Scenery 

912. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should elevate Guideline 52 on page 4-30 

to a standard and modify the wording to maintain scenic integrity. 

Response: The goal states: “Resource management activities should not be 

permitted to reduce Scenic Integrity below Objectives stated for Management 

Prescription Categories.” Because the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are 

desired future condition for Forest landscapes a site-specific analysis will need to 

take place to determine the ability of the landscape to maintain the SIO. Being able 

to provide to the public rational for such a deviation would be more in line with a 

desire future condition than to have a binding limitation that would require a Forest 

Plan amendment. 

Topic 5: Roadless Areas/Wilderness Management 

Roadless Areas/Wilderness Management General 

Management General 

913. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect public lands as wilderness 

and roadless areas. 

913.1 Because they provide a high quality of life 

913.2 Because they provide high quality hunting experiences

 Response: We agree. Certain public lands that meet the criteria for Wilderness can 

provide a variety of ecosystem benefits and unique recreation opportunities for the 

public. The forest plan alternatives analyze several possibilities. 

914. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt suggestions made by the 

High Uintas Preservation Council regarding wilderness and roadless area 

management. 

 Response: The recommendations made by this organization have been considered 

and are included in the range of alternatives for possible wilderness 

recommendations and oil and gas leasing. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 211 

915. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should focus development in areas that 

are already developed. 

 Response: Already developed areas are allocated to management prescriptions that 

allow further development or redevelopment. In undeveloped areas (roadless areas) 

a range of management prescriptions has been applied across the range of 

alternatives that allow for development, mostly maintain roadless values, or fully 

maintain them. 

Roadless Area/Wilderness Boundaries 

916. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adjust the boundaries of roadless 

and wilderness areas in order to provide necessary protection. 

916.1 Burch Creek Roadless Area

 Response: The comments received are very detailed and site-specific proposing 

minor adjustments to roadless area boundaries or recommendations to improve 

manageability for recommended Wilderness. These comments are valuable, and 

can be used to make minor adjustments when, and if a decision to protect the 

roadless or wilderness character is made. Until that time, the comment has 

generally been considered as within the range of alternatives for the allocation of 

management prescriptions and other management direction for the area. 

916.2 High Uintas 

 Response: We recognize your position that much of the area should be 

recommended as Wilderness, and your comment is considered within our range of 

alternatives. These are also very detailed and site-specific, proposing minor 

adjustments to roadless area boundaries or recommendations to improve 

manageability for recommended Wilderness. These comments are valuable, and 

can be used to make minor adjustments when, and if a decision to protect the 

roadless or wilderness character is made. Until that time, the comment has 

generally been considered as within the range of alternatives for the allocation of 

management prescriptions and other management direction for the area. 

 

916.3 Lakes Area 

Response: See response 916.2 

 

916.4 Lone Peak additions 

 Response: See response 916.1 

916.5 Mount Aired 

 Response: See response 916.2 

916.6 Mount Naomi 

 Response: See response 916.2 

916.7 Mount Olympus 

 Response: See response 916.1 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 212 

916.8 Stansbury Management Area

 Response: See response 916.2 

916.9 Upper South Fork Roadless Area 

 Response: See response 916.2 

 

916.10 White Pine

 Response: See response 916.2 

 

Roadless Area Management 

Roadless Area Management General 

917. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider local input when deciding 

how to manage roadless areas. 

 Response: The range of alternatives and Appendices C1 and C2 speak directly to 

the individual values of roadless areas and their potential for wilderness 

recommendation. We believe our range of alternatives and site specific 

considerations of values are responsive to local opinions on how to manage these 

areas. Local input on their management was considered in the planning process 

through public meetings and written and oral input. 

918. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a project level consideration of 

roadless areas. 

 Response: The values of roadless areas are considered by project level proposals. 

While these are not forest plan decisions, interim direction to protect roadless area 

values is in place for project level decisions and is also provided in established 

Forest Service direction on environmental policy and procedures (FSH 1909.15). 

919. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect roadless areas to preserve 

environmental values. 

 Response: We recognize the values of roadless areas both on the Wasatch-Cache 

and elsewhere. Appendix C-2 identifies many of the roadless values present on the 

Wasatch-Cache. The range of alternatives provide for a variety of management 

schemes ranging fro largely maintaining these values or to allowing considerable 

use and development of roadless areas. 

920. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should maintain roadless area 

characteristics of all inventoried roadless areas. 

920.1 By keeping existing roadless areas roadless 

920.2 By prohibiting all development and motorized recreation

 Response: See response 919. 

 

921. The desired future condition descriptions for Burch Creek and Taylor Canyon 

should specify that special use proposals will not impact roadless 

characteristics of these areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 213 

 Response: We recognize your interest in this area and a range of alternatives from 

recommended Wilderness and roadless protection to management that would allow 

considerable development is laid out for these two areas in the FEIS and 

accompanying maps. 

922. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not manage roadless areas as nonmotorized. 

 Response: In some alternatives that recommend a lot of wilderness most of the 

roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache are managed for non-motorized use. In most 

alternatives considerably more of roadless areas is available for either summer or 

winter motorized use. Readers should be reminded that inventoried roadless areas 

are not necessarily non-motorized. The roadless character of an area does not 

prescribe non-motorized trail use. The motorized or non-motorized use of trails is a 

travel management decision, is not dependent on roadless character, and is 

generally outside the scope of the decisions being made in this forest plan revision. 

Winter motorized and non-motorized uses for areas of the forest are decided by the 

forest plan revision and are shown on the Winter Recreation maps. 

923. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should avoid managing all roadless areas 

the same. 

 Response: Considerable variety in the management of roadless areas is presented 

across the range of alternatives in the FEIS. While Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 applied 

the national roadless rule at the time of their formulation, and still maintain many 

blanket protections for roadless character, the other alternatives provide a different 

set of potential management and uses for roadless areas. In the FEIS, Appendices 

C1 and C2 discuss the potential wilderness and roadless values of roadless areas, 

while the Topic 5 in Chapter 3 looks at alternatives for managing these areas. 

924. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate human use of roadless 

areas under any prescription other than wilderness. 

 Response: In the FEIS Alternative 1 essentially falls in this category of 

management. Other alternatives allows different ranges of maintenance of roadless 

area values or potential human uses of roadless areas. Forest management and the 

planning team tried to examine a broad range of alternatives for roadless area 

management. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

925. Public Concern: The Final EIS should clarify exactly how many acres of 

roadless lands exist on the forest and correct discrepancies in the document 

text.

 Response: The Topic 5 in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and Appendices C1 and C2 show 

Wasatch-Cache inventoried roadless areas, their values as wilderness or other 

roadless values and their acreages. Topic 5 in the FEIS and Table C1-1 and related 

text in Appendix C talk to changes in these roadless areas over time provide some 

caveats regarding the accuracy of inventory acreages. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 214 

926. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should state in the Forest Plan that 

because the plan does not analyze environmental effects of activities in roadless 

areas, an additional EIS will be required for significant federal actions 

affecting roadless areas. 

 Response: Procedural requirements for project environmental analyses are covered 

in departmental regulations and agency policy, and need not be repeated in these 

documents. It is true, however, that project proposals in inventoried roadless areas 

carry with them additional considerations for analysis and disclosures of effects. 

927. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should remove reference to inventoried 

roadless areas from tables in the Draft EIS. 

 Response: A range of considerations for how to treat roadless areas was 

considered across alternatives. In some alternatives no distinctions between 

allowed activities within roadless areas and outside them was considered. In other 

alternatives there were differences between activities allowed inside or outside 

roadless areas. We think this presented both a reasonable and legal range of 

alternatives. 

Roadless Area Designation General 

928. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should ground proof the linear route off of 

Red Butte Road before including this area in the roadless inventory. 

 Response: This was done since the publication of the DEIS. The Red Butte Road 

is a cherry-stem into the roadless area to a point where the road is no longer 

maintained or passable by a passenger car. At this point the original “road” is more 

trail-like in its character and not considered a road from a roadless inventory 

perspective as it proceeds further into the area. The Red Butte RNA is closed to the 

general public and not available for recreation. 

Roadless Area Criteria 

929. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should protect roadless areas that are 

adjacent to wilderness areas. 

 Response: Prescriptions for recommended wilderness, maintenance of roadless 

values or development were applied to roadless areas adjacent to designated 

Wilderness across the alternatives to provide a range of considerations regarding 

potential effects. See the management prescription, ROS, and winter recreation 

maps for the alternatives. 

930. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not define areas with roads as 

roadless. 

 Response: The procedures for mapping roadless areas and definitions for what 

constitutes a road are laid out by the Intermountain Region protocol, Roadless 

Inventory and Evaluation Guide (1998), for doing this work. That protocol was 

made available to and reviewed for the public during the roadless inventory public 

open houses in the Fall of 1998. While opinions and definitions related to this work 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 215 

still differ, the definitions, and procedures for our inventory were disclosed publicly 

and are on file. 

 

931. Public Concern:The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should fully evaluate 

roadless areas using additional criteria as established in 219.17 

 Response: Considerable effort was spent between the publication of the DEIS and 

the FEIS on doing more analysis of roadless area values. The criteria for the 

evaluations done in Appendices C1 and C2 of the FEIS are shown there. These 

criteria cover what is legally required in the forest planning process in 36 CFR 

219.17 and go further than that by considering additional criteria also. 

Do Designate Roadless Areas 

932. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate certain areas roadless. 

932.1 Mineral Fork 

932.2 Mueller Park and Red Butte Canyon 

932.3 Swan Peak

 Response: These four areas are included in the roadless inventory. Mueller Park 

and Red Butte were added as roadless areas between the Draft and Final EISs as a 

result of public comments. The values of these areas for wilderness 

recommendation and as roadless areas are considered in Appendices C1 and C2 to 

the FEIS. A range of management types for these areas is also presented in the 

FEIS. 

 

933. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate the watershed areas as 

roadless in the Wheeler Creek Drainage. 

 Response: A range of management prescriptions for the Wheeler Creek Drainage 

are considered in the FEIS, and these can be seen in the maps of those prescriptions 

and interpreted using management prescription definitions found in Chapter 4 of the 

revised Forest Plan. Watershed values among with many other values were 

considered in evaluating roadless areas. The undeveloped area on the WasatchCache including Wheeler Creek did not meet the minimum 5,000 acre size to 

qualify as a roadless area defined by FS Handbook 1909.12. and the draft 

Intermountain Region protocol on Roadless Inventory and Evaluation Guide 

(1998). 

Do Not Designate Roadless Areas 

934. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not designate any more land as 

roadless or wilderness. 

 Response: Roadless areas are not “designated”. While this response may seem 

bureaucratic, trifling and based on semantics, the words used are important to us. 

Roadless areas are identified by the Forest Service though a required inventory 

process that is based on published criteria. After its inventory, the Forest Service is 

required by the planning regulations (36 CFR 219) to consider recommendations of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 216 

appropriate roadless areas to the National Wilderness Preservation System. These 

recommendations eventually go to Congress for its consideration. 

Wilderness areas are “designated”. This is done when Congress passes Wilderness 

acts. Congress reviews the recommendations from the Forest Service, and if it 

senses public opinion, resource, political, and social needs support a choice for 

designation it can deliver these laws and formally “designate” more Wilderness. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 in the FEIS provide for no more Wilderness, and only limited 

protection for roadless area values. See the Topic 5 discussion in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. 

Other Designations 

935. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a Back Country 

Recreation Area designation for roadless areas. 

 Response: See response 98. 

Additionally, your comment has many good suggestions discussing what Congress 

might do and what the BLM has provided for as administrative solutions for dealing 

with roadless area values and user demands for these areas. We also looked into the 

administrative designation of “Primitive Area” which was formerly applied to many 

undeveloped national forest system areas prior to their designation as Wilderness. 

This is apparently not a good solution for us at the moment. Finally, we think that 

the range of alternatives provided in this analysis gives our decision makers a 

number of differing management scenarios for roadless areas and information on 

the effects associated with those choices. 

Wilderness Management 

Wilderness Management General 

936. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify how wilderness areas will 

be managed. 

 Response: Between the Draft and Final EISs Appendix VI was expanded to 

include standards and guidelines all Wilderness areas on the Wasatch-Cache. 

Similarly, the Desired Future Conditions statements for Wildernesses along the 

Wasatch Front were expanded considerably to clarify public and agency 

expectations for their future management. 

937. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage wilderness areas for nondegradation. 

 Response: This concept is a fundamental premise for managing Wilderness which 

goes back to the Wilderness Act (1964) and is carried forward in the revised Forest 

Plan through the forestwide DFC for Designated Wilderness and Standards and 

Guidelines, as well as management area DFCs that address Wildernesses and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 217 

individual Wilderness goals, standards and guidelines. Additional direction 

available outside this forest plan on managing Wilderness for non-degradation is 

identified at the beginning of the section on forestwide Wilderness standards and 

guidelines in Chapter 4. A. 3. of the revised Forest Plan. 

 

938. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage lands as wilderness during 

the current Administration. 

 Response: The range of alternatives provided in the FEIS provides choices with 

projected effects for managing the roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache. Our 

decision makers will review and document their decisions carefully for the long 

term good of these lands and to serve the needs of the American people. 

 

939. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prepare wilderness management 

plans in a timely manner. 

939.1 For the Tri-Canyon wilderness 

939.2 For the Uinta Wilderness 

939.3 For the Mount Naomi Wilderness

 Response: In the proposed Forest Plan that was produced with the release of the 

DEIS in May 2001 a schedule of wilderness management planning was identified as 

an objective. This objective is not present in the revised Forest Plan that is being 

released now. Forest leadership looked at the list of potential Forest Plan related 

objectives, and then prioritized that work and developed the current objectives (See 

Chapter 4.A.3.) While active management of Wilderness is a high priority for our 

work, no specific commitment to Wilderness planning is now made. If future 

funding or reprioritization of work and management emphasis on Wilderness 

planning surfaces, this is indeed a possibility. 

Recognizing this change from the DEIS and proposed Forest Plan of 2001, the 

revised Forest Plan provides additional management direction for the six 

Wildernesses along the Wasatch Front in Appendix VI to help meet the need for 

management direction for these Wildernesses. Additional detail in Desired Future 

Conditions statements for these Wildernesses was also completed to give managers 

and the public ideas for their management. 

 

940. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict access to wilderness areas 

by implementing a permit system. 

 Response: The comment suggests a permit system for heavily used areas of the 

High Uintas Wilderness, citing the Kings Peak area on holidays as overly used. 

While we know that these situations occur, particularly in some areas, this forest 

planning process did not analyze this question, and it was not raised as a driving 

issue during revision. Standards and guidelines for the High Uintas, as well as for 

the other Wildernesses on the Wasatch-Cache (See Chapter 4 and Appendix VI), 

provide direction that could be used limit or redistribute use for resource protection 

and recreational solitude. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 218 

941. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use language in the Wilderness 

Act, which calls for no motorized vehicles, to guide wilderness management. 

 Response: Motorized uses are not allowed in designated Wilderness, as required 

by the Wilderness Act and any subsequent regulations or policy. Our management 

prescriptions also prescribe that using motor vehicles or other motorized equipment 

is not allowed as stated in the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

942. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify that wilderness means nonmanagement. 

 Response: The fact that management in Wilderness is non-traditional, that is, it is 

done with a minimum tool philosophy and without motorized equipment and other 

conveniences normally available out side the Wilderness, does not mean that 

Wilderness is not managed. Contrarily, substantial attention and funding are spent 

on managing Wilderness so that it can meet the intent of Congress, the 

administration and the American people. Development does not necessarily mean 

management. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

943. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require that any land 

recommended for wilderness pass a manageability and suitability test. 

 Response: Part of the evaluation done for each roadless area in Appendix C-1 of 

the FEIS is an evaluation of these characteristics. The FS Handbook on Wilderness 

Evaluation (1909.12, Chapter 7) discusses these attributes under section 7.21 

Capability regarding “suitability” and section 7.22 Availability regarding 

“manageability” and our appendix includes these considerations. “Need” is another 

criterion that is identified in that FS Handbook chapter and it is also evaluated for 

each roadless area. 

944. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide data to justify its claim 

that snowmobiling on the outer 42 percent of the Lakes Roadless Area 

precludes its designation as wilderness. 

 Response: We determined that the outer portion of the Lakes roadless area, 

(approximately 42% of it) was more used and more popular for snowmobiling than 

the remaining inner core of the area. We made this determination by interacting 

with members of the snowmobiling community and developing a map of 

snowmobile use there based on these interactions. The resulting map was reviewed 

and adjusted by Forest and Ranger District specialists and converted into a GIS 

layer to develop the information. 

The fact that the outer portion of the Lakes area is used by snowmobiles does not 

preclude it from recommendation as Wilderness. This was one factor among many 

in the consideration of the area and in the development of the alternatives that are 

presented in the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 219 

945. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should correct inaccuracies in the Forest 

Plan regarding inventoried roadless areas. 

 Response: The Mt. Logan Roadless area identified in the roadless inventory done 

in 1983 was split into three different roadless areas for the 1999 roadless inventory: 

Mt Logan North, South and West roadless areas. Mapping criteria changed 

between the 1983 and 1999 inventories so that the Providence and Millville Canyon 

roads are now considered roads and dividers between the areas. During the last 

decade or more, the condition of these roads has actually deteriorated, although use 

of the roads may have increased due to improved and more abundant 4WD and 

ATV vehicles and users. 

Wilderness Designation General 

946. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider public demand for 

wilderness areas. 

 Response: The forest is sensitive to public opinions regarding demand for and 

opinions against recommending more Wilderness, but the determination and 

decision to recommend is not based on a poll, referendum, or other counting of 

public opinion on the matter. Lands must first be evaluated using the criteria 

outlined in Appendix C-1 to the FEIS and have substantial capability, availability 

and need. After this some sensing of public demand, need or opinion is also 

appropriate in developing a decision. Information on pubic opinion related to 

roadless area evaluation for Wilderness is included in Appendix C-1. 

947. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider wilderness designation in 

the Rocky Mountain system at the national level. 

 Response: The evaluation for Wilderness in Appendix C-1 does consider in the 

“Need” determination how a particular roadless area might add to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. The Forest itself is constrained to planning for the 

lands within the Forest boundary, but it does compare to larger scales when 

considering what lands would be most needed in recommending more Wilderness. 

948. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should make “sustaining wild ecosystems” 

the primary goal for designating wilderness. 

 Response: The goals for Wilderness are primarily set forth in the Wilderness Act 

(1964), which include both protection of wild ecosystems and providing primitive 

human recreation opportunities and solitude. Our forestwide goal for Wilderness 

may not have ordered wild ecosystem protection and appropriate levels of human 

activity in that order, but the goal as written is not intended in any way to 

shortchange the protection of the wild setting for correct levels and types of human 

use. Both are intrinsic to the intent of the law. 

949. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should carry out other actions before 

recommending any more areas for wilderness designation. 

949.1 Enforce existing wilderness regulations 

949.2 Provide good management and education 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 220 

949.3 Explain the balance of resources and the needs of the people

 Response: All the items identified in this comment are important for successful 

land management and to ensure that future generations can have opportunities 

similar to our own. The revised Forest Plan identifies an objective for enforcement 

and education that is aimed precisely at this mark. It is clear to us also that 

achieving good compliance with special orders and improving backcountry 

behavioral standards is a key to good Wilderness management. Recommending 

additional Wilderness does come with a commitment to manage it. 

Wilderness Criteria 

950. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify how wilderness 

recommendations are selected. 

 Response: There is no cookbook or scorecard for how recommendations 

developed; rather judgment was used given the following inputs. Appendices C-1 

and C-2 evaluate roadless areas from two different perspectives: 1) potential for 

Wilderness, and 2) roadless area values defined by the criteria. Some conclusions 

may be made about which roadless areas are more valuable as Wilderness by 

reading and comparing these write-ups. Chapter 2 in the FEIS describes how 

roadless area management would be handled in each alternative and the extent to 

which Wilderness recommendations were considered appropriate as part of an 

alternative theme. The interdisciplinary team and forest leadership then mapped the 

different alternatives using this information and personal and professional opinions 

about the areas and their best allocation. 

951. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should apply the wilderness criteria 

correctly for the Twin Peaks, Mount Olympus, White Pine, and Mount Aire 

proposed additions. 

 Response: The fact that recommendations for Wilderness were and can be made 

in one alternative and not in another has nothing to do with the intrinsic values of 

the lands in question. Rather the recommendation is based on the perspective of the 

alternative on how that land should be used. Final decision-making this Forest 

Plan, and perhaps at some future time, a Congressional Wilderness act designating 

more Wilderness are not linear, but complex process composed of many different 

sets of opinions and perspectives related to the same set of lands and the same 

social system. These complex sets of information and societal desires regarding the 

Wasatch-Cache have been boiled down into the issues and alternatives presented in 

the FEIS. 

952. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reexamine the criteria for 

wilderness evaluation and the underlying legislation. 

 Response: The Forest Service has developed its Handbook on Wilderness 

Evaluation (1909.12, Chapter 7) to interpret relationships between the Wilderness 

Act (1964) and National Forest Management Act (amended 1982), and so to help 

planners and the public to work through the contentious process of wilderness 

recommendation. While the Wilderness Act does not specifically identify the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 221 

criteria used by the Forest Service in its Handbook on Wilderness Evaluation, the 

agency at the Washington Office level legally can and did develop this policy for 

implementing its responsibilities. Individual national forests are then charged with 

the tasks of implementing handbook direction, which can include some 

interpretation, but which should fall within the rubric of the policy. Reexamination 

of this policy will need to come from higher levels in the organization, and is 

outside of the scope of this planning effort. 

953. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not use sights and sounds to 

disqualify potential wilderness areas. 

 Response: While the “sights and sounds” of adjacent developed areas are 

discussed for some roadless areas with regard to their potential for Wilderness, 

these were not used to veto or disqualify additions to existing Wildernesses. This 

information along with other inventoried characteristics and alternative theme was 

considered when developing wilderness recommendations across the range of 

alternatives. It is the overall consideration and judgment regarding the qualities for 

and impediments to further recommendations for Wilderness within an alternative 

context that determined its wilderness recommendation. 

954. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider the capability, 

availability, and need of individual roadless areas in determining wilderness 

potential. 

 Response: We did in Appendix C of the DEIS and Appendix C-1 of the FEIS. An 

array of alternative recommendations for Wilderness is presented in the FEIS. 

955. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend areas for wilderness 

designation under certain conditions. 

955.1 If they are large enough to offer a wilderness experience 

955.2 If they are at least 100,000 acres in size, so that prescribed fire can be 

effectively used as a management tool 

955.3 If they are low-elevation areas 

955.4 Only if they are in danger of exploitation 

Response: We appreciate your perspectives on what constitutes appropriate 

characteristics for Wilderness. These clearly are important considerations in 

developing good management for roadless areas. Generally largeness has been 

considered an important value in preserving of wildland ecosystems. We also are 

learning that allowing fire to approximate natural fire regimes should improve 

ecosystem conditions. We know that low elevation areas are not adequately 

represented in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and development and 

over-exploitation can disrupt or destroy natural systems. These factors are 

considered in the evaluation of roadless areas in Appendix C-2 and for Wilderness 

evaluation in Appendix C-1 to the FEIS. 

956. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not recommend areas for 

wilderness designation under certain conditions. 

956.1 If it would detract from water production 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 222 

956.2 If it prohibits grazing 

Response: The Wasatch-Cache recognizes the importance of water production 

from national forest lands. We also know how important grazing livestock can be 

to individuals and communities that depend on it. These two land uses are often 

discussed in the evaluation of individual roadless areas for Wilderness in Appendix 

C-2 in the FEIS, particularly in the describing “Availability” where the potential for 

conflict of Wilderness designation with existing uses is covered. Generally, 

Wilderness recommendation by the agency, or later, designation by Congress has 

had little effect of these aspects of forest use, and wilderness acts passed by 

Congress tend to “grandfather” these uses in. 

Do Recommend Roadless Areas for Wilderness Designation 

957. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand wilderness areas. 

 Response: We recognize your perspective and have provided a range of 

alternatives in the FEIS, some with large areas of recommended Wilderness and 

some with no recommendation. The prescription maps that accompany the FEIS 

show where wilderness recommendations are made; the management prescription 

of 1.5, described in Chapter 4.B.1. of the Forest Plan described allowed and 

prohibited used in recommended Wilderness; and desired future condition 

statements give other information on how these areas might appear in the future. 

958. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas to achieve its stated objective 

 Response: The comment suggests that the best way to meet forest concerns for the 

preservation of biodiversity is through recommending most roadless areas of the 

forest as Wilderness. While the biodiversity and viability issue is a key one 

identified in the FEIS (See Chapter 1, Issue 3), it is only one of several that drove 

the planning effort. Most of the other issues, aside from the one on roadless area 

management, had to do with human uses. The solution for the forest plan must be a 

balancing of appropriate levels of use with protection and sustainability of 

ecosystem functioning and components. Several choices for how this solution are 

laid out in the seven alternatives that are analyzed in the FEIS; different 

recommendations for additional Wilderness are provided as part of each alternative. 

959. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas for environmental reasons. 

959.1 To link wilderness areas together 

959.2 To protect ecological health 

959.3 To protect watersheds 

959.4 To protect biodiversity 

959.5 To protect wildlife 

959.6 To protect wildlife habitat 

959.7 To protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

959.8 To protect golden eagles 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 223 

959.9 To protect areas from the effects of mining and off-road vehicle 

recreation 

Response: Each of these comments has merit. The FEIS presents a range of 

alternatives from prescribing Wilderness recommendation for large amounts of 

roadless areas or to no recommendation for Wilderness. These recommendations 

are based on the values identified in Appendix C-1 matched with an alternative 

theme. Wilderness recommendation and if Congress acts, designation, can help 

protect each of the values itemized above. However, Wilderness recommendation 

is not the only answer. Values can also be protected with other management 

direction and prescriptions. 

Roadless areas are also considered for maintenance of roadless area values or 

possible allowance of development. (See Appendix C-1 for an inventory of roadless 

values.) Your comments were considered in the development and analysis of the 

alternatives presented in the FEIS. Comments from people who do not share your 

values were also considered, helping to provide the range of alternatives we have 

analyzed. 

 

960. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas for social reasons 

960.1 To allow research and education 

960.2 To benefit future generations 

960.3 To preserve the American spirit

 Response: The range of alternatives presented in the FEIS provides 

recommendations of considerable new Wilderness to no new Wilderness. It is true 

that Wilderness can be a setting for sustaining biodiversity that can benefit 

environmental appreciation, research, future generations, and the spiritual sense that 

Americans have that “wild places” still exist in our country and world. We 

recognized these concerns by building some alternatives that recommend most 

roadless areas for Wilderness or provide management prescriptions that do not 

allow much development. The range of alternatives also provides options for the 

development of some of these areas. 

961. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

for economic reasons to benefit the economy. 

 Response: The Loomis and Richardson (2000), reference that is cited in this 

comment does provide information concluding that Wilderness designation can add 

economic value and social values to an area. Some of these economic benefits are 

more easily or tangibly estimated in dollar values. Our Appendix C-1 considers 

how available, capable and needed the roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache are as 

additional Wilderness. Some considerations of ongoing uses that add dollars to the 

economy are addressed. Our economic analysis has not estimated the dollar value of 

ecosystem benefits, in part because this is not required in our regulations. We do 

recognize the tremendous value of stable watersheds that produce dependable water 

supplies, ecosystems with individual species and functional components intact, and 

wild landscapes that can help energize and invigorate our society either through 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 224 

direct recreation or reflection on their very existence. These aspects of roadless 

areas and potential Wilderness recommendation were considered in presenting our 

range of alternatives. 

962. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas. 

962.1 All roadless areas 

962.2 Winter range areas 

962.3 Damaged areas 

 Response: We have examined all inventoried roadless areas for their potential as 

Wilderness. No alternative recommends that all roadless should be Wilderness. 

Our analysis in Appendix C-1 to the FEIS simply did not find that all roadless areas 

had qualities that made them available, capable, or needed enough to be 

recommended. Documentation of the roadless areas that are not considered 

appropriate under any of the analyzed alternatives is part of the planning file. 

The values of winter range are important and are considered with respect to impacts 

from development, use and forage competition in Topic 2, Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Winter range was not specifically analyzed as a characteristic across all roadless 

areas for Wilderness consideration. It is true that some lower elevation portions of 

roadless areas that provide winter range could be protected through Wilderness 

recommendation. This same effect may be achieved by tailoring other management 

direction. For instance, protection of winter range on the forest could be more 

specifically addressed through the application of a 3.2 management prescription and 

a management area DFC specifying winter range protection, than through 

recommendation of additional Wilderness. The range of alternatives does 

encompass difference acreages of roadless that are recommended for Wilderness, 

some of which would provide more winter range in recommended Wilderness than 

others; this has not been calculated. 

Roadless areas with minor damage to vegetation or other attributes were considered 

for their potential as Wilderness and that analysis is presented in Appendix C-1. In 

some alternatives, areas with known minor damage were included in 

recommendations for Wilderness while they were considered inappropriate in other 

alternatives. We recognize that some healing of areas can occur when passive 

management and low impact uses are applied to an area, and that for some 

advocates of Wilderness, recommendation of these areas for Wilderness for curative 

reasons could seem appropriate. 

963. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should support the wilderness 

designations proposed by various groups. 

 963.1 Salt Lake City 

963.2 The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities 

963.3 Save Our Canyons

 Response: The recommendations of these three entities are on file with the 

Wasatch-Cache, and they were considered in the development of the alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 225 

Wilderness recommendations that were presented in the FEIS. Each of the three 

presented positions recommending large acreages of roadless in the Tri Canyons as 

Wilderness. These positions are probably best represented in Alternative 1 and 

secondarily by Alternative 2. 

964. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate the forest as a National 

Preserve and Wilderness. 

 Response: This suggestion was not feasible, and not considered with the range of 

alternatives that were analyzed. The Forest simply has too many developed areas, 

and too many ongoing uses on which surrounding communities are dependent to 

preserve the whole or designate it as Wilderness. 

965. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should create non-motorized buffer zones 

around all wilderness areas to protect ecological and wilderness values. 

 Response: Section 303 of the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 specifically prohibits 

the placement of buffer zones around Wildernesses designated in the act (all but 

Lone Peak). This section of the act further states, “The fact that nonwilderness 

activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of 

itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” 

Do Not Recommend Roadless Areas for Wilderness Designation 

 

966. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not recommend any more areas for 

wilderness designation. 

966.1 Because enough area is already designated wilderness 

966.2 Because 80 percent of Utah is already owned by the federal government 

966.3 Because these areas should be kept open to multiple use 

966.4 Because a wilderness designation does not prohibit private landowners 

from using their land in a manner that is incompatible with wilderness values 

Response: We understand the perspective of commenters who do not want 

additional Wilderness recommendations, and have provided Alternatives 4 and 5 

that cover this position. Other members of the public feel that some or much more 

additional Wilderness is desirable, and we have also presented alternatives that 

address these positions. 

The Wasatch-Cache recognizes that large portions of the state are public lands 

(federal, state, and local), and that we must responsibly manage that portion which 

has been entrusted to our care. 

Wilderness management is multiple-use management. Many different uses are 

allowed in designated Wilderness, and framers of Wilderness legislation had to 

consider how the intent of Wilderness could be interwoven with the intent of the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 states “Nothing in the Act shall be deemed to be in interference with the 

purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the in the Act of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 226 

June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 

1960 (74 stat. 215).” 

We recognize that private landowners can do as they like (within legal limits) with 

their own property, which may be adjacent to designated Wilderness or adjacent to 

roadless areas that must be considered for potential Wilderness. We considered this 

factor as we wrote Appendix C-1 and the alternatives in the FEIS. 

967. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not recommend any more areas for 

wilderness designation for environmental reasons. 

967.1 Because these areas can be adequately protected with careful 

stewardship 

967.2 Because a wilderness designation precludes management tools needed for 

forest health 

 Response: We recognize your perspectives regarding Wilderness recommendation. 

We have alternatives presented in the FEIS that both recommend substantial 

Wilderness additions (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7) and recommend none 

(Alternative 4 and 5). It is true that many of the natural and social/recreational 

values of an area can be protected without a Wilderness recommendation, and that 

the application of “minimum” tool philosophy to Wilderness management can limit 

the use of some technology for work in an area. It is, in part, because of your 

perspective that we have developed a range of alternatives for managing roadless 

areas and in our Wilderness recommendations. 

968. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not recommend any more areas for 

wilderness designation for social reasons. 

968.1 Because areas should remain open for future generations 

968.2 Because motorized access is needed for the elderly 

968.3 Because it would restrict recreational access 

Responses: There is a range of opinions among the elderly, those with disabilities, 

and all the public regarding motorized access to national forest lands and 

Wilderness recommendations. Your comments that suggest motorized or otherwise 

assisted access into areas is an important value to the public were considered in the 

development of alternatives for Wilderness recommendations. 

 

969. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not recommend any more areas for 

wilderness designation for economic reasons because wilderness designations 

hurt the economy. 

 Response: We recognize your perspective that more Wilderness will hurt the 

economy through lessening use and sales of ATVs, snowmobiles, or other 

motorized recreation outdoor equipment. We also have recognized that the 

motorized recreation segment of local economies is “an important contributor to 

local businesses.” (FEIS, Chapter 3, Social and Economic section.) 

Our range of alternatives includes those that recommend more Wilderness and some 

that do not. Additionally, Alternative 7 provides that snowmobiles can be used in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 227 

recommended Wilderness if existing travel plans allowed winter motorized 

snowmobile use. The Social and Economic section in the FEIS specifically includes 

in the analysis within recreation labor income and employment those sectors of the 

economy that make up motorized recreation (ATV and snowmobile, 4 wheel drive 

and gasoline sales), as well as other related components of recreation. 

Consequently, we think that the range of alternatives and their effects have 

considered your concerns. 

 

970. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not create de facto wilderness 

areas. 

970.1 By adding more restrictions to proposed roadless areas 

970.2 By managing recommended wilderness areas for wilderness values 

 Response: Within our range of alternatives there are different allowed activities 

prescribed for recommended Wilderness. Chapter 2 in the FEIS itemizes the 

allowed activities possible in MPC 1.5, Recommended Wilderness. Alternative 1-6 

tend to be about the same with regard to managing 1.5; Alternative 7, developed 

after comments were received on the DEIS has somewhat different allowances 

(including snowmobile access where it existed before recommendation) both for the 

public and for Forest Service management. Alternative 7 management prescriptions 

for 1.5 were developed, in part, with your concerns in mind. 

Site-Specific Wilderness Recommendations 

971. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas. 

 Response: We recognize that many people support recommending a large amount 

of additional Wilderness. Alternative 1 recommends the most Wilderness (See 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 5), but additional Wilderness is recommended in 5 of our 7 

alternatives. 

972. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas in the Bear Management Area. 

 Response: No Wilderness is recommended in the Bear Management Area under 

any Alternative. Consideration of the values for Wilderness presented in Appendix 

C-1 to the FEIS for capability, availability, and need of additional Wilderness in the 

Swan Creek, Rock Creek-Green Fork, and Sugar Pine roadless areas was relatively 

low for a variety of reasons. Please review FEIS Appendix C-1 for further 

information. 

973. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas in the Cache Box Elder Management Area. 

 973.1 Areas Adjacent to Mount Naomi 

973.2 Areas in Logan Canyon 

973.3 Water Canyon 

973.4 Wellsvilles 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 228 

Response: Alternatives 1 and 2 provide substantial Wilderness recommendations 

for Mt. Naomi Wilderness and some smaller additions in the Wellsville Mountain 

Wilderness. Other alternatives provide less or none. The details of these choices 

and effects are considered in the FEIS under Topic 5 in Chapter 3. 

974. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas in the North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area. 

974.1 Mollens Hollow 

974.2 Areas near Ogden 

974.3 Burch Creek 

974.4 Francis Roadless area 

974.5 Upper South Fork 

974.6 Lewis Peak 

974.7 Areas surrounding the Bonneville Shoreline Trail 

Response: We inventoried and considered the values for Wilderness of each of 

these areas in Appendix C in the DEIS (Appendix C-1) in the FEIS. Each of the 

commenters suggested that some or all of these areas could be recommended as 

Wilderness. The Forest Plan revision interdisciplinary team looked at each area 

again to consider their character and see if Wilderness recommendation might be 

appropriate. Upper South Fork Roadless is recommended for Wilderness in several 

Alternatives. Additional recommendations for Wilderness were made in Alternative 

1 (changing the management prescription map) beyond what was provided in the 

DEIS for Lewis Peak, and portions of the Willard and Francis roadless areas. The 

interdisciplinary team review of Mollens Hollow roadless area found that it was not 

appropriate for Wilderness recommendation under any of the Alternatives. In the 

development of Alternative 7, the values for Wilderness of these areas were also 

considered, and while these areas were not recommended for Wilderness in the 

alternative, substantial portions of them were placed in MPC 2.6, Undeveloped 

Areas. A review of the MPCs in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan or Management 

Prescription maps for Alternatives 1 and 7 from the DEIS and FEIS allows one to 

review these situations. 

 

975. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas in the Central Wasatch Management Area. 

975.1 Tri-Canyon Area 

975.2 Twin Peaks 

975.3 Gobbler’s Knob 

975.4 Mount Aire 

975.5 Red Butte Canyon and Mueller Park 

975.6 Grizzly Gulch 

975.6 Lone Peak 

Response: As mentioned in response 974 above, we inventoried and considered the 

values for Wilderness of each of these areas in Appendix C in the DEIS (Appendix 

C-1) in the FEIS. Each of the commenters suggested that some or all of these areas 

could be recommended as Wilderness. The Forest Plan revision interdisciplinary 

team looked at each area again to consider their character and see if Wilderness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 229 

recommendation might be appropriate. All mentioned areas are within the general 

Tri-Canyon area of the Salt Lake Ranger District. 

Most of Twin Peaks roadless area is recommended for Wilderness in Alternative 1, 

and smaller portions in Alternatives 2 and 3. So this area has been considered as 

Wilderness in the revision process. 

Gobbler’s Knob is found within part of the Mt. Olympus roadless area, and this 

portion of the roadless area is recommended for wilderness in Alternatives 1, 2, and 

3. Consequently, there has been consideration of this area as Wilderness in the 

revision process. 

Most of the Mt. Aire roadless area was recommended for Wilderness in Alternative 

1. Other alternatives did not recommend it. The area is generally perceived as 

marginal potential for Wilderness given presence of substantial Wilderness already 

in the general area and other factors. Appendix C-1 to the FEIS reviews its 

potential for Wilderness. 

Red Butte and Mueller Park roadless areas were added to the roadless inventory 

since the DEIS as a result of this comments, and considered for their values as 

potential Wilderness or for roadless area values. (See Appendices C-1 and C-2.) 

The review of Red Butte and Mueller Park roadless areas determined that neither 

was appropriate for Wilderness recommendation under any alternative. 

Grizzly Gulch, near Alta ski area, is primarily composed of private lands, is not in 

an inventoried roadless area, and is not capable, available, or needed as an addition 

to Wilderness. 

Additions to Lone Peak Wilderness are considered in Alternatives 1 and 2. See 

Appendices C-1 and C-2 to the FEIS. 

976. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend the proposed Mount 

Olympus wilderness addition. 

 Response: Alternative 1 in the FEIS considers and recommends most of the Mt. 

Olympus roadless area as Wilderness. Two other alternatives (2 and 3) recommend 

about 20% of the roadless area be added as Wilderness. We understand that 

proponents of watershed protection, wildlife species and habitat, threatened 

vegetation, and non-motorized summer and winter recreation have a stake in this 

perspective (as do the values and species they represent), and we have considered 

these positions in our FEIS. 

 

977. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should exclude certain areas from the 

proposed Mount Olympus wilderness addition. 

 Response: A range of alternatives is presented in the FEIS in Chapter 3, Topic 5 

that recommends most of the Mt. Olympus roadless area as Wilderness in 

Alternative 1, to recommending none of it in 4 alternatives. The decision maker for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 230 

this roadless area has been given a broad range of alternatives and effects to 

consider in making a decision, and your position has been identified within this 

range of alternatives. 

978. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend White Pine Canyon 

for wilderness designation. 

 Response: White Pine roadless area is recommended for Wilderness in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. In five other alternatives it is not. Your opinion and the 

opinions of other are considered in the range of alternatives for this area. 

 

979. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not recommend White Pine 

Canyon for wilderness designation. 

979.1 Because the area is already sufficiently protected 

Response: White Pine roadless area is not recommended for addition to 

Wilderness in five of the seven alternatives analyzed in the FEIS. With the 

exception of comment 979.2 and 979.5 above, we recognize the perspectives of the 

comments above, and have considered them through these alternative treatments. 

979.2 Because grazing and winter motorized use should be allowed to continue 

Response For 979.2: Grazing is not allowed under any Alternative. It must be 

noted that grazing is not now allowed in the White Pine area as it is within the Salt 

Lake City municipal watershed, and this use has not been allowed for many years; 

winter motorized use, through helicopter skiing is allowed in several alternatives (3-

7), although it is not allowed in Alternatives 1 and 2. 

979.3 Because helicopter skiing should be allowed to continue 

Response: See response 979.1. 

979.4 Because the area contains too many roads and other improvements to be 

considered for wilderness designation 

Response: See response 979.1.

 

979.5 Because it will prevent access to private inholdings 

Response For 979.5: Access to private inholdings must be allowed by law. The 

Forest Service cannot deny access to private property held within national forests. 

This is not a decision that is either within the authority of the Forest Service or 

within the scope of this forest plan. 

 

980. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas in the Stansbury Mountains Management Area, ie Stansbury Mountains 

and Deseret Peak Areas. 

 Response: Our range of alternatives for wilderness recommendation in the 

Stansburys goes from recommending nearly all of the local roadless area for 

Wilderness in Alternative 1, to recommending none in four alternatives. The 

inventory of roadless areas for Wilderness values and roadless for other roadless 

area values is contained in Appendices C1 and C-2 respectively in the FEIS. Topic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 231 

5 in Chapter 3 of the FEIS discusses the alternatives for Wilderness 

recommendation and roadless values. The decision-maker has been given range of 

choices from which to build a decision for the area and the forest in general. 

981. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend additional wilderness 

areas in the Western and Eastern Uintas Management Areas. 

981.1 Areas Adjacent to Lakes, and Uintas North Slope 

981.2 Boundary Creek 

981.3 Burnt Fork/Thompson Fork/Kabell Creek 

981.4 Hayden Fork/Main Fork/Stillwater/Boundary Creek 

981.5 High Uintas 

981.6 Lakes Roadless Area/proposed Mount Watson Wilderness 

981.7 Nobletts 

981.8 Stillwater Creek 

981.9 Middle Fork, Blacks Fork, and West Fork Beaver Creek 

981.10 Widdop Mountain 

Response: Many commenters provided general and detailed support for 

recommendations of additional Wilderness in the Uintas Range. The itemized areas 

above were extracted from individual comments in of support for Wilderness 

recommendation for each area. The range of alternatives presented in the FEIS 

provides Wilderness recommendations of almost all of these roadless areas to 

Wilderness in Alternative 1, and lesser amounts in Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7. 

Detailed discussions of the values of these areas as Wilderness can be found in 

Appendix C-1 to the FEIS. Discussions of other values associated with their 

roadless character can be found in Appendix C-2. Our range of alternatives 

accounts for situations in which these values might be protected or might be placed 

under prescriptions where more development is allowed. 

982. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should recommend the Mount Naomi 

Roadless Area for wilderness designation. 

 Response: Most of the Mt. Naomi roadless area is recommended for Wilderness 

in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 also make recommendations for several 

1000 acres, while Alternative 7 recommends 500 acres adjacent to recommended 

Wilderness on the Caribou National Forest. Two alternatives, 4 and 5, recommend 

no new Wilderness here or forestwide, satisfying those who have an opposite 

perspective on Wilderness recommendation from your own. 

983. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not base its needs assessment for 

additional wilderness solely on recreational criteria for the Mount Naomi 

Roadless area. 

 Response: Alternative 1 recommends most of the Mt. Naomi Roadless area for 

Wilderness, and Alternative 2 recommends much of it. The analysis of the need for 

additional Wilderness analyzed in Appendix C of the DEIS for Mt. Naomi roadless 

area did have several references to the recreation values of the area, but it is clear in 

this inventory that significant wildlife and plants are present that are also considered 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 232 

for potential as Wilderness. We think that the range of Alternatives covers the 

possibilities and analysis that you suggest. 

 

984. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should extend wilderness designations 

back to the trailheads on every drainage across the North Slope. 

 Response: The range of alternatives developed in the FEIS encompasses situations 

in which larger recommendations for Wilderness would extend wilderness to 

existing trailheads. If large new Wilderness recommendations (Alternatives 1 or 2) 

or even smaller recommendations are decided on (Alternatives 3, 6, or 7) local 

implementation decisions for managing at the edges and interiors of new 

recommended Wilderness will need to be made. Site-specific management at 

trailheads, essentially requiring Wilderness behaviors and uses from trailheads to 

Wilderness boundaries might also be a solution to your concern. 

Topic 6: Suitable Timberlands 

Suitable Timberlands General 

985. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify the standards and 

guidelines related to timber management. 

985.1 To define and further develop “standard restrictions” 

985.2 To protect scenic river eligibility 

985.3 To establish a skidding prohibition at a lower slope than 40 percent 

985.4 To close loopholes for timber sales in Guidelines 58 and 59 

985.5 To protect trails during timber sales and other vegetation management

 Response: The Forest Plan identifies general standards and guidelines that apply 

to all management prescriptions. Project level analysis will determine necessary 

management requirements based on site conditions, and will address protection of 

system trails, scenic river eligibility, and other resource values to be maintained or 

improved. 

 

986. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify timber management 

prescriptions in the Forest Plan by including species-specific road density 

requirements and management direction. 

 Response: Species-specific road densities is impractical when one considers the 

300+ vertebrate species that may use the Forest. Chapter 3, Topic 3, and Appendix 

B5 in the FEIS discuss roads analysis and densities, as does Topic 3 in the Revised 

Forest Plan. 

987. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require the timber industry to 

restore harvested areas. 

 Response: Post-sale activities and requirements/restrictions on logging activity are 

determined during the analysis conducted under NEPA. The contract provisions are 

selected to insure that the identified requirements are implemented on the ground 

during the term of the contract. Timber sales are monitored during the term of the 

contract to insure the purchaser is in compliance with contract specifications. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 233 

988. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should scientifically manage vegetation 

resources to ensure restoration of biodiversity. 

 Response: Each alternative addresses vegetation management with a combination 

of mechanical treatments and the use of prescribed fire. Restoring biodiversity is an 

objective of most alternatives, but the method used for restoration varies between 

alternatives. Harvest will be used in some areas, but where harvesting is restricted 

by physical, biological or management constraints, prescribed fire is the primary 

tool to restore biodiversity. 

989. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should review timber suitability per the 

Alternative 7 management prescription category. 

 Response: Timber suitability analysis has been conducted in accordance with 

planning regulations and is included in Appendix B. 

990. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider alternatives to timber 

harvesting to keep roadless areas intact. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Roadless areas are addressed in all 

alternatives. Preservation of all existing roadless areas is included in several 

alternatives (1,2,6), and the remaining alternatives protect roadless areas to varying 

degrees through the application of MPCs. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

991. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify existing tables and provide 

additional tables in the Final EIS that indicate “total suited acres” and 

“tentatively suited lands.” 

 Response: Tables have been reviewed and we have attempted to make them more 

clear and correct inaccuracies. Table TM-2 Chapter 3) presents the suited acres and 

unsuited lands where timber harvest is allowed. 

992. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide a more thorough analysis 

in compliance with the Forest Service Manual. 

992.1 By providing sufficient analyis in the Final EIS 

992.2 By using FORPLAN to calculate allowable sale quantity and long-term 

sustained yield 

992.3 By providing sufficient information in the Forest Plan

 Response: Timber suitability and ASQ information has been reformatted in the 

Forest Plan to include additional information and in the format in the planning 

regulations. This information is included in Appendix B. The planning regulations 

do not require the use of FORPLAN, but require estimating the goods and services, 

activities, and investments to be implemented or produced by decade and display 

them. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 234 

993. The Final EIS should provide a complete analysis of the cumulative effects of 

logging on threatened wildlife, including predators. 

 Response: “Threatened and Endangered” are defined by law in the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The Forest has only one threatened predator species, the 

Canada lynx, and one endangered species, the black-footed ferret which is classified 

by the State and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as being historical on the 

Wasatch-Cache (and all other areas of the State except the Uintah Basin where it 

has recently been reintroduced. All Federally listed, candidate, and proposed 

species that the FWS has identified for the Forest are discussed in the Biological 

Assessment as required by the ESA and under species-at-risk in Appendix B2 of the 

FEIS. 

994. The Final EIS should disclose the adverse effects of timber sales on atmospheric 

carbon levels in order to comply with the Global Climate Change Prevention 

Act. 

 Response: The Global Change Prevention Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture 

to study global climate change and its affect on farms and forests in the United 

States, and to identify alternative management strategies for temperate and tropical 

forests that may mitigate any negative effects of global climate change. The longterm effects of climate change are beyond the scope of this Forest Plan. 

995. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify the discussion of timber 

suitability in the Final EIS. 

995.1 By including more recent monitoring data 

995.2 By describing timber supply and demand 

995.3 By explaining what triggers a timber sale outside of the timber 

prescription or suitable base 

 Response: There has not been a published monitoring report since 1992. 

However, resource monitoring at the project level has been ongoing since the report 

was issued. The most recent information from this monitoring was incorporated 

into the analysis. Quantifying the demand for timber is difficult because mills 

outside the local area are now purchasing timber from the Wasatch-Cache, and they 

are not totally dependent upon timber from this forest for their supply. We have 

tried to improve the timber demand discussion in an attempt to better describe the 

local market. There is no specific triggering mechanism for timber sales on 

unsuitable lands that permit timber harvest. The purpose for the proposed treatment 

would be identified in the project level analysis. Timber harvest on unsuitable 

lands could be proposed for several purposes, including but not limited to salvage 

of insect or fire-killed timber, maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat, and 

development of PFC. 

996. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should better explain statements 

regarding the possible benefits of tree removal on wildlife due to improved 

hunting opportunities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 235 

 Response: This statement was in regards to oil and gas leasing. The section on 

“The Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife From Oil and Gas Activities has been rewritten 

and the statement is no longer in the document. 

 

997. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain the connection between 

timber harvest and lynx management for each alternative. 

Response: Lynx conservation strategy guidelines specify that management 

activities shall not change more than 15% of a Lynx Analysis Unit to an unsuitable 

condition within a 10-year period. The greatest projected forest-wide harvest level 

(Alternative 5) is about 12,400 acres of suited lands in a decade. It is unlikely that 

this level of activity will exceed the conservation strategy limits for change in a 

decade. However, site-specific analysis will determine the effects of proposed 

harvest, and may dictate a reduction of treatment acres in a particular LAU. We 

have discussed this in more detail in the FEIS. 

998. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should discuss timber harvest methods in 

the Final EIS. 

998.1 To clarify the different impacts from fire and clearcuts 

998.2 To clarify harvest methods for conifer, lodgepole pine, and aspen 

 Response: The values for water yield in the DEIS are based on a model that 

predicts no reduction in water yield for 15 years after conifer harvest and then 

reduces the water yield to zero linearly from 15 to 60 years after harvest. After the 

DEIS was released for public comment, a different approach was felt to be 

appropriate for the assessment of water yield increases. Since Forest Plan revision is 

broad-level planning, it is felt that it is not appropriate to present specific values of 

water yield based on assumptions and research that was conducted in very small 

watersheds that may or may not apply to the Forest-level scale. Therefore, a 

different analysis presented that is discussed in the section Effects on Soil and 

Water Resources from Timber Harvest/ Vegetation Treatments under Topic 1, 

Watershed Health in the FEIS. 

We agree the referenced harvest method statement is confusing. It has been 

reworded in the FEIS to clarify the meaning. Clearcutting is an even-aged 

silvicultural system, and may be appropriate for lodgepole pine stands and mixed 

conifer stands dominated by lodgepole pine. Uneven-aged systems will be the 

preferred system in spruce-fir and mixed stands dominated by spruce and fir. The 

purpose of clearcutting aspen is to initiate regeneration from root sprouts and 

provide for future mature stands. Mature aspen stands are very desirable and a 

major management emphasis is perpetuating such stands over time. 

999. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue to research best 

management practices for timber harvest methods. 

 Response: Research projects that investigate best management practices and other 

management options are conducted by Forest Service Research Stations on a 

continuing basis. At the Forest level, timber sale areas are monitored during and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 236 

after harvest to determine effectiveness of prescribed management practices. 

Adjustments in practices are made if monitoring indicates changes are warranted. 

1000. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should further study aspen ecology 

before continuing to clear-cut to understand the long-term effects and 

regrowth potential of aspen. 

 Response: Past aspen regeneration treatments have been monitored periodically to 

measure response to the treatments and growth of aspen. A considerable body of 

information pertaining to aspen management has been developed through research 

and is reviewed during analysis process. We recognize that some aspen stands are 

self-sustaining; our focus is on treatment of those stands that are in the process of 

conversion. 

1001. The Final EIS should include a map of suitable timberlands which was not 

provided in the previous plan. 

 Response: Suitable timberlands are those forested lands within management 

prescriptions 5.2 and 6.2. They are mapped as such on alternative maps. This 

should make them more identifiable than is the case in the current plan. 

Allow Timber Harvest 

1002. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow timber harvest. 

1002.1 With some areas protected for recreation 

1002.2 For forest health 

1002.3 With no restrictions based on protection of species not sited in the area 

1002.4 With restoration considerations 

 Response: Timber harvest is part of the Forest Service multiple use mission. 

Management prescription categories that define the management emphasis for an 

area of the forest were developed to provide a full spectrum of opportunities such as 

those mentioned. Recreation opportunities, forest health, protection of threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species habitat, and ecosystem restoration are among the 

many considerations in timber sale projects. 

1003. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow public fuel wood 

collection. 

1003.1 To reduce fire hazards, warm households, and finance maintenance 

backlogs 

1003.2 To prevent waste of natural resources 

1003.3 To help clean-up the forest 

 Response: The Wasatch-Cache offers fuelwood to the public every year, but not 

necessarily on every Ranger District. The decision to offer or not rests with the 

individual Ranger Districts, and depends upon the availability of material to offer. 

The need for snags and down woody material for various wildlife species and other 

considerations will influence whether fuelwood permits will be offered, where 

fuelwood cutting will be allowed, how many permits to offer, and when to offer 

them. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 237 

Not Allow/Restrict Timber Harvest 

1004. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should limit timber harvest. 

1004.1 To preserve forest health, improve habitat, reduce fuels, and support 

water output 

1004.2 To protect wildlife 

 Response: Timber harvest is part of the multiple use mission of the Forest Service. 

Timber harvest from suitable lands may be based on economic reasons. All sales 

from other lands are for other than economic purposes, such as habitat improvement 

and fuels reduction. Alternative 2 addresses the concern that harvesting be limited 

to non-economic purposes. 

1005. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit timber harvest. 

1005.1 Until it completes a proper accounting of timber harvest costs 

1005.2 Because of its low economic value in comparison with amenity values 

1005.3 To protect the recreational value of the forests 

1005.4 To protect the scenic and biologic value of the forests 

1005.5 To eliminate damage from timber harvest 

 Response: The multiple use mission of the Forest Service provides a variety of 

goods and services from National Forest lands. The Forest Plan identifies a 

resource emphasis for a given area by means of the management prescription 

categories. These MPCs provide a mix of uses and identify those areas where 

timber harvest is appropriate, and those areas where it is not. Although there is no 

requirement that Forest Service timber sales provide a net return to the Treasury, we 

do consider the economics of timber in the sale planning process. 

1006. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit timber harvest in 

roadless areas. 

1006.1 To allow natural forest processes to dominate 

1006.2 To preserve ecosystem values 

1006.3 To protect forest ecosystems from fragmentation 

1006.4 To protect wildlife 

1006.5 To preserve roadless values 

Response: The FEIS includes Alternative 1 which allows no timber harvest, and 

Alternatives 2 and 6 which allow no timber harvest in roadless areas. The 

environmental effects of these alternatives are displayed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

See FEIS Chapter 3 within the Topic for Roadless areas for a display of how each 

alternative affects roadless areas. 

1007. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit timber harvest in 

roadless areas on the North Slope. 

 Response: We recognize the importance of roadless areas for all of the above 

values. The plan approaches the decision on disposition of roadless areas by 

providing a range of protection depending upon alternative, including preserving all 

existing roadless. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 238 

1008. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not use clear-cutting as a timber 

harvest method. 

 Response: The widest range of options should be available to meet management 

objectives. Clearcutting is an acceptable harvesting system for some species under 

certain conditions. However, whenever clearcutting is prescribed for a stand, it 

must be the optimum method of achieving objectives and the reason for its use 

disclosed in the project analysis. 

1009. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should stop using the unscientific 

concept of forest health to justify its timber commodity program and recognize 

that insects and disease play vital roles in ecosystem integrity. 

 Response: We agree that insects and disease play vital roles in ecosystem integrity. 

However, the decision on whether or not to treat a stand is based on multiple use 

objectives. Timber harvest may be an effective method to maintain other resource 

values that may be adversely affected by extensive insect and disease caused 

mortality. 

 

1010. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not use the threat of insects and 

disease as an excuse to timber harvest. 

 Response: Harvesting is proposed to develop stand conditions that meet 

management objectives, including PFC. While endemic levels of insects are not 

destructive, and may in fact be beneficial, large-scale epidemics can affect the 

desired condition for the forest, and adversely affect other resources such as 

recreation and wildlife. In such cases, harvest can have a role to play in achieving 

the future condition. 

1011. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow timber harvest levels to 

exceed regenerative capacity. 

 Response: We agree. Care is taken during the planning process and preparation of 

the silvicultural prescription, as well as during the implementation and post-sale 

phases to ensure adequate regeneration is established following harvest. 

Insects and Disease 

1012. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not have a policy of keeping 

spruce beetle activity at an endemic level. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Decisions on whether to treat insect 

outbreaks are made based on the anticipated impacts on many forest resources. 

Response will vary depending upon location and severity of the outbreak, and the 

threat to forest resources. 

1013. The National Forest should not use synthetic herbicides and insecticides for 

pest management. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. We feel that we should have a full range 

of options available to address the range of disturbances that are experienced across 

the Forest, and the range of treatment options is reflected in the alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 239 

Herbicides and insecticides can be effective tools to protect high value trees in 

campgrounds and to control noxious weeds. When used, they are applied directly 

to the plant to be controlled (in the case of noxious weeds) or the tree to be 

protected (in the case of campgrounds), to maximize effectiveness and minimize 

potential effects to non-target species. 

Topic 7: Rangeland Capability, Suitability, and Forage Production 

Rangeland Capability, Suitability, and Forage Production General 

1014. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop improved livestock 

grazing strategies in the final Forest Plan to improve riparian habitats. 

 Response: We have identified in Appendix VII of the Forest Plan, riparian 

classes for streams addressed in the Wild and Scenic River evaluation for the 

Forest. Those classes are managed to specific desired conditions and utilization 

standards. In addition, we have added a new forage utilization guideline (G70) for 

rangelands in unsatisfactory condition (not meeting or moving toward forest plan 

objectives). 

1015. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not give grazing a special status 

in the Forest Plan. 

 Response: Please see response to concern statement 61. NFMA regulations call 

for specific decisions to be made regarding grazing on the Forest. We feel that a 

full spectrum of uses are provided for in the revised Forest Plan through the 

establishment of an array of desired future conditions, goals, objectives, standards 

and guidelines that help us manage for many different uses across the forest. 

1016. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adopt the Gunnison sage grouse 

guidelines for grazing areas to promote recovery and restoration of sage 

grouse habitat. 

 Response: A minor amount of sage grouse habitat occurs on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest and the Gunnison sage grouse guidelines are specific for a 

subspecies of sage grouse that do not occur on the Forest. Broader guidelines for 

managing sage grouse habitats (Connelly and others) are incorporated by reference. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

1017. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should adequately analyze the impacts 

of livestock grazing. 

1017.1 By analyzing environmental and economic impacts 

1017.2 By analyzing site-specific impacts 

1017.3 By analyzing whether grazing forecloses other forest uses 

1017.4 By documenting the rate of aspen decline 

Response: The environmental effects of grazing are disclosed under various 

resource topics in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and the economic impacts to permittees are 

provided in the Social Impacts Analysis portion of Chapter 3. These analyses have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 240 

been reviewed and in many cases updated and expanded upon in the FEIS. Sitespecific analyses are outside the scope of the Forest Plan. A section titled 

“Alternative Uses Foregone” has been added to the FEIS. A discussion on the rate 

of aspen decline has been added in Chapter 3 of the FEIS under Topic 2, 

Biodiversity and Viability, Vegetation. It describes the variety of factors involved 

with aspen decline, including fire suppression and livestock grazing. 

1018. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should analyze the effects of livestock 

grazing against the economic benefits. 

 Response: The effects of livestock grazing are outlined in Chapter 3, Topic 7 – 

Rangeland Capability and Suitability, Livestock Grazing/Range Management. The 

cost for grazing an animal unit month (AUM) is set by Congress, as is our budget to 

manage livestock use on the Forest. While economic suitability is one factor in 

determining rangeland suitability, it is the ecological conditions of the land that are 

more heavily determine whether or not to graze and how much grazing should 

occur, not the economics of livestock grazing. 

1019. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify the relationship between 

animal unit months and terrestrial conditions. 

 Response: Livestock use is allowed on suitable rangelands as long as those lands 

are at, or moving toward desired conditions. These conditions focus on the longterm sustainability of uses on rangelands and the ability to maintain quality 

watershed conditions, wildlife habitat, and a variety of age classes within those 

vegetation types. 

1020. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify its discussion of 

permitted grazing levels in the Draft EIS. 

 Response: While at the forest-wide scale we can address permitted numbers 

based on existing and historic use levels, the detailed analysis to revise these 

numbers up or down is beyond the scope of this analysis. We have estimated the 

effects of the different alternatives, however, and these are shown in the revised 

Table RN-2. 

1021. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should justify its rationale for only 

closing three allotments in the Preferred Alternative. 

 Response: Five additional vacant allotments are closed in the Salt Lake and 

Davis County watersheds in the decision alternative (Alternative 7), for a total of 10 

of the 13 vacant allotments closed. The other three have not been closed because of 

the potential to restock them and/or to use them while other allotments are being 

treated with prescribed fire or wildland fire use. 

1022. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should verify rangeland condition and 

trend by using verified conditions, not estimates. 

 Response: The Forest has followed accepted protocols in the assessment of range 

conditions, using both verified and estimated condition techniques. Because of the 

vast numbers of acres of rangelands in allotments across the Forest (98 allotments 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 241 

covering over 300,000 capable rangeland acres), it is not possible to verify 

conditions annually on all allotments. 

1023. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide maps indicating suitable 

and capable acres for livestock grazing so that better grazing capability 

determinations can be made. 

 Response: Maps showing the locations of allotments on the Forest have been 

added to FEIS Appendix I. Maps are in the planning record that show the different 

factors used in rangeland capability and suitability analysis, the detail of which is 

too great to put into the EIS document. Capable acres and suitable acres of 

rangelands were determined using processes in the Rangeland Capability and 

Suitability Protocol (USDA Forest Service 2000) and outlined in FEIS Appendix B9. As noted in this appendix, percent slope, minimum forage production, stable 

soils, ground cover, and access by livestock (including distance to water) were the 

factors used in determining capability. In addition, tables are available in FEIS 

Appendix I that illustrate which allotments are open by alternative and maps are 

provided that show where these allotments occur. Only those capable acres within 

these allotments are considered suitable. 

1024. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide maps of vacant and used 

forest allotments including the three sheep allotments, which, if vacated, would 

benefit bighorn sheep, for reviewers to determine whether the proposed 

analysis is consistent with the location of the allotments. 

 Response: Maps showing the location of each allotment on the forest are in 

Appendix I, which has been added to the FEIS. This appendix addresses current 

allotment status (open or closed) and allotment status by alternative as well. 

1025. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should publish and distribute maps of 

grazing activity throughout the year so recreational users can avoid areas 

where livestock have damaged or closed recreational opportunities. 

 Response: Because areas that are used at any given time during the grazing 

season may vary because of annual weather, soil moisture conditions, and rotation 

systems used on allotments, it would not be possible to accurately display this on 

maps in a meaningful and accurate way. Recreation users may call the District 

offices to receive information on where grazing is occurring and when. 

1026. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify the VEG-1 table in the 

Final EIS to indicate deviations from historic range of variation related to 

stubble heights. 

 Response: The forest uses stubble height as an indicator of when livestock 

should be removed from an allotment and does not relate it to historic ecological 

conditions of rangelands, which is better described by species composition, ground 

cover, and canopy cover of sagebrush species. Stubble height refers to the height at 

the end of the growing season. In some areas where early grazing occurs, these 

heights at the time that livestock leave a pasture may be less that the height 

identified in the utilization standard. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 242 

1027. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should scientifically determine the 

animal unit months to be produced from capable lands. 

 Response: While animal unit months (AUMs) have been estimated for each 

alternative, the actual AUMs allowed to graze any given allotment is better 

determined through site-specific analysis that assesses, not only the forage 

production within an allotment, but also the areas actually used by livestock at the 

appropriate level of utilization. 

1028. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should analyze fecal coliform and 

bacterial forms of contamination associated with livestock grazing in the Final 

EIS to protect water quality. 

Response: The effect of increased bacterial concentrations in water from fecal 

wastes of livestock has been included in the section Effects on Soil and Water 

Resources from Livestock Grazing under Topic 1 Watershed Health. Analysis of 

fecal coliform and other bacterial forms of contamination associated with livestock 

grazing is not appropriate in the FEIS because Forest Plan Revision is broad-scale 

planning and decides where livestock grazing is allowed. Site-specific water 

quality problems associated with livestock grazing should be addressed during 

allotment management plan revisions or during annual permit review process. 

Legal Considerations 

1029. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should indicate compliance strategies 

with the Endangered Species Act with respect to livestock management. 

 Response: A biological evaluation/biological assessment is on file for this Forest 

Plan revision, which includes effects on Threatened, Endangered, and 

Intermountain Region Forest Service Sensitive species. Effects from livestock 

grazing on these and other species at risk have been described in more detail in 

Chapter 3, Topic 2 – Biodiversity and Viability. 

Rangeland Management 

Goals and Objectives 

1030. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify the grazing objectives in 

the Forest Plan. 

1030.1 By completing riparian class assignments and utilization standards for 

all riparian areas on all allotments 

1030.2 By modifying the period for range analyses to be applied to the 

monitoring scheme 

1030.3 By analyzing potential increases in forage availability based on the 

range of potential rates of timber and fire prescriptions

 Response: While we have not completed riparian class assignments for all 

riparian areas of the forest, classes for many of the perennial streams and rivers of 

the Forest has been added to Forest Plan, Appendix VII. These classes were 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 243 

determined through an interdisciplinary team process. Utilization standards for 

each riparian class are identified in the Standards and Guidelines section of the 

Forest Plan. Site-specific adjustments will be encouraged based on the results of ongoing range analysis and monitoring. Timber and fire activities temporarily change 

the availability of forage and are not included in the analyses for grazing potential, 

because of their transitory nature. And while it is permissible to include such range 

in suitable acre calculations, permitted numbers are not adjusted accordingly at the 

forest-wide scale because of the difficulty in properly assessing these conditions 

over the long term. Changes can be made through additional site-specific analysis. 

Standards and Guidelines 

1031. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify standards and guidelines 

for ranges. 

1031.1 By addressing what will be done with vacant allotments 

1031.2 By establishing criteria for maintenance of ground cover, vegetation, 

and soil.

 Response: The disposition of vacant allotments is described in the Alternatives 

portion of the FEIS. Utilization and ground cover standards and guidelines are 

imposed wherever livestock grazing is permitted. These as well as identified 

desired conditions, goals, and subgoals provide direction for maintaining ground 

cover, desired vegetation, and watershed and soil conditions. 

1032. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should comply with state water quality 

standards within livestock allotments. 

Response: The WCNF is required by State law to meet anti-degradation 

requirements. The Forest Plan has many standards and guidelines that help to meet 

anti-degradation requirements such as those under sections Watershed Health and 

Biodiversity and Viability. The states of Utah and Wyoming make determination of 

whether waters are fully supporting beneficial uses or not. Utah has determined 

that the waters of the WCNF are fully supporting their beneficial uses except for 

those listed in Table WA-1. The only water body on the WCNF that is identified as 

impaired for fecal coliform is Emigration Creek of which Salt Lake County is 

expected to begin assessing in 2003. The FEIS recognizes that impacts from 

livestock grazing occurs and is described in the section Effects on Soil and Water 

Resources from Livestock Grazing under Topic 1 Watershed Health. 

1033. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not rely on utilization standards 

to protect stream habitats. 

 Response: Additional direction has been added to the plan (guideline, G74) that 

annual operating instructions (and/or Allotment Management Plans) should be 

evaluated and additional site-specific objectives defined if needed for one or more 

of five different parameters, including stream bank trampling on key reaches. The 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest follows the Society for Range Management 

position statement on utilization dated February 2002 and is quoted below from 

their web page, http://uvalde.tamu.edu/jrm/jrmhome.htm: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 244 

The Society for Range Management recognizes and endorses forage utilization and 

residue measurements as useful tools in rangeland monitoring, and acknowledges 

their value in land management. When used with other monitoring information, 

utilization can be employed to design and evaluate management decisions. These 

measurements, when properly timed and conducted using appropriate methods and 

sampling procedures, can be used as an aid in: 

Analyzing distribution of animal use on a management unit. 

Interpreting cause and effect relationships for observed changes in resource 

attributes such as soil cover, species composition, residual cover, etc. 

Adjusting stocking rates and/or timing of grazing when used in conjunction with 

other monitoring information including: long term vegetation or habitat data, 

current and historical stocking records, precipitation records, etc. 

Utilization and residue measurements are not management objectives. They are 

tools to be used with other information in evaluating whether desired resource 

conditions are being achieved. 

Other tools we are using to look at riparian conditions are greenline trend data to 

assess the condition of the riparian communities immediately adjacent to the 

streams. 

 

1034. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should select species to monitor to 

determine the prescribed utilization standards for livestock grazing. 

 Response: – While we have suggested some species to monitor utilization, this 

can and should be modified on a site-specific scale to meet the definition of a key 

species. As defined, key species, will be indicator species, which show signs of 

utilization first, and are generally more sensitive to grazing pressures. 

1035. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require a minimum 8-12 inch 

stubble height for all upland perennial bunchgrasses at the end of the grazing 

or growing season. 

1035.1 To protect ground nesting bird habitat 

1035.2 Management Prescription Categories

 Response: The proper use of forage has been focused on the ability of the grazed 

plants to maintain their viability and to maintain protective ground cover. Habitat 

requirements for ground-nesting birds are highly variable, and while 8-12 inch 

stubble height may be advantageous to some ground nesting species, it may be 

detrimental to others. 

1036. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not renew grazing permits in the 

4.x management prescription categories. 

 Response: Grazing is not allowed in developed recreation sites, such as 

developed campgrounds and picnic areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 245 

1037. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow grazing in 

Management Prescription Categories 2.x and 3.x to protect aquatic, terrestrial 

and watershed integrity. 

 Response: – It was determined that livestock grazing was not incompatible with 

Wild and Scenic River status MPCs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Grazing is currently not 

allowed in Research Natural Areas (MPC 2.4). Grazing does occur on the Mirror 

Lake Highway and in portions of Logan Canyon, both Scenic Byways (MPC 2.5), 

but is not incompatible with the values of these areas. Roadless Areas (MPC 2.6) 

have each been evaluated for the values they contain (FEIS, Appendix C-2). 

Special Interest Areas (MPC 2.7) were proposed only where existing livestock 

grazing did not interfere with the values of those areas. Streams and rivers with 

Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout populations (MPC 3.1) have been 

classified as Class 1 streams (Forest Plan, Appendix VII), which have the most 

restrictive grazing management direction. 

Suitability/Capability 

1038. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should determine suitable and capable 

acres in the final Forest Plan. 

1038.1 In compliance with Forest Service regulations and the National Forest 

Management Act requirements for defining suitability and capability 

1038.2 Per the Management Prescription Category 7.0 changes

 Response: While the determination of both range capability and suitability were 

done in the draft EIS, capable range has been revised based on new information and 

suitable range acres have been revised to address specific concerns raised in public 

comments. These changes can be found in FEIS Appendix B-9, and in Tables RN1 and RN-4 in FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 7 – Rangeland Capability and Suitability. 

1039. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should analyze the “economic 

consequences” and “alternative uses foregone” to determine range suitability. 

 Response: See response 1017. Additional information on “alternative uses 

foregone” and “economic consequences” has been added to the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Topic – 7 Rangeland Capability and Suitability under the Direct and Indirect 

Effects by Alternative, Rangeland Suitability section. The financial efficiency 

analysis and budgetary impacts associated with grazing are displayed in FEIS 

Appendix B9, Table B9-2. 

1040. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit grazing on lands 

deemed unsuitable. 

 Response: Within any give allotment there are both lands considered capable and 

not capable, and therefore suitable and unsuitable for livestock grazing. Because of 

the complex nature of landscapes and associated management of these areas within 

allotments, capable or not, may be grazed by livestock because controlling livestock 

movements to that level is not possible. The acres of non-capable rangelands (see 

Appendix B-9), however, are not included in the determination of livestock grazing 

capacity on the forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 246 

1041. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should expand the lands deemed 

unsuitable for grazing to include the categories listed in the Rio Grande 

National Forest Landand Research Management Plan. 

Response: See response 1023. The Rio Grande National Forest was directed to 

reanalyze the suitability of their land base to support livestock grazing. Their new 

analysis used the newly developed Rocky Mountain Region Guidelines for 

Determining Grazing Suitability. We used the Intermountain Region direction that 

was available in June 2000 for assessing capability and suitability, but consulted 

with U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region economists and adjusted our 

analysis to more closely follow the methods they recently used for the analysis for 

the Medicine Bow National Forest. 

Conditions and Trends 

1042. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should implement target range 

conditions. 

1042.1 To ensure grass and browse for wildlife 

1042.2 To allow for quick recovery of rangeland when it is not in properly 

functioning condition

 Response: Desired conditions have been outlined for rangelands. A new grazing 

utilization guideline (30 percent vs. 50 percent for lands in satisfactory condition) 

has been added for rangelands in unsatisfactory condition to improve and move 

toward properly functioning conditions. 

1043. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should maintain conditions and trends 

and not yield to the current emphasis on utilization rates. 

 Response: Utilization should not be confused with Desired Conditions. The 

forest follows the Society for Range Management (SRM) position on the use of 

forage utilization and residue measurements and uses utilization measurements with 

other monitoring information, to design and evaluate management decisions. We 

use the difference between desired and existing conditions and monitored trends to 

identify site-specific management needs to move toward desired conditions, which 

are described in the Forest Plan under “Desired Conditions – Biodiversity and 

Viability, Vegetation”. Utilization standards and guidelines, based on research, are 

used as a tool to maintain or reach desired conditions on the ground. We agree 

with the Society for Range Management (SRM) statement “Utilization and residue 

measurements are not management objectives. They are tools to be used with other 

information in evaluating whether desired resource conditions are being 

achieved” (SRM web page http://www.srm.org, last updated, February 2002). 

1044. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify whether it is using 

conditions and trends or utilization standards for grazing management. 

 Response: See response 1043. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 247 

1045. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should conduct a trend analysis every 

three years. 

 Response: The Rangeland Health Amendment, which is incorporated into this 

revised Forest Plan, identified measuring frequency for any given long-term trend 

study as once every 5 years. Because detectable differences cannot adequately be 

measured on a more-frequent basis, we will continue with this measurement 

frequency. There will, however, be trend studies being done every year in order to 

achieve this frequency on all allotments. 

1046. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use the Logan Ranger District as 

an example of good grazing conditions. 

 Response: Example of good grazing conditions can be found across the forest. 

We have chosen to not focus on site-specific areas for this analysis. 

Properly Functioning Condition 

1047. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage grazing to restore 

Properly Functioning Condition for riparian areas and watersheds. 

 Response: The purpose of our ground cover standards, utilization standards and 

newly created utilization guideline for rangelands in unsatisfactory condition is to 

maintain rangelands currently meeting or moving toward forest plan desired 

conditions. The purpose is also to move unsatisfactory condition rangelands (those 

not meeting or moving toward desired conditions) toward desired conditions, which 

are properly functioning conditions. 

1048. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should report allotments that are not 

within Properly Functioning Condition in the Forest Plan with appropriate 

management actions to restore ecological function. 

 Response: See Response 1047. Regardless of where they occur, rangelands that 

are not properly functioning will benefit from the direction provided in the revised 

Forest Plan. 

1049. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restore rangelands to Properly 

Functioning Condition of watersheds, riparian areas, and lands in 

unsatisfactory condition. 

 Response: See response 1047. 

Restoration 

1050. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should identify and restore areas 

damaged by grazing. 

 Response: Implementation of guidance outline in the Forest Plan (Desired Future 

Conditions, Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines) will help restore 

rangelands in unsatisfactory condition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 248 

1051. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require the restoration of all 

native woody plants in the Forest Plan. 

 Response: Standard 26 notes that no more than 50% of the current year’s growth 

on woody vegetation is to be browsed during one growth cycle. This was based on 

research that determined this to be a proper level of use. 

Monitoring and Enforcement 

1052. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should monitor and enforce range 

quality standards and allotment management plans. 

1052.1 To protect ecological values 

1052.2 To ensure overgrazing does not occur 

1052.3 To justify grazing at or near current levels 

1052.4 To meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act 

1052.5 To protect wildlife and forest health

 Response: As noted in Response 1050 above, the implementation of guidance 

outline in the Forest Plan will help restore rangelands in unsatisfactory condition. 

Doing this will protect and improve ecological values; will ensure overgrazing does 

not occur; will adjust grazing levels to those appropriate for conditions and 

capability of allotments; and will protect wildlife habitat and the health of the 

rangelands. We have met the requirements of the National Forest Management Act 

through this revision process. 

Infrastructure 

1053. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should repair denuded allotments with 

fencing, enclosures, and prescribed fire. 

 Response: Various tools are allowed to manage allotments, including fences, 

enclosures, and prescribed fire. 

1054. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a better-managed 

fencing system. 

 Response: Fencing systems are more appropriately determined at the sitespecific scale, which is outside the scope of this revision process. 

1055. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should set grazing fees sufficient to 

cover fencing for sensitive riparian areas. 

 Response: Grazing fees are set nationally and cannot be altered by the Forest. 

1056. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not fence areas such as Steel 

Creek Park because this park is a non-grass growing area and money would be 

better spent on other forms of forest maintenance. 

 Response: Site-specific proposals are not addressed in the FEIS or Forest Plan. 

1057. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow livestock to use the 

recreational infrastructure. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 249 

1057.1 With penalties for violation 

1057.2 To avoid user conflicts 

1057.3 Allotments and Permits 

1057.4 Allotments

 Response: Range suitability is addressed in FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 7 – 

Rangeland Capability and Suitability and further described in FEIS Appendix B9. 

While livestock are not allowed in developed recreation areas, they are still allowed 

to graze within permitted allotment boundaries. Regardless of recreation uses, as 

long as rangelands continue to be in satisfactory conditions or are moving toward 

desired conditions, this is allowed to continue. 

1058. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce the number of grazing 

allotments available to protect resources. 

 Response: The number of open allotments has been reduced by 10, with the 

potential for additional closures if permits are voluntarily waived without 

preference. 

1059. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not reduce the number of 

grazing allotments available. 

 Response: Only vacant allotments are closed and only those that conflict with 

bighorn sheep health and habitat in the Uinta Mountains and municipal watersheds 

in Salt Lake and Davis Counties. Other allotments in the upper elevations of the 

Uinta Mountains would be closed only if permits were voluntarily waived without 

preference. All allotments and their status are identified in FEIS, Appendix I. 

1060. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close vacant grazing allotments 

in the High Uintas. 

 Response: See response 1059. 

1061. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify the Forest Plan to 

indicate vacant allotments will remain vacant until an environmental analysis 

can be completed. 

 Response: See response 1059. 

1062. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow voluntary/permanent 

allotment retirements. 

Response: See response 1059. 

1063. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should measure the benefits of 

introducing non-native species, which threaten livestock grazing allotments 

against the economic impact of those introductions. 

 Response: Bighorn sheep were historically present in the Uinta Mountains. Only 

vacant allotments are closed on the eastern portion of the Forest. Bighorn sheep 

would not be used as a reason to close an allotment. Other allotments in the upper 

elevations of the Uinta Mountains would only be closed if permits in bighorn sheep 

habitat were voluntarily waived without preference. As such, no direct economic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 250 

impacts would occur because of bighorn sheep. However, impacts to communities, 

either local or otherwise, may occur. It is difficult to predict whether or not any of 

these permits would be voluntarily waived during the planning period. And 

because a permit can be issued to anyone meeting the basic requirements, wherever 

they may live, impacts in any given community are unknown. 

1064. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should review management allotment 

plans for the Bear Management Area and reduce livestock numbers. 

 Response: This site-specific analysis is outside the scope of this revision process. 

1065. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should close the Gilbert Creek, Henry’s 

Fork, and Smith’s Fork allotments. 

 Response: The Gilbert Peak, Henry’s Fork-Hessie Lake, and Red Castle 

allotments would be closed if permits are waived without preference. Gilbert Creek 

and West Fork Smiths Fork allotments do not pose threats to bighorn sheep health 

and are not proposed for closure. 

1066. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should phase out over 10 years the 

Gilbert Creek, Henry’s Fork, and Smith’s Fork allotments. 

1066.1 To protect the North Slope 

1066.2 To protect big horn sheep

 Response: See response 1065. 

Permits 

1067. The Final EIS should state the number of grazing permit holders on the 

forest to correct the misstatement that there are a “large number” of them. 

 Response: There are approximately 150 permit holders on the Forest. This 

number has replace “large number” in the FEIS under the social-economic section. 

Of these, approximately 52 grazing permits are on the north slope of the Uinta 

Mountains accounting for about 39 percent of all cattle grazed on the WasatchCache and about 40 percent of all sheep grazed. 

1068. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should honor existing grazing leases but 

allow the leases to phase out. 

 Response: While not applied Forest wide, most allotments in the upper 

elevations of the Uinta Mountains will be closed if permits are voluntarily waived 

without preference. 

1069. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow permittees to voluntarily 

waive grazing permits to protect wildlife and watershed values. 

 Response: Permits may be voluntarily waived without preference. Restocking 

all allotments other than those identified in the upper elevation of the Uinta 

Mountains, would be addressed on a site-specific basis because no overriding 

wildlife issues are present elsewhere on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 251 

1070. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include an accountability clause 

in grazing permits with conditions for reductions if permit terms are not met. 

Response: The Term Grazing Permit (FSM 2230) provides the equivalent of an 

accountability clause. 

Subsidies 

1071. The Forest Service should not subsidize grazing because it harms the 

environment and livestock produced on public lands does not contribute 

significantly to America’s food supply. 

Response: As noted in response 1055, grazing fees are set nationally and cannot 

be altered by the Forest. 

Grazing 

Allow Grazing 

1072. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow grazing. 

1072.1 With appropriate management to protect forest resources 

1072.2 For the benefit of forest resources

 Response: The forest continues to allow grazing, while providing direction that 

protects rangeland resources and moves unsatisfactory rangelands toward desired 

future conditions. 

1073. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow grazing in roadless areas. 

 Response: An evaluation of each individual roadless area has been added to 

FEIS, Appendix C. Grazing has not been removed from any roadless area. 

1074. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow grazing because it 

contributes to the economy. 

1074.1 For rural counties in Utah 

1074.2 For the ranching industry

 Response: Because only some vacant allotments are closed, the impacts to the 

existing economy will not be adversely affected. 

1075. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should support grazing and allow 

managers to assess future conditions by selecting Alternatives 3 or 5. 

 Response: Only broad desired future conditions are identified at the Forest wide 

scale, and these do not vary by alternative. These should be refined at the sitespecific scale to identify those species that should occur and other characteristics 

that should be managed for. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Grazing 

1076. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should phase out grazing. 

1076.1 To return to properly functioning condition 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 252 

1076.2 To allow vegetation to be restored 

1076.3 To prevent economic, ecologic, and aesthetic impacts 

1076.4 To protect bighorn sheep

 Response: See responses 1068 and 1069. Our newly defined utilization 

guideline (G70) will help improve the rate at which these rangelands move toward 

desired condition. Regarding bighorn sheep habitat, see response 1063. 

1077. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate grazing wherever 

necessary to protect at-risk plant communities. 

 Response: Grazing on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest has not been shown to 

negatively effect the rare plants that occur here. Most species that could be affected 

by grazing do not occur in grazing allotments. 

1078. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate grazing in areas closed 

to motorized recreation. 

 Response: Livestock and vehicles each have different effects on wildlife and their 

habitats. Possible livestock/wildife conflicts are generally indirect. While livestock 

use of forage may occur on the same plant species that wildlife use, our stocking 

rates take wildlife needs into consideration. Motorized vehicle use can disrupt 

wildlife directly altering their distribution and ability to access their preferred 

habitat. 

1079. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restrict grazing. 

1079.1 Until condition and trend are verified 

1079.2 To protect water and aquatic resources 

1079.3 To preserve recreational experiences 

 Response: Our determination of range condition covers approximately 80 

percent of rangeland acres within allotments on the Forest. Of these acres, 

approximately 7 percent have conditions that have been verified, 93 percent 

estimated. As noted in Response to concern statement 1022, the Forest has followed 

accepted protocols in the assessment of range conditions, using both verified and 

estimated techniques. Because of the vast numbers of acres of rangelands in 

allotments across the Forest (98 allotments covering over 300,000 suitable 

rangeland acres), it is not possible to verify conditions annually on all allotments. 

The riparian class evaluation has been applied to all river and stream segments 

evaluated for wild and scenic river status and is included in Forest Plan Appendix 

XII. The most restrictive grazing standards and guidelines apply to those segments 

that have either Bonneville or Colorado cutthroat trout. Grazing has been 

eliminated in the Salt Lake and portions of the Davis County watersheds. Water 

quality for all those watersheds used for public drinking water supply do not exceed 

State water quality standards as a result of livestock use. Conflicts between 

livestock and recreational uses on the Forest are recognized and livestock use has 

only been eliminated from developed recreation areas. Because of wide ranging 

values for different uses on the Forest it is difficult to maintain one experience at 

the expense of another. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 253 

1080. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reduce grazing throughout the 

Forest. 

1080.1 By 25 percent 

1080.2 To reach biodiversity goals 

1080.3 To prevent topsoil erosion, ground terracing, and vegetation 

destruction 

1080.4 To restore streams for fishing 

 Response: Grazing numbers throughout the Forest are better determined through 

site-specific analyses of conditions, trends, and the relationship of rangelands to the 

desired conditions of those lands. The utilization standards and guidelines are 

based on research that maintains the health and reproductive capability of rangeland 

plant species. In addition, they are designed to help rangelands move toward 

desired conditions for plant and animal communities, prevent soil erosion and to 

maintain or improve riparian areas, including habitat for fish. 

1081. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow grazing levels to exceed 

regenerative capacity. 

 Response: See Response 1080. 

1082. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit grazing. 

1082.1 To preserve ecological values 

1082.2 To reduce fire hazard 

1082.3 To prevent the spread of noxious weeds 

1082.4 To preserve scenic quality

 Response: Implementation of the grazing utilization standards and the guidelines 

added for rangelands in unsatisfactory condition, will help move these areas toward 

desired conditions. Grazing has been shown to reduce fire hazard in some 

rangelands, although those where cheatgrass dominates the understory remain high 

fire hazard areas because of the flashy nature of the associated fuels. On the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, it has been determined that most noxious weeds 

occur along highways, roads, and trails, indicating that noxious weed spread, while 

associated to some degree with livestock use, is more associated with human travel 

ways. There are areas of the forest where livestock grazing has affected the scenic 

quality. In general, these areas are also ecologically unsatisfactory and will be 

managed to move toward desired conditions. As these sites move toward desired 

ecological condition, visual qualities will improve as well. 

1083. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit grazing because of its 

introduction of Tubifex, a host for the whirling disease parasite of trout

 Response: We recognize the importance of trying to reduce the spread of 

whirling disease on National Forest Lands. We also recognize the part the tubifex 

worm plays in the life cycle of this parasite that causes this disease. We realize that 

as habitat for the worm increases the potential for increasing the tubifex population 

increases. So far in Utah we have not seen major mortalities from whirling disease. 

We believe that as we implement the grazing standards and guidelines identified in 

the FEIS, the in-channel and riparian habitat will be maintained or improved thus 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 254 

reducing the habitat for the tubifex worm and the threat of whirling disease 

outbreaks. 

1084. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit grazing in certain areas. 

1084.1 In the entire forest 

1084.2 In roadless areas 

1084.3 In wilderness areas 

1084.4 Near Wild and Scenic Rivers 

1084.5 In severely impacted riparian areas and stream banks 

1084.6 In watersheds and riparian areas 

1084.7 In areas with aspen and conifer stands 

1084.8 In Logan Canyon 

1084.9 In the North and Middle Forks of High Creek, Cottonwood and Blind 

Hollow, Spawn Creek, Bunchgrass Drainage, Steam Mill Canyon, and Steep 

Hollow, Smithfield Dry Canyon, Birch Canyon, and the T.W. Daniels Forest 

1084.10 Along the Mirror Lake Highway and the upper wetlands of the Provo, 

Duchesne, Weber, and Bear Rivers 

1084.11 In the western drainage of Mount Naomi Wilderness and south-facing 

drainage in Logan Canyon 

1084.12 On the east slopes of Mount Naomi Wilderness 

1084.13 In the Mid Bear River Range 

1084.14 South of Hardware Ranch 

 Response: Site-specific decisions to allow or not allow livestock grazing are 

outside the scope of this analysis. 

1085. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prevent overgrazing in 

watersheds by alternating grazing by location and year.

 Response: We encourage rotation systems, either rest rotation where entire 

pastures within allotments are rested each year, or deferred grazing where the order 

in which pastures within allotments are grazed is rotated from year to year. This, 

coupled with utilization standards and guidelines, will help move rangelands toward 

desired conditions. 

1086. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not allow motorized access for 

grazing purposes to protect wilderness areas. 

 Response: The 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 1984 states, “Grazing of livestock in 

wilderness areas established by this Act, where established prior to the date of the 

enactment of this Act, shall be administered with section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness 

Act and section 108 of Public Law 96-560.” Forest Service Manual 2320 direction, 

under Exhibit 1, Congressional Grazing Guidelines, is consistent with this Act. The 

Manual states, “Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other 

activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized 

equipment.” It goes on to describe the conditions and gives examples of 

appropriate uses of motorized vehicles in wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 255 

Topic 8: Special Designations 

Special Designations General 

1087. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate more lands for 

protection. If the final decision allows more landscape impacts than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

 Response: The revised forest plan provides direction for assessing the possible 

addition of two Research Natural Areas; one near Ben Lomond Peak for its Tall 

Forb plant communities and one on the western portion of the Deseret Peak 

Wilderness for its Great Basin plant communities and the potential to study 

cryptogamic soil crusts. In addition, within the Tri-Canyons area east of Salt Lake 

County there is the potential for the identification and establishment of one Special 

Interest Area. 

1088. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue to make special 

designations for Research Natural Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers. With no 

consideration for political positions. 

 Response: The Forest can only recommend rivers for Wild and Scenic River 

designation. As with wilderness, Congress has the authority for designating Wild 

and Scenic Rivers. We have proposed additions to the existing Morris Creek 

Research Natural Area (RNA) and have proposed additional areas be investigated in 

the future for RNA status (see response to concern statement 1087). It is the value 

of these areas that are the primary consideration in their recommendations and 

establishment. 

Research Natural Areas 

1089. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should identify in the Forest Plan 

potential areas that could contribute to diversity in the Research Natural Area 

system. 

 Response: See Response 1087. 

1090. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should selectively expand Research 

Natural Areas. The Mollen’s Hollow Research Natural Area is one of these. 

 Response: The Mollen’s Hollow RNA boundary includes the best of the 

conditions that occur in that area as well as the most manageable boundary. As 

noted in the response to concern statement 1089 above, the Morris Creek RNA is 

proposed for expansion and is explained in more detail in the FEIS Chapter 3, Topic 

8 – Special Designations. 

1091. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate additional Research 

Natural Areas. 

1091.1 To gain a better understanding of forest function 

1091.2 Temple Fork and Spawn Creek watersheds and Right Hand Fork of 

the Logan River watershed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 256 

1091.3 Willow Creek Canyon east of Cowley Canyon and the small canyon by 

the SNC

 Response: Portions of Right Hand Fork and Logan Canyons have been identified 

as Special Interest Areas, rather than Research Natural Areas (RNAs), because 

some of the recreation and livestock grazing uses in these areas are incompatible 

with characteristics typically associated with RNAs. These areas do, however, 

provide many of the same research opportunities because of the near-pristine 

conditions and the high number of rare plant species in the area. Most of the areas 

mentioned do not meet the basic objectives for RNA establishment outlined in the 

Forest Service Manual 4060: 

4063.02 - Objectives. The objectives of establishing research natural areas are to: 

1. Preserve a wide spectrum of pristine representative areas that typify important 

forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, geological, and similar natural 

situations that have special or unique characteristics of scientific interest and 

importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for 

research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. 

2. Preserve and maintain genetic diversity. 

3. Protect against serious environmental disruptions. 

4. Serve as reference areas for the study of succession. 

5. Provide onsite and extension educational activities. 

6. Serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes. 

7. Serve as control areas for comparing results from manipulative research. 

8. Monitor effects of resource management techniques and practices. 

1092. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should use the Red Butte Research 

Natural Area to study Properly Functioning Condition and Range of Natural 

Variability. 

 Response: The upper portion of the existing Red Butte RNA has been and 

continues to be a focus of much research because of its relatively undisturbed 

nature. The lower portion, because of its relatively high amount of introduced 

species is proposed as a Special Interest Area and will emphasize restoration 

ecology research and environmental education. 

1093. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not open the Red Butte Canyon 

Research Natural Area to tourism. 

 Response: While we propose to change the designation in the lower portion of 

Red Butte Canyon to that of a Special Interest Area (SIA), research will remain the 

highest purpose for this area. Because conditions in this portion of the RNA are 

less than natural, it was felt that this area could more appropriately be used for 

restoration ecology research. We also feel that existing trails in the area should be 

maintained and that environmental education should be an additional focus of this 

SIA. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 257 

Special Interest Areas 

1094. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate a Special Interest Area 

in Logan Canyon to protect endemic cliff plants. 

 Response: An SIA is proposed in this area for this purpose as well as to focus on 

environmental education and protection of reference ecosystems. 

1095. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate the lower part of the 

Red Butte Research Natural Area as a Special Interest Area to allow for 

restoration and education below the dam. 

 Response: See response 1093. 

Special Areas 

1096. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should manage lands as Special Areas 

to prevent impacts that will be harder to reverse. 

 Response: Special Areas, Special Interest Areas, and Research Natural Areas are 

identified in areas where historic management and impacts from various activities 

have not had significant impacts. These designations are applied to maintain these 

relatively low disturbance conditions. 

1097. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider forming additional 

Special Areas for botanical, geological, or archeological interests. 

 Response: While we have not identified additional Special Areas, we have 

identified new potential Special Interest Areas, which are noted in Chapter 3, Topic 

8 – Special Designations, of the FEIS. These areas were primarily focusing on 

biological/botanical purposes. Other geologic or archaeological areas, while not 

identified at this time, can be added through future amendments. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

1098. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should involve the public in making 

wild, scenic, and recreational designations. 

 Response: In the future we need to do a suitability study on the rivers that were 

found to be eligible in 1999 for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

(NWSRS). At that time the public will be given opportunities for input into the 

study process. However, the Wasatch-Cache does not designate these rivers in the 

NWSRS, that is the responsibility of Congress, which, of course, can be influenced 

by public sentiments and opinions. 

1099. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide interim protection for 

eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, by ensuring proposed activities are compatible 

with protection and designation.

 Response: Protection for rivers that are eligible as Wild and Scenic Rivers is 

provided in Appendix VIII in the revised Forest Plan, which includes a list of the 

eligible rivers. Appendix VIII has guidelines for protection of eligible wild, scenic, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 258 

or recreational rivers from activities, which might be proposed that, could alter their 

free-flowing character or outstanding values. Protection is afforded until a 

suitability study is completed. If found suitable, eligible rivers would continue to 

be protected. If not found suitable, a river would no longer be eligible, and 

protection could not be provided under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Identified 

river values and free flowing character could be protected under other authorities. 

1100. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider that the description of 

the Standards for Recreational rivers structures is too broad and allows too 

many new developments and communities. 

 Response: The standards used for Wild, Scenic, and Recreational rivers are 

national standards taken from the Forest Service Handbook, 1909.12 Land and 

Resource Management Planning, Chapter 8, Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. As 

such the standards were developed at the national level. We chose to apply these 

national standards, as they are adequate to protect the existing conditions on the 

eligible streams to which they are applied. 

1101. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should designate additional Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. 

1101.1 To protect aquatic habitats and their diversity. 

1101.2 Multiple rivers (38 rivers were listed in the comment.) 

1101.3 Logan River

 Response: The Forest Service does not “designate” Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Congress usually does this. 

We protected aquatic habitats eligible for the NWSRS when they met the criteria 

established by the federal land management agencies in the State of Utah. 

A comment suggested that many additional rivers on the Wasatch-Cache should be 

examined for eligibility or were eligible for the NWSRS. In order to be included in 

the inventory, river segments had to meet certain criteria identified in the inventory 

process. The interdisciplinary team evaluated for eligibility those segments meeting 

the criteria for inclusion in the many river segments and some additional segments 

identified by Forest Service personnel and the public during the inventory process, 

and found eligible only those that met the statewide criteria. 

Much of the Logan River is receiving interim protection of its free flowing 

character and identified values as a recreational river. The standards in Appendix 

VIII of the revised Forest Plan itemize what that protection entails. The Logan 

River must go through a suitability analysis to see if maintaining its values and freeflowing condition are the most appropriate use of the river. Designation as a Wild 

and Scenic River could come after an act of Congress, and is outside the authority 

of the Forest Service. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 259 

1102. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not designate additional Wild 

and Scenic Rivers like Little Bear Creek. 

 Response: The Forest Service does not designate Wild and Scenic Rivers, but as 

part of the inventory process, can find rivers eligible and afford them interim 

protection until suitability is determined or Congress acts to designate the river. The 

Wasatch-Cache has field checked Little Bear Creek, and agrees with a comment 

which provided information contending that 1) the stream should neither have been 

classified as “wild” because of the presence of a motorized trail nor 2) were 

Bonneville cutthroat trout metapopulations present in the stream more than a mile 

above its confluence with the Logan River. For these reasons Little Bear Creek’s 

classification has changed to Scenic, and the length of the eligible segment length 

has changed from 4.5 miles to about 1 mile. 

1103. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should ensure that operational patterns 

for Trial, Lost, and Washington Lakes are consistent with a “Recreational” 

designation. 

 Response: The concern suggests that a Recreational classification of a river below 

a dam may not be appropriate, as water flow regulation by a dam above the river 

segment (in this case the Upper Provo River) could affect the stream’s eligibility. 

The commenter had good insight in suggesting that flow regulation below a dam 

might affect eligibility, but the characteristic of the river in relation to the question 

is not its classification (i.e. Recreational, Scenic, or Wild), but whether its freeflowing character, and hence its eligibility, below the dam is precluded by the 

dam’s potential to modify free-flow. 

Congress and the Secretary of the Interior have designated many river segments that 

are above or below dams. Section 16 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act defines a 

“river” as “a body of water . . . or portion, section, or tributary thereof. . . “. “Freeflowing” is defined as “existing or flowing in natural condition without 

impoundment. . . “ Therefore, any section of river with flowing water meets the 

technical definition of free-flowing, even if impounded upstream. 

Topic 9: Oil and Gas Leasing 

Oil and Gas Leasing General 

1104. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should indicate where oil and gas 

exploration and development are to be allowed. 

 Response: Management prescription 8 was mapped only for existing oil and gas 

areas of development (fields not single wells), not for areas of future exploration. 

Chapter 1 of the EIS discusses the fact that only the area of high potential for which 

there is no leasing decision is being addressed in the Forest plan revision. In 

Chapter 3, Topic 9 in the EIS further defined the leasing analysis completed and the 

area to be analyzed at this time. Leasing opportunities for each alternative are best 

represented in the set of 11 X 19 inch maps that was included in the map package. 

These maps showed the leasing stipulations to be applied. Management direction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 260 

for future leasing exploration and development has been clarified in the Final 

Revised Plan. One part of the plan’s management direction are maps associated 

with the Western and Eastern Management Areas that show where future leasing is 

allowed and under what conditions. 

1105. The Forest Service should develop detailed standards for managing minerals, 

oil, and gas exploration/extraction to protect wildlife, water quality, and other 

surface resources. 

 Response: Oil and gas exploration and development is a staged decision making 

process. Determining availability and lease stipulations is the first step. The next 

step is when a specific application to drill is submitted for a specific location on the 

ground. It is at this step that specific conditions of approval and resource protection 

mitigation and monitoring requirements are applied. 

1106. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should immediately begin to inspect oil 

and gas development sites to determine potential effects on surface and ground 

water. 

 Response: Annual inspection by Forest and Bureau of Land Management 

personnel is required. In addition the minerals administrator on the Mountain View 

Ranger District inspects sites frequently to assure compliance with requirements 

and regulations. 

1107. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should ensure that oil and gas 

exploration sites are restored by making restoration a condition of the lease.

 Response: As explained in Chapter 3, Topic 9 and in Appendix G in the FEIS, oil 

and gas development is a staged decision process. As such, restoration of the site is 

addressed at the Application for Permit to Drill stage in the Surface Use Plan. 

Bonds are a requirement of development and are not released until oil companies 

have complied with all the requirements of reclamation. Not all sites are required to 

be restored to pre-development condition. Sometimes the decision is made to leave 

the roads in place for recreation access and use the well pads as trailheads sites. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

1108. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address oil and gas potential. 

1108. By providing analyses and maps showing oil/gas potential 

1108. By providing maps and text references on the Appeal Settlement Zone 

1108. By using more recent data on oil and gas resource potential 

 Response: We have expanded the discussion on oil and gas potential to include 

more recent information including the 1995 USGS National Assessment of Oil and 

Gas Resources. References to maps and information in this assessment can be 

retrieved from the USGS website and is referenced in the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 261 

1109. The Draft EIS should provide further rationale for identification of a field in 

the area of North Flank Fault. 

 Response: Directional drilling has been completed by Union Pacific on their land 

in Summit County and has proven successful for them. There are many factors 

contributing to whether or not directional drilling can be used successfully on 

national forest terrain within the appeal settlement zone. However, because each 

situation is unique and must be evaluated and judged on its own merits, we think 

it’s reasonable to assume that no surface occupancy makes oil exploration and 

development more difficult for industry. 

 

After an exploratory well is drilled and successful, confirmation wells are needed to 

confirm the discovery and identify a field. Development of a field would then be 

proposed and analyzed. Each stage requires new analysis with public involvement. 

Each analysis would address consistency with the revised forest plan management 

direction including stipulations. 

The scope of the decision to be addressed in the revised forest plan was the area of 

high potential for which there is no leasing decision, referred to as the Appeal 

Settlement Zone. As explained in the cumulative effects section in the EIS, 

additional development in the Uinta Mountains outside the Appeal Settlement Zone 

is predicted and documented in the 1994 North Slope Oil and Gas Leasing Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

1110. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should analyze the impacts of allocating 

land to oil and gas development to comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

 Response: We agree that by determining the availability of an area to leasing is 

an allocation decision and that there is potential to change an area from its current 

condition. However, while that does not mean every acre of every lease is going to 

be developed, there is still the potential. Because of the many variables involved 

with the petroleum industry’s decision to move forward, we have to portray effects 

based on some prediction of what seems to be a reasonably foreseeable 

development picture. That is why the leasing decision was a critical aspect of each 

alternative. The range of alternatives analyzes different levels of development. 

1111. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reexamine the financial risk of 

additional leasing in the Draft EIS to determine if the oil and gas industry will 

be at risk if leasing is not allowed. 

 Response: You are correct. The statement in the EIS reflected the situation with 

the current block of leases known at the Table Top unit. No, the entire oil and gas 

industry is not at risk if leasing is allowed. We have edited Topic 9 to be clearer on 

this point. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 262 

Allow Leasing 

1112. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow oil and gas leasing in the 

Table Top Unit. 

 Response: Leasing is allowed in Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. In all alternatives 

existing leases are honored and their development is recognized in the effects 

disclosure. The range of alternatives addressed leasing scenarios that were very 

restrictive to the petroleum industry to those that allowed great opportunity for 

development. Alternative 7 tries to strike a balance in protecting some areas for 

future wilderness designation while allowing oil and gas development. Our 

reasoning to not issue leases after current ones expire is to not encumber future 

wilderness with outstanding rights. 

Do Not Allow/Restrict Leasing 

1113. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow no oil and gas leasing in 

roadless areas. 

1113.1 To protect unique and vital habitat 

1113.2 To preserve roadless characteristics and values 

1113.3 In the Uintas 

1113.4 In the Appeal Settlement Zone 

1113.5 On the North Flank Fault 

1113.6 On the North Slope 

 Response: Alternative 1 which does not allow leasing within the Appeal 

Settlement Zone is most responsive to your concern. In Alternative 1 the ecosystem 

remains intact and unique habitat and roadless values are preserved. All the 

alternatives incorporate the 1994 Leasing decision for the North Slope of the Uinta 

Mountains, which does allow leasing on about 148,000 acres. 

Topic 10: Fire Management 

Fire Management General 

1114. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include the importance of fire in 

its new fire management plans 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

1115. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should evaluate the feasibility of fire 

management in non-motorized, roadless, and wilderness areas 

1115.1 To protect habitat

 Response: We recognize that there may be increased costs to suppress fires in 

roadless or wilderness areas. We believe these costs will be far off set as some fires 

are allowed to burn in these backcountry areas with minimal staffing. It is 

important to realize that wildland fires that are allowed to burn are still managed 

within identified prescriptions or conditions to prevent major impacts to fish, birds, 

animal, soil and watershed resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 263 

See also the Fire Management direction in the Forest Service Manual and the 

Desired Future Condition, Forest-wide goals, subgoals, standards and guidelines of 

the Forest Plan. Fire management direction is also found in the Wasatch-Cache and 

Uinta Forests’ Fire Management Plan. 

1115.2 To manage small roadless areas 

 Response: Prescribed and wildland fires can be smaller than 5,000 acres in size 

and prescriptions can be set up for these smaller areas. If fire burn outside of their 

prescription the fire is reclassified as a wild fire and is suppressed. In areas where 

wild fires are not allowed and no thinning or timber harvest can take place there are 

a number of other treatments that can be used to change vegetation into an earlier 

successional stage and may include some type of mechanical treatment. We also 

recognize the fact that not all areas can or should be treated at once. In some cases 

areas may never be treated. Vegetation succession then continues on to a later stage 

of succession until a natural event alters this condition be it fire or a bug infestation 

for example. The vegetation is then changed to an earlier stage of succession. 

1115.3 To meet desired landscape goals 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. See response to 1115.1 

1115.4 To protect watersheds 

 Response: We recognize the need to be careful the municipal watersheds on the 

forest. Mechanical treatments can include the use of animals, equipment and/or 

people with hand tools. See also response to 1115.1 

1116. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should develop a new fire plan for 

remote roadless and wilderness areas. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. We are trying to make significant 

changes in this area with wildland fire use plans. You will notice in the FEIS that 

most prescriptions allow for wildland fire use. Additional direction for this area is 

in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests’ Fire Management Plan. 

1117. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should coordinate vegetation 

information with prescribed fire objectives to evaluate how threatened and 

endangered plant species respond to fire. 

 Response: See the Fire Management direction in the Implementation direction of 

the Forest Plan. A person trained in botany or plant ecology is part of the expertise 

required for biological evaluations. 

1118. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should replace the word “historic” with 

“natural” in the desired condition for fire management because of historic fire 

suppression efforts. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. Historical refers to the last 500 years. 

This has been added to the sentence. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 264 

1119. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should be forthright in stating its 

objectives in priority treatments. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. The intent is to restore aspen 

communities. Timber harvest may be one tool to accomplish this in an economical 

manner. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

1120. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should explain what it means to “take 

timely actions to restore proper functioning of ecosystem after wildfire.” 

Response: This refers to the process of assigning an interdisciplinary team (soil 

scientist, hydrologist, ecologist) to evaluate the situation immediately and make 

recommendations on actions such as erosion control and seeding to prevent loss of 

soil productivity, sedimentation of streams, and invasions of noxious weeds. 

 

1121. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should correct contradictory statements 

regarding fire suppression and insect activity levels 

Response: The first statement refers to the potential for extensive insect caused 

mortality, while the second statement refers to the current state of mountain pine 

beetle activity. The existing forests are comprised primarily of older age classes of 

trees growing at high densities, conditions that predispose them to widespread 

insect caused mortality. Currently mountain pine beetle activity is at endemic 

levels, with pockets of insect mortality occurring in several locations, but not 

covering extensive areas of the landscape. However, the stand conditions that 

facilitate the spread of the insects and favor increasing insect populations still exist. 

If insect populations were to increase rapidly in response to environmental factors 

such as drought, the existing stand conditions increase the potential for the outbreak 

to reach epidemic levels, similar to what occurred on the North Slope in the early 

1980s. 

Legal Considerations 

1122. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should support exceptions to the Clean 

Air Act to restore forests to healthy conditions 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. We recognize that this will be a 

challenge and some exceptions are made, within the Act, to carry out these types of 

activities. 

Education 

1123. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should educate the public and property 

owners about what they can do to protect their property from fire in order to 

accomplish fuel reduction. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. This is currently being started. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 265 

Fuels Management 

Fuel Treatments 

1124. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should create a long-term strategy for 

prescribed fires, wildland fire use, and mechanical treatments to alleviate 

threatened and endangered species concerns. 

 Response: See the objectives for vegetation management and urban interface fuels 

management. This would be part of the plan to be developed. 

1125. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should carefully plan the prescribed 

sagebrush treatments to benefit sage grouse. 

 Response: This will be taken into consideration when treatments are done in 

sagebrush. We have a copy of the document and will be incorporation the 

appropriate information in site-specific NEPA documents for the treatments. 

1126. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should more fully utilize timber harvest 

and grazing in conjunction with prescribed burns 

1126.1 To avoid wasting resources

 Response: Thanks for your comment. 

1126.2 To maintain a healthy forest 

 Response: We recognize that wild fires need to be suppressed. This is addressed 

in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests’ Fire Management Plan. We also 

recognize the role fire plays in the ecosystems and that we will be unable to either 

harvest or graze sufficient areas of land large enough to maintain healthy 

ecosystems through the use of these two tools alone. 

1126.3 To avert fire risk 

 Response: Thanks for your comment. See response to response 1126.2. See also 

the Forest Wild Activities and Project Outputs for timber and range livestock 

outputs. We also believe that prescribe fire is a valuable tool to be used in restoring 

healthy ecosystems. 

1126.4 To bring the forest back into historic range of variability 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. We recognize the need for public 

information and maintaining prescribed fires, especially in urban interface zones, 

within prescription. See the objective for urban interface fuels management in the 

Plan. 

1126.5 To maintain the viability of local economies 

 Response: We recognize the opportunity that exists to provide forest products and 

the benefits that comes to local communities. However, our primary responsibility 

is to provide for the sustainability of the land. A greater discussion can be found in 

the plan under ecosystem management framework and the forest plan model and the 

Forest Service Natural Resouce Agenda for the 21st Century. It’s important to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 266 

recognize that not all National Forest lands on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

are available for timber harvest. Based on information presented in Table 3, under 

land classification, of the Forest Plan, only 2.5% is identified as totally suitable 

forest lands for timber harvest. This is not to say that timber harvest cannot occur 

in other prescriptions than those identified as Management Prescriptions 5.2/6.2. It 

is recognized that timber harvest may occur on lands not mapped with prescription 

categories 5-2/6-2. The objectives in these other prescriptions are not timber 

production See FEIS Table TM-2. This increased the acres available for timber 

harvest is 202,000 acres or 16% of the forest. Harvest from this area is identified 

and accounted for in the plan. Also see the discussion for response to Issue 4 in the 

Forest Plan. 

1127. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should utilize prescribed burns or 

selected removal of fuels instead of full harvesting to better mimic natural 

processes. 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. See Revision Topic 7 suitable 

timberlands. 

1128. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should reevaluate timber harvesting 

and mechanical treatments as means to meet forest goals 

1128.1 Because of their inability to restore fire-adapted ecosystems 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan developed from the selected FEIS Alternative 

7 provides for a combination of approaches to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. 

These include timber harvest, mechanical treatments, prescribed fire and wildland 

fire use. The treatment applied to a particular stand will depend upon a site-specific 

analysis that incorporates management objectives, potential outputs and 

consideration of other resources. The majority of acres to be treated are with 

prescribed fire except in the wildland urban interface where human safety and needs 

for protecting structures such as homes require a mechanical treatment approach. 

1128.2 Because of the role of standing dead timber in forest wild fires 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan provides direction in the form of standards and 

guidelines to ensure that the functions of standing dead timber continue to be 

provided for after any kind of timber harvest or mechanical treatment. 

1128.3 Because mature trees are needed for wildlife habitat 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan provides direction in the form of standards and 

guidelines to ensure that the functions of mature trees for wildlife continue to be 

provided for after any kind of timber harvest or mechanical treatment. 

1128.4 Because young trees have high fuel load values 

Response: See response 1128.1. 

1128.5 Because timber harvesting cannot replace the role of fire in the forest 

Response: See response 1128.1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 267 

1128.6 Because harvested areas show a strong association with increased rate 

of spread and flame length

Response: See response 1128.1. 

Prescribed Burns 

1129. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not rely on prescribed burns for 

fire management 

1129.1 Because they do not prevent high-severity fires

 Response: Thanks for your comment. 

1129.2 Because they are not adequate to meet forest goals 

 Response: After reevaluating these projects the number of acres identified over a 

10 year period have been dropped to 37,000 or 3,700 per year. See table 2-2 in the 

FEIS. prescribed fire 

1130. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should utilize prescribed burns to 

maintain bio-integrity 

 Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Fire Suppression 

1131. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should view burned areas as a natural 

process and allow fires to burn within Historic Range of Variability. 

 Response: Fire and its affects are recognized as a natural process although the 

casual visitor may not see it as an esthetic or scenic character on the landscape. 

Wildland fire use is managed within prescriptions as identified by a fire 

management plan. These site specific plans identify when and where such use is 

appropriate. To define it in the Plan is premature.See the discussion in the analysis 

in the FEIS on the effects on scenic resources from fire, insects and disease. 

1132. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not make fire suppression the 

default course of action for areas not having a fire management plan. 

 Response: Wildland fire use requires pre-stated resource management objectives 

over predefined geographic areas. To allow a fire to burn without such objectives 

and a defined area would be inappropriate and not keeping with national direction. 

Heritage Resources 

1133. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify current land management 

practices to protect western culture and heritage. 

 Response: The Revised Forest Plan includes goals and standards and guidelines 

that address protection of heritage resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 268 

Locatable and Salable Minerals 

Locatable and Salable Minerals General 

1134. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include discussions on 

recreational fossil collecting in the Forest Plan. 

 Response: Recreational fossil collecting is briefly discussed in the Paleontology 

portion of the Locatable and Salable Minerals section of the EIS. While there are 

occurrences of some kinds of fossils in some areas that may attract recreational 

collecting interest, compared with other recreational activities, this use is rather 

limited and it has not by itself specifically been identified as a revision topic. 

Recreational fossil collecting is one of many recreational pursuits which are 

addressed through the management direction for recreation and access. As noted in 

the EIS, casual collecting of invertebrate fossils does not require any special 

authorization. 

1135. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add objectives for mineral and 

energy exploration and development to create better geologic maps, make 

inventories of the paleontological or mineral and energy resources, and 

regularly reassess the existing information on these geologic resources. 

 Response: Our objectives focus our efforts on areas where the need to correct 

resource conditions or meet user demands are greatest. 

The TERRA component of the NRIS database (the Forest Service’s National 

Resource Information System) is gathering basic geologic data and will eventually 

be integrated into GIS layers amenable to display with other GIS layers. That will 

be updated, as geologic data are available. 

The Wasatch-Cache experiences limited demand from mining claimants and few 

locatable mineral proposals. Commercial sources of salable material are available 

off-forest and sources on the forest are not in demand. Because of these factors we 

do not see a need for inventories of mineral resources. Where the petroleum 

industry has expressed interest in leasable minerals (primarily oil and gas), we have 

addressed that in Topic 9. 

1136. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add a discussion of the 

management direction for geologic, paleontologic, and mineral resources to the 

Forest Plan including a discussion of where energy and mineral development 

activites are, and are not, allowed under the proposed plan. 

 Response: We have included management direction for these resources where we 

view a there is a need. In many cases current policy and existing law provides 

adequate direction. In the case of locatable minerals, management will be consistent 

with the 1872 Mining law, as amended which governs the disposal of those 

minerals. We also believe no additional direction is required because of the existing 

law and regulation for salable minerals under the Materials Act of 1947, as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 269 

amended. Management direction for paleontologic resources is found in Forest 

Service Manual 2680.3, which we believe is appropriate level needed. 

In the absence of broad public interest or interest from the scientific community, we 

have generally chosen not to provide management direction regarding management 

of geologic resources. We have added specific direction for cave management in the 

forestwide standards and guidelines. In the future if a significant need is expressed 

relative to a particular resource, we will address that through Forest Plan 

amendments. 

We have included management direction for oil and gas resources. For the areas of 

high potential for petroleum reserves on the Forest, we have added direction about 

leasing compatibility. 

1137. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should combine the discussions on 

geological, mineral, and paleontological resources into a single topic in the 

Final EIS. 

 Response: While there is no right or wrong way to organize subject areas, we 

chose to organize our EIS by Planning Topic. 

1138. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should include maps depicting all 

currently active quarries/sand and gravel pits in the Final EIS. 

 Response: All of the quarries sand and gravel pits on the Forest are used for 

internal Forest Service purposes only. There are no commercial operations. As 

such, we do not believe a map such as you one you request is necessary. Since 

commercial sources of salable material are available off-forest, there has not been a 

demand expressed by private operators. Should this situation change significantly, 

we’ll address the need at that time. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

1139. The Final EIS should include a discussion of the effects of oil pits on wildlife 

mortality. 

 Response: See Response 362. 

1140. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should clarify whether acreage figures 

cited in the effects of oil and gas leasing on wildlife section are due to direct or 

indirect effects. 

 Response: They are direct effects. This has been clarified in the text. 

Mineral Extraction 

1141. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should restore areas with mining 

damage. 

141.1 To protect watershed health 

141.2 To restore the scenic value of Little Cottonwood Canyon 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 270 

 Response: Since the mid-1980’s, the Forest has been an active partner with the 

Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining in inventorying and closing mine openings 

deemed to present an immediate hazard to the public. An ancillary effect of that is 

to restore a measure of scenic value in the canyons. It is important to note 

restoration of mines located on private lands is outside of Forest Service authority. 

We agree that there are some harmful remaining effects to water quality from the 

mining in the 1800’s. Since 1998, the Forest has been a participant in the Little 

Cottonwood Group. This group is assessing the effect of mining on Little 

Cottonwood Creek by collecting field data on water quality, stream morphology 

and aquatic health. An assessment is being reviewed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

1142. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should continue to allow recreational 

mining because it is not harmful. 

 Response: As explained in the EIS, there are three stream segments open to 

recreational dredging, sluicing and panning under a cooperative USFS/BLNM/State 

permit. This use will continue in the revised forest plan. Other mining related 

activity is allowed on lands open to operations under the 1872 Mining Law, 

whether it be ‘recreational’ or not. We will manage those activities under Forest 

Service mining regulations when disturbance is significant. 

Social and Economic Analysis 

Social and Economic Analysis General 

1143. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prepare an adequate 

socioeconomic analysis. 

1143.1 By including costs associated with different management activities in 

the social economic assessment. 

Response: The economic analysis of alternatives was completed according to 

federal regulations and Forest Service requirements. The FEIS includes economic 

analyses from both a regional and a national accounting stance. The regional 

accounting stance is used for social and economic impact analysis to local 

communities and counties. This includes changes to employment and labor income. 

The national accounting stance is used for the consideration of benefits and coats to 

all of society. The economic PNV analysis includes market prices for timber, 

range, and mineral outputs and non-market price estimates for outdoor recreation. 

This analysis is explained in the social and economic analysis in chapter 4 of the 

FEIS and in further detail in Appendix B. 

Aside from the economic analysis, regional and national issues, values, and 

concerns were considered throughout the planning process. Comments from all 

interested people were used to develop alternatives and issues. Economic modeling 

considers impacts to local communities, but use of forest resources includes use 

from locals and visitors. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 271 

1143.2 By including an analysis of the receipts and expenditures of the Fee 

Demo program in the social economic assessment. 

Response: The Fee Demo program, while enjoying some success both locally and 

nationally is not a decision that is made in the forest plan, and consequently not a 

required or appropriate disclosure in forest planning. Periodic reports on Fee Demo 

receipts are developed internally, and these and programs are available from the 

Wasatch-Cache if requested. 

1143.3 By analyzing the social and economic impacts on all forest users, not 

just local communities. 

Response: See response 1143.1. 

 

1143.4 By including the results of the Utah State University study “An 

Economic and Social Assessment of Snowmobiling in Utah” 

Response: Thank you for your comment, while the draft report had been used in 

the DEIS analysis, and the final report has been used in FEIS economic analysis. 

Social Values 

Population Growth 

1144. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should factor projected population 

growth into management plans. 

1144.1 By identifying the combined impacts of all users instead of viewing 

them separately. 

1144.2 By acknowledging that population growth will result in restrictions on 

traditional experiences. 

Responses: The Forest Service alone cannot control growth. The Forest Service, 

state and local governments, non-profits organizations, businesses, and individuals 

all share the burden of planning for the future together. Even then, market forces, 

international events, and demographic pressures in and outside of the analysis area 

are beyond the control of any and all parties. 

Growth of the Wasatch Front was identified and considered within the social and 

economic section of the FEIS, recreational growth and trends in use on the forest 

are presented in the recreation section of the FEIS. Cumulative effects of 

alternatives are presented in all resource sections and consider larger use trends 

surrounding the Forest. 

Development 

1145. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not have a goal to “encourage 

private enterprise to develop recreational facilities on and off the forest”, 

because this land belongs to the public.

 Response: Given increasingly higher demands for outdoor recreation, and the 

associated high cost of responding to these demands, federal funding alone is not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 272 

sufficient to sustain resource values while continuing to meet a good part of that 

demand in a responsible manner. Reducing costs to the American taxpayer and 

stimulating responsible local governments and the private sector has been, and will 

continue to be a national strategy for dealing with the issues of high recreation user 

demand, high costs, and concern for the continuity of forest settings. 

 

1146. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should allow extensive commercial 

development on the Park City side of the range, and little or no additional 

commercial development of the Wasatch Front and its canyons. 

 Response: In Alternative 3 some additional area for expansion of ski areas is 

provided on the east slopes of the Salt Lake District. This alternative also allows 

for some expansion of ski areas in canyons on the Wasatch Front side. Other 

alternatives do not allow for additional ski area expansions. 

 

1147. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit development for 

environmental reasons. 

1147.1 To protect wildlife habitat and winter range 

1147.2 To protect watersheds 

Responses: In all alternatives wildlife habitat, winter range, and watershed 

protection are protected to varying degrees. The acreage available for development 

is minor in any alternative compared to what is protected, and certainly proposals 

for development would only apply to a very small percentage of lands. Any project 

planning would consider a range of mitigation treatments in alternatives where 

proposals for development are possible. 

 

1148. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit development for social 

reasons. 

1148.1 To preserve wilderness characteristics that provide an escape from an 

urban environment 

1148.2 To preserve natural environments for the future 

1148.3 To avoid bringing more users into the forests 

1148.4 Until a carrying capacity study has been conducted 

Responses: A broad range of on-forest social settings are arrayed across the forest 

through the alternatives presented in the FEIS. Wasatch-Cache forest leadership 

recognizes the concerns of many in our population who feel that additional 

recreation use and impacts cannot be sustained. 

1149. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit development in certain 

areas. 

1149.1 In roadless areas 

1149.2 In the canyons 

1149.3 In the Tri-Canyon area 

1149.4 In Taylor Canyon and Wheeler Creek 

1149.5 On the west side of Mount Ogden

Responses: The range of alternatives presented in the FEIS provide management 

prescriptions which either allow or do not allow a range of recreation development, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 273 

vegetation treatments, and trail and road building on the forest. A range of possible 

development or protection prescriptions are applied to each of these areas. 

 

1150. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should prohibit commercial or 

amusement type development in the canyons because these services can be 

provided by cities within close proximity. 

 Response: The Forest Service recognizes that some activities and developments 

are more appropriately and traditionally provided for on private lands than on 

National Forests. National, community, and individual values obviously vary on 

where to draw the line on these questions. Management prescriptions, scenery 

management, and recreation opportunity spectrum guidelines help frame what is 

allowable. Specific proposals will be compared to forest plan direction when they 

are presented, as well as to local site conditions, community needs, potential 

mitigation, and other manual and handbook direction. 

1151. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should discourage unsightly 

development. 

 Response: Scenery Management System (SMS) guidelines presented in Chapter 4 

of the revised Forest Plan give direction for project proposals so that desirable 

developed and natural scenic settings are provided. 

Economic Values 

Economic Values General 

 

1152. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should give economic considerations the 

lowest possible priority. 

 Response: Economics is one of the many criteria considered in the decision 

making process. The level of importance economic values plays will depend upon 

issues and concerns of the public and the information desired by the decision 

maker. 

1153. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not preserve wild country for the 

short-term desires of a few. 

 Response: Forest Plans are a balance between the many competing uses of 

national resources. The alternative selected will be a mix of preservation and 

resource uses with both short term and long term goals for resource conditions. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

1154. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should strengthen its economic analysis. 

1154.1 By separating different industries and communities 

1154.2 By using more recent data 

1154.3 By disclosing the real socio-economic impacts of the various alternatives 

1154.4 By including information about the economic benefits of healthy forests 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 274 

1154.5 By analyzing the economic benefits to local communities from 

motorized recreation 

1154.6 By providing documentation to support its claim that backcountry 

areas are less expensive and more economically efficient to manage than 

designated wilderness 

1154.7 By using the travel cost method and contingent valuation method to 

show a similarity of possible economic and social valuations associated with 

preserving the Wasatch-Cache mountain ecosystem 

1154.8 By including information about externalized costs passed on to 

communities, businesses, and individuals when national forests are developed 

Response: Improvements have been made to the social and economic analysis in 

the FEIS to show individual industries and update to the most recent data available. 

It is difficult to always portray the economic data desired due to limited data 

sources and non-disclosure laws. There is generally a two-year lag with economic 

data between when it was collected and released for use. In terms of recreation use 

and expenditure data, it is often non-existent, available only at large scales (statewide), or based on assumptions that do not match with Forest Service management 

or priorities. 

Often an individual feels the greatest impact of an alternative or change in Forest 

Service management and such impacts are difficult to summarize at the large scale 

of a Forest Plan. The FEIS has been edited to show greater sensitivity between 

alternatives, but in many cases, there may be little difference. It is important to 

review the resource sections of the FEIS for more resource specific information 

concerning each area and alternative as well as the social and economic analysis. 

The value of healthy forests can be found in summary tables of anticipated, 

measurable outcomes and activities by alternative in Chapter 2. Detailed 

discussions of each outcome can be found in the corresponding sections of Chapter 

3 and 4. A balancing of all economic and non-economic outputs is best found in the 

Record of Decision. In that document, the Regional Forester discloses his 

consideration of outputs and outcomes that are monetarily valued (in the economic 

efficiency analysis) with others that do not have or cannot be monetarily valued. 

With regard to 1154.6, the commenter inferred that the Forest Service had 

suggested that Wilderness management was more expensive than backcountry 

management for the Lakes roadless area, and that the Forest Service has an 

unfounded bias against Wilderness, that can in part be shown through unfounded 

perceptions that Wilderness management is comparatively expensive. We have 

reread of this section of the Need section of Appendix C (DEIS) or C-1 (FEIS) for 

Lakes. The statement does not unequivocally state that managing backcountry is 

cheaper than managing Wilderness. What the sentence states is, “This type of 

management” (meaning backcountry, not Wilderness) “could allow for more cost 

effective mitigation of human impacts...” The intent of the statement was not to 

assert a hard fact derived from an analysis of the cost differences of wilderness vs 

backcountry management, rather a simple suggestion that this might be the case. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 275 

Cost of management is not a compelling factor choosing between alternatives in 

this forest plan revision. The economic analysis of alternatives does keep constant 

budgets as an assumption across all alternatives. 

The travel-cost method is one method to gather recreation expenditure data; the 

economic analysis used information readily available through Forest Service 

research to estimate recreation and tourism impacts to local communities. This 

analysis included motorized use, both OHV and snowmachines. For more 

information, see appendix B-11. 

Externalities are not required to be included in the economic analysis: 36 CFR 

219.12(g)3(i) directs that costs “of the agency and all other public and private costs 

required to manage the forest up to the point where the outputs are valued and the 

environmental consequences are realized” be included in the estimated effects of 

alternatives (emphasis added). Agency costs have been include in the FEIS 

Financial and Economic Efficiency analysis. Where there are significant private 

costs necessary to provide the valued outputs, they have been estimated and 

explicitly included in the efficiency analysis. 

1155. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should strengthen its cost/benefits 

analysis. 

1155.1 By providing a full accounting of benefits and costs, including “nonuse” 

benefits 

1155.2 By comparing the management of roadless areas as wilderness versus 

the proposed management 

 Response: The Implementing regulations of NEPA expressly avoids a cost-benefit 

analysis as being a necessary basis for decisions: ‘For purposes of complying with 

the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need 

not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there 

are important qualitative considerations.’ (40 CFR 1502.23) A cost-benefit 

analysis, however, may be conducted if desired or required by other laws, 

regulations, or directives. Economic impacts, however, are a concern of NEPA, but 

only where such issues have been identified during scoping. The economic section 

of the FEIS includes PNV and distribution analyses as required. 

Non-use benefits: Summary tables of anticipated, measurable outcomes and 

activities by alternative can be found in Chapter 2. Detailed discussions of each 

outcome can be found in the corresponding sections of Chapter 3 and 4. A 

balancing of all economic and non-economic outputs is best found in the Record of 

Decision. In that document, the Regional Forester discloses his consideration of 

outputs and outcomes that are monetarily valued (in the economic efficiency 

analysis) with others that do not have or cannot be monetarily valued. 

Even Wilderness areas require budget for management, and none of the alternatives 

designate the entire Forest or all roadless areas as Wilderness so a budget will still 

be needed outside of Wilderness for management and forest stewardship projects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 276 

1156. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should provide an accounting of costs 

associated with various activities. 

1156.1 Timber harvest 

1156.2 Grazing

 Response: The costs and benefits of resource uses of the national forest are 

highlighted in the FEIS in resource sections as well as within the social and 

economic section. 

1157. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should revise or eliminate the net public 

benefits discussion. 

1157.1 Because the 50-year time frame is meaningless 

1157.2 Because it is based on faulty assumptions

 Response: A PNV analysis is required by the National Forest Management Act 

(36 CFR 219) the FEIS analysis has been clarified. 

1158. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish accurate benchmarks 

for the net public benefits analysis. 

 Response: Benchmarks required by 39 CFR 219.12 (e) (1) were determined 

during the development of the 1985 Forest Plan, and were specified in the Chapter 

II, sections D, E, and F in the FEIS of November 2, 1984, and are summarized in 

the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (April 1999). Our analysis 

in this forest plan revision has not recalculated those original benchmarks in 

revising the forest plan. Benchmarks, being minimum level of forest management 

to maintain the Forest and maximum production potential of significant goods and 

services (including associated monetary estimates of values) within which 

alternatives must be constructed are extremes. These extreme output levels are not 

approached or exceeded in the alternatives analyzed in the FEIS. 

1159. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish an analytical process to

demonstrate that the final Forest Plan will maximize net public benefits.

 Response: RPA/NFMA and implementing regulations outline the economic 

analysis and criterion requirement for forest planning, the commenters 

misunderstand the ‘net public benefits’ analytical framework prescribed by 36 CFR 

219. ‘Net public benefits’ is not a benefit-cost analysis given a comprehensive 

economic efficiency framework – one that incorporates a monetary expression of all 

known market and non-market benefits and costs. Such an analysis is generally 

used when economic efficiency is the sole or primary criterion upon which a 

decision is made. The Forest Service does not endorse or expect this use of 

economic efficiency analysis in projects, programs, or other analyses. The agency 

recognizes that many of the values associated with natural resource management are 

best handled apart from, but in conjunction with, a more limited benefit-cost 

framework. This concept is expressed in NFMA regulations [36 CFR 219] and is 

referred as ‘cost-efficiency.’ When discussing the evaluation of Forest Plan 

alternatives, the regulations state that the evaluation ‘shall compare present net 

value, social and economic impacts, outputs of goods and services, and overall 

protection and enhancement of environmental resources’ [36 CFR 219.12(h)]. It is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 277 

this process that results in a Forest Plan that ‘maximizes long term net public 

benefits in a environmentally sound manner’ [36 CFR 219.1]. 

The NFMA regulations define net public benefits as: ‘An expression used to signify 

the overall long-term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) 

less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be 

quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both quantitative 

and qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or index [36 CFR 219.3].’ 

Such an approach is reasonable given the vast array of environmental, social, and 

economic considerations in establishing or revising a Forest Plan. It is also 

consistent with the definition of multiple use as given in the MUSY Act. 

The Forest Service Manual and Handbook system agrees with this approach. FSH 

1909.17, section 10 calls for economic efficiency analysis for all projects. Section 

11 clarifies the analysis required. A pure economic efficiency analysis includes all 

benefits and cots in monetary, and therefore, maximizing present net value yields 

the same results as maximizing net public benefits. However, in most planning 

conditions all benefits and costs cannot be monetarily valued. Under this 

circumstance, maximizing present net value is not the same as maximizing net 

public benefits, and the handbook recommends the use of ‘cost-efficiency’ to 

satisfy these requirements. FSM 2430 and FSH2409.18 also focus on the concept 

of ‘cost-efficiency’ rather than pure economic efficiency. 

1160. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should quantify ecosystem service 

values and externalized costs of commodity production in the net public 

benefits analysis.

 Response: Externalities are not required to be included in the economic analysis: 

36 CFR 219.12(g)3(i) directs that costs “of the agency and all other public and 

private costs required to manage the forest up to the point where the outputs are 

valued and the environmental consequences are realized” be included in the 

estimated effects of alternatives (emphasis added). Agency costs have been include 

in the FEIS Financial and Economic Efficiency analysis. Where there are 

significant private costs necessary to provide the valued outputs, they have been 

estimated and explicitly included in the efficiency analysis. 

There are many values associated with National Forests that cannot be expressed in 

monetary terms. Many values are highly personal and subjective in nature. These 

values include connections of people, circumstances, time and place that occur on 

the National Forests. An example may be an annual family trip to a certain scenic 

vista using their off-highway vehicle on a favorite designated route. Monetary 

expressions are poor measures for the moment and the reflection of such multifaceted values. These, however, may be the greatest value of National Forests to 

the nation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 278 

Other values can and have been expressed in monetary terms in the economics 

literature. Existence, option, and bequest values are among the kinds of values that 

have been expressed in monetary terms. Typically, a study is focused on a 

particular kind of value for a particular geographic location and a specific 

population. The results are valid for that specific location and population, but may 

not be transferable to all situations. Thus, a study in the southern Rockies or the 

Pacific Northwest may not be applicable to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The economics literature clearly shows that people hold passive use values for a 

variety of conditions on the National Forests. These values are relevant to the 

management situation on the Wasatch-Cache, but the spectrum of values in the 

literature is not easily transferred to the programmatic analyses and decisions being 

made for the Wasatch-Cache. Although the Forest Service recognizes the validity 

and importance of these values, the existing literature is not sufficient to serve as a 

basis for monetary estimates of the management actions proposed by the WasatchCache plan. Therefore, passive use values for such things as biological diversity 

and wildlife habitat must be taken into consideration in a qualitative sense. 

Comments on the DEIS have suggested that the full value of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest should be included in any benefit-cost analysis. This value might 

include such things as ecosystem services, its place in our national heritage, and all 

capital improvements. This kind of analysis would be appropriate if the decision in 

a forest plan revision was to retain or eliminate the entire National Forest. The 

decisions made in a forest plan revision, however, are incremental. The decisions 

are not whether to keep or sell the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, but rather to 

make step-wise changes in the way it is managed. Consequently, it is the difference 

between the ‘no action’ alternative and the other alternatives that offers insight into 

the benefits and costs of each course of action. 

The values mentioned above are often discussed in the biological, physical, 

recreational, or cultural sections of the FEIS. Their consideration is also 

documented in the Record of Decision. Because such values are not expressed in 

monetary terms and therefore not included in the economic efficiency analysis does 

not mean that they have been excluded from the calculus of ‘net public benefits’. 

Present net value is determined in part from benefits that can be expressed 

monetarily, but this is only a portion of all the values associated with the WasatchCache National Forest. 

1160.1 Incorporate information from The Economic Case against National Forest 

Logging 

 Response: Any policy regarding the subsidization of industries is not within the 

scope of the forest plan revision. While the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is 

concerned with effects on jobs in communities as it relates to Forest management, it 

has no policy to protect jobs in selected industries. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 279 

The timber industry is often singled out as receiving favored treatment by the Forest 

Service. Throughout the last decade, numerous mills in the Intermountain Region 

have closed while others have reconfigured to process smaller loges. International 

and national market forces now affect mills in the country more directly than ever 

before. There is a continuing demand for timber products in this country, and 

National Forests play an important role in supplying timber to meet the demand. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest historically has not been a large supplier of 

timber, but provides modest volumes of logs and wood fiber that are processed at 

local and regional mills in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. 

Timber from the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is sold at market rates. Timber 

prices fluctuate from year to year, as influenced by market forces. Depending upon 

conditions, some firms purchase National Forest timber at prices above their 

production costs while others purchase timber below their production costs. Timber 

analysis in this FEIS used historic market prices, adjusted annually for projected 

real price increases. 

While the Forest Service in general and this Forest Plan in particular does not 

subsidize the timber industry with below-market prices, it has a keen interest in 

maintaining industry viability within the region. A local timber industry provides 

land managers and taxpayers with cost-effective options for treating vegetation to 

achieve 1) reduced risk of wildfires and insects and 2) improved forest health. 

1161. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest planning documents should incorporate 

ecosystem service values and externalized costs. 

1161.1 In order to comply with the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield (MUSY) 

Act 

1161.2 In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 

1161.3 In order to comply with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

1161.4 In order to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act 

1161.5 In order to comply with the Economic and Social Analysis Handbook 

1161.6 In order to comply with the Timber Sale Preparation Handbook 

1161.7 In order to comply with the Forest Service Manual 

Response: MUSY calls for management of the National Forests ‘with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources.’ There is 

no requirement for such values to be monetarily expressed. 

RPA/NFMA and implementing regulations outline the economic analysis and 

criterion requirement for forest planning, the commentors misunderstand the ‘net 

public benefits’ analytical framework prescribed by 36 CFR 219. ‘Net public 

benefits’ is not a benefit-cost analysis given a comprehensive economic efficiency 

framework – one that incorporates a monetary expression of all known market and 

non-market benefits and costs. Such an analysis is generally used when economic 

efficiency is the sole or primary criterion upon which a decision is made. The 

Forest Service does not endorse or expect this use of economic efficiency analysis 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 280 

in projects, programs, or other analyses. The agency recognizes that many of the 

values associated with natural resource management are best handled apart from, 

but in conjunction with, a more limited benefit-cost framework. This concept is 

expressed in NFMA regulations [36 CFR 219] and is referred as ‘cost-efficiency.’ 

When discussing the evaluation of Forest Plan alternatives, the regulations state that 

the evaluation ‘shall compare present net value, social and economic impacts, 

outputs of goods and services, and overall protection and enhancement of 

environmental resources’ [36 CFR 219.12(h)]. It is this process that results in a 

Forest Plan that ‘maximizes long term net public benefits in a environmentally 

sound manner’ [36 CFR 219.1]. 

The NFMA regulations define net public benefits as: ‘An expression used to 

signify the overall long-term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects 

(benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be 

quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both quantitative 

and qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or index [36 CFR 219.3].’ 

Such an approach is reasonable given the vast array of environmental, social, and 

economic considerations in establishing or revising a Forest Plan. It is also 

consistent with the definition of multiple use as given in the MUSY Act. 

The FS Manual and Handbook system agrees with this approach. FSH 1909.17, 

section 10 calls for economic efficiency analysis for all projects. Section 11 

clarifies the analysis required. A pure economic efficiency analysis includes all 

benefits and cots in monetary, and therefore, maximizing present net value yields 

the same results as maximizing net public benefits. However, in most planning 

conditions all benefits and costs cannot be monetarily valued. Under this 

circumstance, maximizing present net value is not the same as maximizing net 

public benefits, and the handbook recommends the use of ‘cost-efficiency’ to 

satisfy these requirements. FSM 2430 and FSH2409.18 also focus on the concept 

of ‘cost-efficiency’ rather than pure economic efficiency. 

The Implementing regulations of NEPA expressly avoid a cost-benefit analysis as 

being a necessary basis for decisions: ‘For purposes of complying with the Act, the 

weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are 

important qualitative considerations.’ (40 CFR 1502.23) A cost-benefit analysis, 

however, may be conducted if desired or required by other laws, regulations, or 

directives. Economic impacts, however, are a concern of NEPA, but only where 

such issues have been identified during scoping. 

With regard to the Administrative Procedures Act, there have been no violations of 

law, regulation or procedure, as noted above, and thus the process for this Forest 

Plan is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 281 

1162. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should resolve the discrepancy in 

timber employment numbers presented in the Draft EIS.

 Response: Thank you for you comment, the FEIS has been edited to ensure 

employment numbers between sections are consistent, or if reporting different types 

of employment, that the text clarifies the differences between the sections. 

Economic Impacts 

1163. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should address the important economic 

contribution of various activities. 

1163.1 Grazing 

1163.2 Recreation and tourism 

1163.3 Motorized use 

 Response: The social and economic section in the FEIS highlights the 

contribution and potential impacts of each forest resource program. Specific output 

and resource information is available in specific resource sections of the FEIS. 

1164. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should acknowledge that national 

forests do not contribute significantly to the agricultural economy.

 Response: The social and economic section of the FEIS highlights the 

contribution and potential impact of the agricultural sector to the analysis area 

economy. 

1165. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should acknowledge that the value of 

one particular job is of no greater relative import than another job and that 

local economies are generally very elastic.

 Response: While the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is concerned with effects on 

jobs in communities as it relates to Forest management, it has no policy to protect 

jobs in selected industry. The social and economic section of the FEIS highlights 

the importance of Forest outputs local economies to communities within the 

analysis area. 

Funding 

1166. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should formulate its budget to reflect 

the fact that recreation is the number one use of the forest.

 Response: The recreation section of the FEIS highlights the trends and use on the 

Wasatch-Cache for recreation and tourism activities. The social and economic 

section highlights the contribution and potential impacts of this activity on the 

analysis area economy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 282 

Subsidies 

1167. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not subsidize commercial 

industries or development. 

 Response: “Below-cost” management is not uncommon for national forests (with 

respect to timber sales, grazing and recreation management) as cost is not the only 

driver in determining what is appropriate management for an area. Most often, 

commercial ventures and proposals for the national forest are made because they 

are profitable for the operators. The Forest Service often makes operators bear the 

costs of environmental analyses associated with proposals. Commercial activities 

on national forests are carefully scrutinized in terms of their environmental, social 

and economic or business consequences. 

 

1168. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require user groups to restore 

the forest to properly functioning condition by requiring industries to pay a 

bond before issuing any extractive permits.

 Response: Permittees and contractors on national forest lands have to meet permit 

and contract requirements which include a performance bond, and in permits and 

contracts there are specific clauses for protection from and mitigation of effects to 

vegetation, soils, chemical use, litter and garbage, etc, associated with their 

activities. Requiring these groups to recover properly functioning condition (PFC) 

across broad areas of the forest is not something that has been done. The attainment 

of PFC (a relatively new concept in land management) is something that will likely 

take considerable time and integrated management and endeavors of both private 

user groups (commercial and non-commercial) and federal, state, and local 

governments. 

1169. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should require lost or injured 

recreationists to pay for rescue efforts. 

 Response: While this question is outside the scope of forest plan revision, injured 

or lost recreationists can be billed if a medical helicopter is used in their rescue. 

Most often rescue is done by a County or State crew using the equipment necessary 

to complete the search and evacuation and the Counties bear this expense. The 

Forest Service does not pay for these rescues, but individual employees can 

participate in the rescue efforts. 

Lands, Real Estate, and Property Boundary Management 

Lands, Real Estate, and Property Boundary Management General 

 

1170. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should modify the Federal land 

conveyances in the Forest Plan (p. 5–10) by not disposing of parcels with 

inefficient configurations.

 Response: Parcels of federal land with inefficient configurations are often the 

subject of degradation, trespass, or otherwise negatively affected, as they cannot be 

managed consistent with the land management goals of a larger block of federal 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 283 

land. These irregular parcels can be surrounded or influenced by lands under other 

ownership that are managed for very different intentions. 

1171. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should wage a defense against interest 

claims it believes to be without merit. 

 Response: While this comment is generally outside the scope of forest plan 

decisions, the Forest Service does carefully scrutinize claims that are made 

regarding agency land so that the public lands are protected against unfounded 

assertions. 

 

Land Purchases and Exchanges 

 

1172. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should add the Cache Valley foothills to 

its acquisition list to prevent further development

 Response: Landownership adjustment direction at the forest plan level is usually 

best stated in general terms across the forest without specifically mentioning 

individual tracts or areas. While such a disclosure might be desirable disclosure to 

those interested in knowing how the forest is approaching these ownership 

problems, detailed specificity often can alarm local landowners, escalate 

prices/values of lands and create unnecessary problems. 

1173. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should acquire additional private lands. 

1173.1 To protect multiple resources 

1173.2 To protect moose habitat 

1173.3 To preserve watersheds 

 Response: These three types of settings are generally included in the priority land 

acquisitions presented in the revised Forest Plan. The ability of the Forest Service 

to acquire these lands is based on funding, the gravity of the need for acquisition, 

and other emphases that can affect the completion of a transaction. 

1174. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should eliminate all private inholdings in 

roadless areas. 

 Response: Isolated private parcels within roadless areas can create some 

management difficulty or controversy if landowners need to develop a road into the 

parcels or otherwise develop the area they own. The Forest Service recognizes the 

desirability of blocking up ownership. This can often work to the advantage of both 

the private landowners and the government. 

1175. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should consider additional land 

exchanges with public input. 

 Response: The Forest Service is considering more land exchanges and does 

involve the public through NEPA scoping and process for land exchanges and by 

complying with the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act (1988). 

1176. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not exchange lands within the 

Tri-Canyons. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 284 

1176.1 That would compromise watershed health and wildlife 

1176.2 That would create developable private property 

 Response: The forest recognizes the sensitivity of public sentiment concerning 

land development and land values in the Tri-Canyons. The revised Forest Plan 

identifies priority acquisitions and conveyances in its management direction. 

Riparian areas, areas valuable to wildlife and for watershed protection are identified 

as high value for acquisition. Conversely, they would not be easily traded out of 

public ownership. 

 

1177. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should acquire private lands within TriCanyons wilderness additions that would prevent mining and development. 

 Response: A wide range of alternatives are presented with respect to 

recommendations for Wilderness in the Tri-Canyons. Part of the evaluation of 

potential for Wilderness is based on an area’s availability, that is, what liens are on 

the parcel which might make it less desirable as Wilderness. Clearly, active mineral 

claims and rights in a roadless area would make it less suitable as Wilderness. If a 

decision is made that recommends Wilderness that has private lands with private 

minerals, it could be in the interest of the Forest Service (and the American people) 

to pursue this ownership. 

 

1178. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should not add land acquisitions on the 

North Slope of the Uintas to the existing wilderness area. 

 Response: Management direction and/or wilderness recommendations for lands 

outside federal ownership are not part of this forest plan decision and are outside its 

scope of considerations. 

 

Access 

Access to Forest Lands 

 

1179. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should acquire more access rights-ofway across private lands. Motorized access is also important. 

 Response: Acquiring or providing for access and rights-or-way are identified as 

Priority 1 acquisitions in the revised Forest Plan. While the plan is silent on 

motorized or non-motorized use, both would be needed. 

1180. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should institute boundary closures for 

private property owners who block access to public lands. 

 Response: The revised Forest Plan has a standard on Roads, Trails and Access 

Management that addresses this question. 

 

1181. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish a motorized access rightof-way across Thousand Peaks Ranch. 

 Response: Identification of site-specific rights-of-way that could be acquired is 

not part of this forest plan decision. General direction on the priorities for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 285 

acquisition and conveyance are identified, and access to the forest is considered a 

Priority 1 need. 

1182. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should establish a public access right-ofway in the northern Wellsvilles. 

 Response: See response 1181. 

1183. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should build an access road through the 

private property to the north point of Sardine Mountains to allow access to the 

Sardine Mountains 

 Response: See response 1181. 

1184. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should acquire a public foot trail access 

right-of-way to the Mollen’s Hollow Research Natural Area to allow botanists 

access for plant community research. 

 Response: Part of the reason that the Mollen’s Hollow RNA has intact vegetation 

is because access into the area has been limited. Private lands along the western 

boundary of the area do not permit easy access from that side, and the Forest 

Service has not acquired public rights of way or easements from there. The area is 

accessible from the east off Forest Roads 059 to 221, but this access is not easy. 

Research scientists can come into the area from this direction to do research. 

1185. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should secure a permanent access 

easement for non-motorized users south of Hardware Ranch. 

 Response: See response 1181. 

Access to Private Inholdings 

1186. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should process easement applications in 

a timely fashion for inholders. 

 Response: The administration and processing of easement applications is not a 

forest plan decision. However, we recognize the validity of your statement and 

have passed it on to our lands people and forest management. 

Other 

1187. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest should replace “add specifics” in the 

proposed Forest Plan with the intended language. 

 Response: This section of the Response to Issue 4 has been rewritten in the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest A - 286 

Letters from Other Government Agencies 

Copies of letters and oral comments from other federal, state, and local agencies are 

reproduced in this section. No letters were received from American Indian tribes. 

Letters and comments reproduced here were from: 

Federal Government 

Congressman James V. Hansen, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources 

USDI, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Denver 

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Provo Area Office 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Denver 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Snow Survey Office, Salt Lake City 

State Government 

State of Wyoming, Office of Federal Land Policy 

State of Wyoming, Department of Agriculture, Ron Micheli (transcription of oral 

comment) 

State of Utah, Governors Office of Planning and Budget 

Local Government 

Cache County, Utah 

Summit County, Utah 

Salt Lake County, Utah, Parks and Recreation 

Uinta County, Wyoming, County Commission, Bob Stoddard (transcription of oral 

comment) 

Ogden, Utah, City Council 

Ogden, Utah, Community and Economic Development Department 

Salt Lake City Corporation, Department of Public Utilities 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

February 2003 

 

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Appendices B - J
Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 

APPENDICES B-J 

Table of Contents 

Appendices First 

Page 

Number 

 

Appendix B – Analysis Process ........................................................................ B-1 

B-1 Vegetation Modeling/Timber Suitability ......................................... 

B-2 Terrestrial Diversity and Viability.................................................... 

B-3 Aquatic Diversity and Viability........................................................ 

B-4 Botanical diversity and Viability...................................................... 

B-5 Roads Analysis ................................................................................. 

B-6 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.................................................... 

B-7 Scenery Management System Application....................................... 

B-8 Vegetation Cover Type Map ............................................................ 

B-9 Range Capability and Suitability...................................................... 

B-10 Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Assumptions .................................. 

B-11 Social and Economic Analysis ....................................................... 

B1-1 

B2-1 

B3-1 

B4-1 

B5-1 

B6-1 

B7-1 

B8-1 

B9-1 

B10-1 

B11-1 

Appendix C-1 Roadless Area Planning Processes and Evaluation of Roadless 

Areas for Wilderness ......................................................................................... 

C-1-1 

Appendix C-2 Evaluation of Roadless Area Values and Analysis of Effects 

on Individual Roadless Areas............................................................................ 

C-2-1 

Appendix D – Forestwide Management Direction............................................ D-1-1 

D-1 Management Prescription Categories............................................... 

D-2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - ROS (Summer) ....................... 

D-3 Winter Recreation ............................................................................ 

D-4 Scenery Management System .......................................................... 

D1-1 

D2-1 

D3-1 

D4-1 

Appendix E – Vertebrate Wildlife Species of the Wasatch-Cache ................... E-1 

Appendix F – Botanical Resources ................................................................... F-1 

Appendix G – Oil and Gas Lease Issuing Process and Stipulations ................. G-1 

Appendix H – Noxious Weeds of the Wasatch-Cache............................. H-1 

Appendix I – Current Allotment Status and Allotment Status by Alternative .. I-1 

Appendix J – Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator 

Communities............................................................................. J-1 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 1

APPENDIX B - 1 

Vegetation Modeling and Timber Suitability 

Introduction 

The basic analytical framework for the revision of the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan is 

prescribed in the NEPA process. A set of alternative scenarios, representing different 

approaches to the identified needs for change and issues, was simulated over time to 

provide information to compare and contrast those alternatives in terms of their ability to 

achieve the Desired Future Conditions (DFC) in cost-effective and least-risk ways. 

Analyzing the effects of the alternatives included evaluation of vegetation dynamics; 

terrestrial, aquatic and botanical resource diversity and viability; roads analysis, 

recreation opportunity spectrum and scenery management system application, and timber 

suitability, range capability/suitability, oil and gas reasonably foreseeable development, 

and social and economic analysis. Succession within the aspen, conifer, and oak 

vegetation types were modeled by using the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool as 

described in the following section. Succession within the sagebrush vegetation type was 

done using a simple model that focused on existing conditions and desired conditions, 

and how each alternative would move toward those desired conditions. This model is 

described in more detail in the section titled Sagebrush Modeling starting on page B1-25 

of this appendix. 

Analysis Processes 

Modeling effects on forested vegetation was accomplished using the Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT). VDDT is the property of its developers, ESSA 

Technologies, Ltd., of Vancouver, B. C. 

Projecting changes in vegetation structure and composition over time is an important part 

of landscape-level analyses. Vegetation can change due to a variety of factors such as 

human activity, fires, insects, pathogens, animals, weather, growth, and competition. The 

interaction of these factors can be quite complex, and it can be difficult to project the 

combined effects over long periods of time. VDDT is a software tool that allows the 

construction of models for the purpose of simplifying those combined effects over time, 

and examining the roles of various disturbance agents and management activities in 

vegetation change. 

VDDT models were constructed for the Forest for each alternative to address three main 

questions. These are: first, what set of management activities, if any, must be placed on 

the landscape to achieve the objectives of a particular alternative? Objectives were 

generally defined as a mix of structural stages within each vegetation cover type at a 

particular time. Second, where natural succession and natural disturbances, rather than 

management activities, determine the future conditions of the forest, what will the forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 2

look like and how will it function in the near and distant future? Third, what level of 

timber harvest, if any, is sustainable for this alternative? 

Using VDDT software, models covering ten to twenty decades were formulated for each 

alternative, with analysis units that represented approximately 42 vegetative conditions, 

described by landscape location, vegetation cover types, and structural stages, moving 

through time along disturbed or undisturbed successional pathways. The undisturbed 

pathways followed basic successional processes and were the default unless either a 

natural disturbance event occurred or a management activity was imposed. Natural 

disturbances included wildland fire with failed suppression, catastrophic insect and 

disease events, and catastrophic large-scale fire. Management activities such as livestock 

grazing, prescribed fire, and timber harvest pushed the analysis units off the undisturbed 

pathways and onto disturbed pathways that reflected the outcome from such treatment. 

Desired future conditions (DFC) for each alternative were represented as goals for the 

number of acres to be maintained in specific structural stages, by cover type or groups of 

cover types. 

Disturbances, both natural and managed, were introduced into the modeling process via 

probabilities. Some disturbance probabilities were non-linear, allowing, for example, the 

probability of a catastrophic insect infestation to increase as the proportion of a particular 

cover type that is prone to infestation (such as old Spruce-Fir) increases. This allowed 

some recognition of the dynamics of contagion in both fire and insects; however, none of 

the analysis units were spatially specified beyond the landscape unit in which they 

occurred, so the spatial component of contagion was ignored. 

Developing Analysis Units 

Analysis units are made up of forested land with distinctly different characteristics that 

can be estimated, modeled, combined, and then projected through time to analyze change. 

The Forest team combined a variety of characteristics to develop analysis units that 

would focus on ecosystem processes and function while meeting the intent of the 

National Forest Management Act. The two major vegetation characteristics or 

components that were combined were structural stage (size class and canopy closure) and 

cover type. These groupings were then overlaid with rule sets or GIS coverages such as 

Management Prescription Categories (MPC) to finalize the analysis units and develop the 

analysis unit acreages for the VDDT model. Analysis units are the acres of a structural 

stage/cover type combination within a MPC. 

Landscapes 

The Forest was divided into 3 distinct geographic areas, the Uinta Mountains, the 

Overthrust Mountains and the Bonneville Basin. The Uinta Mountains region covers the 

north slope of the range, and includes the Kamas, Evanston and Mountain Ranger 

Districts. The Overthrust region covers the Bear River Range, including the Ogden and 

Logan Ranger Districts. The Bonneville Basin is the western portion of the Forest, 

including the west desert and Stansbury Mountains. Modeling was limited to the Uinta 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 3

Mountains and Overthrust Mountains because the likelihood of management activities 

(other than fire) was considered greater in those areas than in the Bonneville Basin. 

Size Classes 

The Forest vegetation layer in GIS was used as the basis for determining the breakdown 

of size classes to be used in modeling. Size classes used in the model were simplified 

from the vegetation layer to streamline the modeling process, and were based age of the 

vegetation. Limits of the classes were selected to represent changes that were significant 

for management purposes. 

Conifer Size Classes are: 

Grass/Forb - The length of time a stand remains in the grass/forb stage depends 

upon the species and the level of disturbance that created the grass/forb stage. For 

most types, the grass/forb persists for approximately 5 years; however, significant 

disturbance such as stand replacement fire may create a grass/forb stage that 

persists for several decades 

Seedling/Sapling - The seedling/sapling stage is reached when regeneration has 

progressed to the point that trees become the dominant vegetation on the site. For 

most forest types, this stage is from 5 to 15 years. 

Immature Tree - This class is defined as ages 15 to 80 years. 

Mature Tree - Stands between 80 and 150 years are considered mature for 

purposes of modeling. 

Old - The old class is defined as trees greater than 150 years old. 

Aspen and Oak Size Classes are: 

Grass/forb/seedling/sapling - The grass/forb and seedling/sapling classes are 

combined in these models, because the sprouting of the aspen and oak occurs 

concurrently with the grass and forb establishment. The class is defined as 0-10 

years in the Overthrust Mountain model, and 0-20 years in the Uinta Mountains 

model. 

Immature tree - The immature class is defined as 10-35 in the Overthrust 

Mountain model, and 20 to 70 years in the Uinta Mountains model. 

Mature tree - Aspen and oak are considered mature after 35 years in the Monte 

Cristo area, and 70 years in the Uinta Mountains. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 4

Canopy Closure 

The density of the vegetation was categorized into 3 canopy closure categories. They are 

used to determine the potential risks from insects or wildfire, to estimate species 

composition, and to reflect the effects of management activities and natural disturbances. 

The higher the stand density, the less light reaches the forest floor, which favors climax 

species and increases the risk to insects and lethal fire. Some cover types, due to the 

harsh sites, do not reach a high-density condition, but only progress to moderate canopy 

closure. Management activities such as thinning and grazing may move stands from a 

high-density class to a lower density class. Similarly, fire, both natural and prescribed, 

may modify the density of the vegetation resulting in a shift from one class to another. 

Canopy Closure groups are: 

• Low (less than 40% canopy closure) 

• Medium (40-70% canopy closure)

• High (greater than 70% canopy closure)

Vegetation Cover Types 

Vegetation composition is influenced by environmental (site) characteristics. Using 

cover types to classify the landscape provides a logical framework for studying 

succession, or vegetation changes over time. 

Cover types were then used to group size class and canopy closure into ecological units 

that would have similar responses to disturbances and have similar pathways through the 

successional stages. These groupings became the basis for the VDDT model, and 

understanding the ecological process and function of the vegetation. A model was 

developed for each cover type. The 6 individual cover type models were combined into a 

forest vegetation model that projected changes for all cover types simultaneously. A 

version of the combined model was run for each Forest Plan alternative to project 

vegetation changes associated with that alternative. 

Cover Type Groups used in modeling are: 

1. Douglas Fir 

2. Spruce Fir 

3. Mixed Conifer / Lodgepole Pine 

4. Stable Aspen 

5. Seral Aspen 

6. Oak 

Seral aspen presented a unique challenge because it is associated with all of the other 

forest types. Generally, seral aspen is shown on the vegetation layer as aspen/conifer (if 

conifer comprises less than 50% of the stand composition) or conifer/aspen (if conifer 

comprises more than 50% of the stand composition). It represents aspen stands that are 

currently undergoing conversion to conifer due to encroachment. If the conifer 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 5

encroachment continues long enough, aspen will be replaced by conifer to the point that 

eventually it will disappear from the stand. To reflect this potential, the seral aspen 

model was incorporated into each of the conifer models as a separate successional 

pathway parallel to the conifer pathway, which merges with the conifer at advanced 

stages. This permits us to model the loss of aspen in the absence of fire or mechanical 

disturbance, and to reflect the potential to maintain or increase the aspen component 

through disturbance of aspen/conifer or conifer/aspen stands. 

Seral aspen stands were included in the appropriate model based on the major conifer 

species present in the stand. For example, a Douglas-fir/aspen stand was modeled in the 

seral aspen pathway of the Douglas-fir model. 

Tentatively Suited Timberlands 

Reassessment of tentatively suited timberlands has been completed in accordance with 

the National Forest Management Act, as contained in Forest Plan regulations 36 CFR § 

219.14 and Forest Service Handbook FSH 2409.13, Chapter 20. The National Forest 

Management Act requires that, as a minimum, lands previously identified as not suited be 

reassessed at least every 10 years. Since current efforts to revise the Forest Plans 

coincide with the need to reassess timberlands not suited, a complete reassessment of 

suited timberlands has been performed. This allowed for a comprehensive examination 

of the status of timberlands that took into account changes since the previous assessment 

of timberlands. Some of these changes include changes in land ownership, increased 

knowledge and experience with reforestation efforts, wildfire events, and increased 

knowledge and experience regarding timber management effects on soils and watersheds. 

Assessment of tentatively suited timberlands was accomplished using Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS). Use of GIS results in consistent identification of each of the 

following data elements: 

• Net National Forest land area administered. 

• National Forest lands that are not forested. 

• National Forest lands that have been withdrawn from timber production. 

• Areas that are physically unsuited for timber production due to the inability to assure 

adequate restocking, or irreversible damage to soils or watersheds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 6

Table B-1. Steps and Data Sources for Assessing Tentatively Suited Lands 

Steps for Assessing Tentatively Suited Lands Data Sources 

1). Determine net National Forest system land area 

for each National Forest. 

Lands data in GIS 

2). Identify non-forested lands. These lands include: 

• Non-forest vegetation cover types 

• Roads. 

• Streams. 

• Lakes, ponds and reservoirs >= 1 acre is size.

• State and county roads on National Forest 

system lands

Non-forest vegetation cover for the cover 

types identified here came from satellite 

imagery. 

The remaining items identified are from 

several data layers in GIS. 

3). Identify and subtract National Forest system lands 

that have been withdrawn from timber production 

including: 

• Designated wilderness areas. 

• Research Natural Areas. 

• Wild segments of wild & scenic rivers (outside 

of wilderness areas). 

• Experimental Forests 

• Other withdrawn areas 

* Utility right-of-way corridors. 

* Electronic sites. 

* Administrative sites (unless previously 

identified in step 2 as areas withdrawn from 

timber production). 

* Developed campgrounds. 

The products resulting from completion of steps 1, 2 

and 3 will be: 

Identification of available forested lands, identification 

of unavailable withdrawn lands, and non-forested 

lands. 

Each of the identified items is available 

from data layers in GIS 

. 

4). Identification of physically unsuited lands. 

 Slopes greater than 40% 

 Elevations over 10,000 feet 

 Timber operability limits 

 

Vegetation Cover Type Maps , USGS 

digital elevation models, Timber 

operability mapping (wet areas). 

Vegetation Dynamics 

The primary conceptual model for vegetation dynamics is that any given unit of 

vegetation will change over a period of time, succeeding through some arbitrarily defined 

set of stages if undisturbed; if disturbed, either naturally or by management, the 

vegetation will instead change through a different set of stages. Each potential set of 

stages, in sequence, is called a pathway. 

Pathways and Probabilities 

Successional pathways, with or without disturbances, summarize scenarios in vegetation 

dynamics. Modeling such scenarios so as to have a quick and simple, yet useful, way of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 7

observing changes over time necessarily requires that only the most basic driving forces 

be included. Perhaps more importantly, many of those forces exert themselves as events 

which are expected to occur but for which the timing and frequency are essentially 

random. While management activities are disturbances that may be accurately predicted, 

natural disturbances may only reasonably be predicted in terms of historical probabilities. 

The outcomes from those disturbances, then, are also necessarily probabilistic. Clearly, 

the interaction of the many biological and physical factors that are at work can be quite 

complex, and it can be difficult to project their combined effects over long periods of 

time; the longer the scenario, the less certain the outcome. 

Scenarios can define different sets of assumptions about fire suppression, insects and 

disease, or forest management objectives, by assigning probabilities to the applicable 

successional pathways. In each scenario, changes in the dominant disturbance types and 

their frequency result in changes in the vegetation. For example, a reduction in fire 

frequency, representing an assumption of increased fire suppression success, may 

increase the number of acres in a condition that is more susceptible to insects. In that 

case, without changing the probability of insect-caused disturbance, more insect-caused 

disturbance will occur in the model because more land area is in the more susceptible 

condition. 

Undisturbed Succession 

Changes in vegetative conditions due to dynamics such as regeneration, growth, and selfthinning, form the basic successional pathway in the absence of disturbance. Some 

successional pathways are cyclical, indicating the likelihood of some self-limited 

lifespan, followed by self-regeneration and repetition of the cycle, unless disturbed. 

Other successional pathways have an end condition that represents a steady state that can 

be maintained perpetually. 

Modeled changes due to successional dynamics are defined by the time that a vegetative 

unit remains in a particular stage, and by the stage into which it will move after that time 

has passed. Figure B-1 displays an example of a VDDT model showing successional 

pathways, and the time required to move between classes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 8

Figure B-1. Example of successional pathways in VDDT models, 

showing successional classes and length of time required moving to next 

class in the absence of disturbance. 

Natural Disturbances 

Disturbance-related pathways specify, for each stage, the type of disturbance, its 

probability (which defines its return frequency) and its impact on the vegetation. The 

impact is represented by the different stage to which the vegetative unit has been 

transferred as a result of the disturbance. That new stage may be on the undisturbed 

pathway, representing a simple setback in succession, or it may be on another pathway 

entirely. Figure B-2 is an example of a model showing successional pathways and 

natural and management disturbance pathways. 

Insects and Disease 

For example, a unit defined as being Douglas-fir, mature, with greater than 70% canopy 

closure, may be given a 0.1% probability of experiencing an infestation of beetles. If the 

infestation does not occur, that unit may remain in its current stage for a defined number 

of years, eventually succeeding to the next stage along the undisturbed pathway. 

However, if the infestation does occur, the unit may be transferred to a different stage, 

defined as Douglas-fir, mature, 30%-70% canopy closure, with high fuel loads. This new 

stage is not on the undisturbed successional pathway. 

SS <40%

GF

Post-CF

M 30-70%

Lo Fuel

Old

M 30-70%

Hi Fuel M >70%

GF

Regen

IM >40%

Hi Fuel

IM >40%

Lo Fuel

5 yr

25 yr

10 yr

55 yr

55 yr

40 yr

40 yr

90 yr
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 9

Wildland Fire 

The same vegetative unit may also have some probability of incurring the effects of a 

wildfire. If that disturbance occurs, the unit may be transferred to a stage defined as 

Douglas-fir, grass-forb stage, regenerated. This new stage is on the undisturbed 

successional pathway, representing the starting point for the pathway. 

Management Disturbances 

From a modeling perspective, there is no technical difference between natural 

disturbances and management disturbances. They go into the models in exactly the same 

way. The conceptual difference is in the calculation of probabilities, and in how they are 

used. 

Management disturbances are the controlling input factors for the models. The objectives 

for a particular scenario may call for a certain mix of vegetative stages by a certain time, 

and the management disturbances must be adjusted up or down in terms of probability so 

as to achieve those objectives. 

For example, where initial conditions are that most of a cover type is in older stages, the 

scenario objectives may require that at least half of that cover type is in an immature or 

younger condition within some time span. To accomplish that, some combination of 

management activities that result in moving the vegetation to younger stages must be 

implemented. A set of initial probabilities can be calculated as a starting point for the 

model; after running the model, if the objectives are not achieved, the probabilities can be 

adjusted up or down in successive runs until the desired results are seen, or until it is 

reasonably proven that the desired results are not feasible. 

Prescribed Fire 

Intentional disturbance by setting fire to the vegetation, or by allowing naturally 

occurring fires (wildland fire use) to burn, are treated as “prescribed fire” in these 

models. The result of the fires depends on the cover type and structural stage in which 

they occur. The impacts in some cases are lethal, causing the vegetation to be transferred 

to a “regenerated” stage; or the impacts may be non-lethal, resulting in transfer to a less 

dense stage. In some cases, fire simply maintains the vegetation in its current stage, 

preventing it from moving along its undisturbed successional pathway. 

Timber Harvest 

Harvest disturbances include partial harvests such as thinnings, regeneration harvests, and 

salvage harvests. They are designed to achieve silvicultural objectives and to produce 

salable timber products. The stages to which vegetation units are transferred after a 

harvest disturbance are intended to represent the desired silvicultural conditions that 

prompted the planned activity. For example, a partial harvest on a unit in a stage defined 

as Douglas-fir, immature, greater than 40% canopy closure, may result in the transfer of 

that unit to a stage defined as Douglas-fir, mature, 30%-40% canopy closure. Such a 

disturbance would represent the planned thinning of an overly dense unit by removing the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 10

smaller and younger trees, thereby reducing the density and increasing the average size 

and age of the remaining trees to achieve silvicultural objectives related to increased 

resistance to insects while increasing the commercial timber value of the unit. 

Livestock Grazing 

Grazing by permitted livestock was included in the models as a management disturbance 

due to the effects that grazing has on many aspects of vegetation dynamics. For example, 

in a vegetation unit consisting primarily of seral aspen, grazing may increase the rate at 

which the aspen converts to conifer by eliminating aspen sprouts through browsing while 

leaving the conifer seedlings untouched. 

Mechanical Treatment 

The oak cover type model included mechanical treatment to reduce densities and average 

ages of the vegetation units. Essentially similar to a thinning harvest treatment, there is 

no commercially viable commodity produced by this management activity. The primary 

objective is to reduce frequency and intensity of fires through the construction and 

maintenance of fuel breaks in the urban interface. This treatment will tend to occur 

periodically on the same acres, so was not modeled. Prescribed fire that is used to change 

the structural stage of the stand was modeled. 

Figure B-2. Example of VDDT model showing successional and disturbance pathways. 

SS <40% 5,000

SS <40%

GF

Post-CF 500

GF

Post-CF

M 30-70%

Lo Fuel 15,000

M 30-70%

Lo Fuel

Old

40,000

Old

M 30-70%

Hi Fuel 2,000

M 30-70%

Hi Fuel M >70% 25,000

M >70%

GF

Regen

1,000

GF

Regen

IM >40%

Hi Fuel 1,500

IM >40%

Hi Fuel

IM >40%

Lo Fuel 10,000

IM >40%

Lo Fuel

5 yr

25 yr

10 yr

55 yr

55 yr

40 yr

40 yr

90 yr

Fire

Insects

Harvest
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 11

Development of Alternative Models 

The same models were used for the two geographic areas modeled; however, differences 

in growth potential of the sites were reflected in longer time spans to move between 

classes where appropriate. Where differences existed, the models were modified to 

reflect those differences. The primary occurrence of this was in modeling stable aspen 

stands. Stable aspen in the Overthrust Mountains attains greater size than does aspen in 

the Uintas, so two separate stable aspen pathways were developed. 

Assumptions Used in Model Development 

As discussed above, succession pathways were developed to display how stands would 

progress over time in the absence of disturbance. Disturbances serve to “deflect” acres 

from the successional path, with the affected acres being directed to different endpoints, 

depending upon which disturbance caused the deflection. The general assumptions used 

in model construction are outlined below. 

Aspen: 

Aspen occurs in two distinct types on the Wasatch-Cache: (1) stable or self-regenerating 

stands, and (2) successional stands which occupy a site following disturbance, and which 

will eventually be replaced by conifers in the absence of continued disturbance. Two 

separate models were developed to reflect the differences between these aspen types. 

The stable aspen type regenerates quickly following disturbance by sprouting from the 

root system. Typically, large numbers of seedlings occur on the site and grow rapidly 

into the seedling/sapling and immature classes. Stands reach maturity in approximately 

35 years, and will persist in the absence of disturbance for several decades. Harvest or 

fire or insect/disease caused mortality will move the affected acres back to the grass/forb 

and seedling/sapling stage. Heavy grazing pressure from livestock or wildlife can reduce 

the number of aspen sprouts and delay stand development. To reflect the successional 

and disturbance pathways for this type, a model with 4 stages or classes was developed. 

The classes are: grass/forb/seedling/sapling (GS/SS), Immature (IM), Mature with 40-

70% canopy closure (M4-7), and Mature/Old with greater than 70% canopy closure. The 

time required to move along the successional path between classes is: GS/SS to IM - 10 

Years, and IM to M/O - 25 years. Grazing disturbance will send affected acres into the 

M4-7 class, which then takes 35 to 70 years to move into the M/O. This latter path 

reflects the effects of continued heavy grazing pressure on stand succession. Prescribed 

fire or failed fire suppression will move acres from their current class to the GS/SS class, 

where they begin the successional sequence over again. 

Successional aspen required a different model because of its unique role. We assume that 

conifers, aspen, or both may occupy an acre of land in this type. Aspen typically occurs 

immediately following fire or other major disturbance on acres where it had a predisturbance presence and had a root system to provide sprouting. Rapidly growing root 

sprouts gain early dominance of the site and provide a moderating effect on the site 

conditions that facilitates conifer seedling establishment. Conifers will begin to seed in 

and will continue to increase in numbers and size throughout the life of the stand. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 12

Eventually, without disturbance to reduce the conifer competition and promote aspen 

regeneration, conifers will come to dominate the stand. Over many decades, the shorterlived aspen will die out, and eventually the stand will be converted to conifer. To display 

the effect of this relationship, successional aspen was modeled as an alternate pathway of 

the dominant conifer model (aspen/Douglas-fir, aspen/spruce, aspen/mixed conifer). The 

aspen successional pathway in the model uses the same 4 classes as the stable aspen, but 

has 3 additional classes representing the increasing dominance of conifers. Disturbances 

that occur before aspen has been eliminated from the stand will send affected acres back 

to the aspen pathway. However, after approximately 300 years without stand replacing 

disturbance, acres will move into the conifer pathway. Disturbances occurring after 300 

years will move acres back along the conifer pathway, reflecting elimination of aspen 

from the stand. 

Spruce-fir: 

The spruce-fir successional pathway proceeds from grass/forb (GF) to seedling/sapling 

(SS), immature (IM), mature (M), and ultimately, to old (O). The assumption is that it 

will take 10 years to regenerate and move from GS to SS, 10 years from SS to IM, 60 

years from IM to M and 60 years from M to O. Therefore, an acre of this type will 

require 140 years to reach the oldest class, and will remain there for many decades in the 

absence of disturbance. Disturbances will affect the time it takes to reach a particular 

class, and in some cases, the class that the affected acre moves into. For example, insect 

outbreaks that kill the overstory trees will create a structure of seedlings with a heavy fuel 

loading resulting from the dead trees. Some of the acres from this new class will follow 

the successional path and move toward the endpoint. However, the high fuel loading will 

predispose the stand to wildfires. Fires in this class will tend to be high intensity and will 

create conditions that make regeneration difficult (large openings, potential for soil 

erosion, subject to temperature extremes, etc.) Therefore, regeneration will take 

considerably longer than projected in the normal successional pathway. To reflect this 

possible outcome, insect outbreaks in the model put acres on a pathway to a 

seedling/sapling high fuel class, from which some acres will proceed to the immature 

class, and some will follow the fire path into post-fire GF class. Once in the post-fire GF 

class, acres will remain there for 50 years, reflecting the long regeneration period as a 

result of the high intensity fire. 

Harvest treatment disturbances move acres into various classes, depending upon the level 

of harvest. Regeneration harvest will move acres to the GF class; thinning will move 

acres into a class with a lower canopy closure, and will reduce the length of time needed 

for them to move into the next higher class on the successional pathway. For example, 

partial harvest that occurs within the IM class will direct those acres to a mature, 40-70% 

canopy closure class. From that class, it takes 25 years to reach the M class, instead of 

the 60 years required without thinning. 

Douglas-fir: 

The Douglas-fir model is very similar to the spruce-fir model, with succession 

progressing through the same classes. However, Douglas-fir tends to occur on lower 

quality sites than spruce, so requires a longer time period to reach the old class (155 years 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 13

vs. 130 for spruce). Douglas-fir stands are also susceptible to bark beetle mortality, and 

acres affected by beetles are directed to a high fuel SS class similar to that in the sprucefir model. As with spruce-fir, fires occurring in the high fuel class will tend to be high 

intensity and move the affected acres back to a post-fire GF class. Douglas-fir is more 

tolerant of these conditions than is spruce, so while the effect is to delay regeneration, it 

delays it approximately 25 years, rather than the 50 years in the spruce-fir model. Low or 

moderate intensity prescribed fires can be used to perpetuate Douglas-fir stands, by 

removing excess trees and preparing sites for natural seeding. The model addresses the 

use of fire at every class, with the effects depending upon the severity of the fire. High 

intensity prescribed fire will send acres along a path to GF, while moderate or low 

intensity fires will send acres to less dense classes (such as mature, 30-70% canopy 

closure, low fuel), or cycle them back through their current class. 

Mixed Conifer/Lodgepole: 

The mixed conifer/lodgepole pine model is similar to the other conifer models, with some 

differences based on geographical area and the presence of lodgepole pine. Lodgepole 

pine is a fire-adapted species, and seeds in readily after stand replacing fires, even over 

extensive areas. Therefore, the model displays a relatively rapid progression through 

the GF and SS classes. 

Mixed conifer stands in the Bear River range grow rapidly, moving to the mature class in 

approximately 50 years, and the old class in 145 years. Stands in the mature and old 

classes are susceptible to bark beetles, but the mixed species composition tends to prevent 

stand replacement epidemics. Rather, a beetle attack will affect only a particular species 

while leaving the other species unaffected. The result is a thinning of the canopy closure 

of the stand, a shift in the species composition, and an increased fuel loading from the 

dead trees. To reflect this, the Overthrust model contains a mature, low canopy closure, 

high fuel class (M<4H). Acres reach this class via the insect disturbance path from the 

mature and old classes. Once in this class, acres will either follow the succession 

pathway, or one of several disturbance pathways, including regeneration harvest, salvage, 

or a high intensity fire. In the latter case, the presence of lodgepole pine will rapidly 

regenerate the stand, avoiding the delay experienced by spruce-fir and Douglas-fir stands. 

Mixed conifer stands in the Uinta Mountains grow more slowly, taking approximately 80 

years to reach the mature class versus 50 years for the Bear River Mixed Conifer type. 

This is in part due to the extremely high number of trees per acre that reduces the growth 

of the individual trees. In addition, some acres are so densely regenerated that the stand 

stagnates, or grows very slowly, such that trees 80 years old may be only 4 – 6 inches in 

diameter. Without some disturbance, these stagnated stands will remain in that condition 

for many decades. Therefore the Uinta Mountain Mixed Conifer/Lodgepole pine model 

contains an additional pathway from GF to dense seedling/sapling (SS>4) and ending at a 

stagnated pole class (P>7). Stands will remain in that class unless harvest, prescribed 

fire, or failed fire suppression moves them along a disturbance pathway. Insect affects 

are modeled the same as for the Bear River MC. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 14

Oak: 

Oak is a very simple model compared to those for aspen and conifer forest types. The 

model contains only 3 classes, seedling/sapling, mature, and old. Oak sprouts prolifically 

from the root collar following disturbance, and reaches the old class in only 40 years. 

The disturbances modeled are limited to mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and failed 

fire suppression, with all disturbance pathways leading to the seedling/sapling class. 

Populating the Model 

Once the models were constructed, the existing forest types were assigned to a class in 

the model. Forest GIS layers were used to sort and summarize forest stand data based on 

species, size class and density. The forest stands on the Wasatch-Cache tend toward the 

oldest classes, and have not been significantly affected by disturbances for several 

decades. Therefore, the majority of stands were put in the oldest class that was the 

closest fit to the size class and density, regardless of the actual stand age. Mixed 

conifer/aspen stands were put into classes within the MC model based on the dominant 

species, i.e., conifer/aspen stands in the database (those with conifer representing more 

than half the stand) went into classes within the model that had conifer as the dominant 

species. Aspen/conifer (stands with aspen comprising more than half the stand) went into 

classes with aspen dominant. The database did not have size class and density data for 

oak, so the determination of where in the model those stands were placed was based on 

knowledge of Forest personnel. We know that approximately 4000 acres had burned 

within the last 10 years, so that number of acres was placed in the seedling class. The 

rest of the oak acres were split with approximately 75% put in the oldest class, and 25% 

in the mature. 

Management Prescription Categories (MPCs) 

The array of MPC assignments to the alternatives was modeled in VDDT. See Appendix 

D-1 in this EIS for a complete description of MPCs. 

All National Forest lands were assigned to a particular management prescription category 

based on the capabilities of the land, management opportunities and needs, and the 

management emphasis of the alternative. GIS layers were created for each alternative 

that displayed the MPC assignments. These layers were merged with the vegetation layer 

to determine the number of acres in each MPC for each alternative. The resultant data 

was used to create initial conditions files for each alternative in VDDT that reflected the 

distribution of acres into MPCs. A particular area may be assigned to 5.2 in Alternative 

5, while it may be assigned to 3.2 in Alternative 6, for example. 

In the model, MPCs were sorted into the following 6 groups, with each consisting of 

MPCs that would have similar probabilities of various disturbances or treatments for each 

cover type, age class, alternative and prescription. 

• Group 1 includes all wilderness, and other MPCs that would not allow vegetation 

manipulation (1.x, 2.4,2.7). 

• Group 2 includes backcounty and recreation emphasis (2.6, 4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4, and 

roadless portions of 3.1,3.2,5.1,6.1). 

• Group 3 includes scenic byway and developed recreation MPCs (2.5, 4.5). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 15

• Group 4 includes aquatic and terrestrial habitat emphasis (3.1, 3.2). 

• Group 5 includes forest and range vegetation treatments designed to meet PFC 

(5.1, 6.1). 

• Group 6 includes commercial and economic opportunities from timber 

management and forage production (5.2 and 6.2). 

The number of acres within each management prescription category and where those 

prescriptions are mapped on the land are the primary differences between alternatives. 

For example, Alternative 1 designates no forested lands as MPC 5.2/6.2 (commodity 

emphasis), while Alternative 5 designates a high percentage of forested lands as MPC 

5.2/6.2. Therefore, Alternative 1 would project no commodity-emphasis harvest, while 

Alternative 5 would project a relatively high level of harvest. Other alternatives have 

varying amounts in MPCs that permit harvest or other types of management activities. 

Differences between alternative objectives also are reflected in the probabilities assigned 

to each disturbance. Probabilities were assigned based on the emphasis of the alternative. 

Those alternatives that permit timber harvest have relatively high probabilities for various 

harvest treatments and lower probabilities for other treatments such as prescribed fire. 

Timber harvest probabilities are higher for MPC 5.2 and 6.2 than for MPC 3.2, because 

in the latter case, while harvest may be used to improve or maintain wildlife habitat, it is 

not a regular occurring activity and would generally occur on a smaller scale than in 

MPC 5.2/6.2. 

MPCs that preclude mechanical treatments or where management direction focuses on 

restoration without providing for a sustainable level of outputs were considered 

“unsuited”, and any timber volume removed from them would not accrue to the 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ). MPCs 5.2 and 6.2 emphasize commodity production 

and are labeled as “suited”. Mechanical treatments within unsuited MPCs will accrue 

volume (based on outcome of meeting Desired Future Conditions) toward the Total Sale 

Program Quantity (TSPQ). Mechanical treatments within MPC 5.2 and 6.2 will accrue 

volume (based on outcome of meeting DFCs) towards the Allowable Sale Quantity. 

Limits 

Limits, in a modeling sense, are used to represent physical, ecological, financial, legal, or 

social thresholds that simulation must fall within in order to be considered reasonable or 

appropriate. For example, budgetary requirements to implement an alternative must be 

within reason compared to experienced budget levels and Desired Future Conditions 

attainment must comply with other resource management objectives consistent with a 

given alternative. Models of alternatives had to satisfy numerous types of limits in order 

to be feasible. The most common limits applied were for acres treated in any given time 

period; the number of acres had to be feasible given expected funding levels for the 

alternative. 

Timber Harvest Program 

The model projects outputs in relation to (1) the probability of occurrence assigned in the 

model and (2) the number of acres in a particular class. Harvest levels were estimated by 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 16

the model by running successive iterations with different probabilities to develop a nondeclining harvest level. If additional funding would be required to achieve the output 

level of a particular alternative, that is noted in the discussion of effects in Chapter 3 of 

the EIS. 

Inventory Volume 

Inventory data was pulled from RMRIS for the various vegetation types. The number of 

stands varied considerably within the database, ranging from less than 10 for aspen in the 

Cache to 80 Douglas-fir stands in the Cache, to a maximum of over 1200 lodgepole pine 

stands in the Uinta Mountains. The average volume for all stands in the database that 

met the criteria for location and type was summarized for the Cache and the Wasatch 

portions of the forest. Stand data was sorted based on the predominance of the trees in 

the stand into sapling, medium (majority of basal area in trees 5-8.9 inches), large 

(majority of basal area in trees 9-15.9), and very large (majority of basal area in trees 

16+). The average volume was determined for all the stands within a size class. 

In addition, since some age categories were not represented in the database (primarily the 

younger age classes such as sapling and immature), Stands were modeled with FVS and 

the projected volume at the various ages was determined. Projected data was compared 

with inventory data to determine a reasonable average volume to be used in the model, 

based on personal knowledge of the variety of stand conditions. For example, because 

DF and SF often occur as dense clumps within a patchy mosaic, the projected volumes 

were compared with the actual inventory volumes and reduced to account for the patchy 

nature. For example, the DF projection for the Uinta Mountains showed a volume per 

acre of 36 ccf for stands >130 years old. While that is probably reasonable for a 

continuous stand, it may overstate the actual volume within a mapped polygon due to 

openings of various sizes and uneven distribution of trees. In addition, the model classes 

cover a range of ages, and applying the projected volume to the entire class would 

overstate the volume for those stands near the lower limit of the class. 

Harvest Removal Volume 

Harvest volume was determined as a percentage of the inventory volume for cover type 

and model class. It was decided to use a percentage rather than a volume value, because 

it is easier to discuss harvest levels as a percentage of the standing volume than to try to 

determine the actual volume from a variety of stand conditions. The following 

percentages were used in the model. 

• Regeneration harvest other than spruce fir = 90% 

• Regeneration harvest in spruce fir = 50% (reflects group selection/shelterwood) 

• Heavy Partial harvest = 40% 

• Medium partial harvest = 30% 

• Light partial harvest = 20% 

The VDDT model output displayed the volume harvested by applying the above 

percentages to the inventory volume for each acre that followed the particular harvest 

pathway. For example, if the model determined (based on the probability of disturbance) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 17

that a particular acre of spruce-fir would be harvested for regeneration, 50% of the 

inventoried volume for that acre would be shown as harvest volume. 

Non-Declining Yield 

Non-declining yield was defined as no decrease in yield from one decade to the next that 

exceeded 15%. This level of variation seemed reasonable, given the errors associated 

with the various components that go into determining yields. We know there is a margin 

of error associated with the land classification; a margin of error associated with the 

prescription boundaries, and a margin of error associated with the timber yield data. 

When those three are multiplied together to generate yields for ASQ, the error is 

multiplied, also. If each of those had 95% accuracy, the result would be 86% accurate. 

We therefore concluded that a 15% deviation between decades would not be 

unreasonable when estimating non-declining flow. Successive runs of the model were 

made to determine the long-term trend of a given harvest level. Probabilities were 

adjusted to produce a relatively even flow of timber volume over a 100-year period. 

Projected ASQ levels for each alternative were tested to make certain they reflected a 

non-declining harvest level. 

Long-Term Sustained Yield Capacity 

Long-term sustained yield capacity was calculated by the model and reflects the highest 

uniform wood yield that can be sustained from lands being managed for timber 

production for each alternative. 

Disturbance Probabilities 

Probabilities were determined for each disturbance (management or natural) for each 

model class within the 6 groupings, based on the likelihood of that disturbance occurring 

in that MPC group under a particular alternative. Alternatives that emphasis natural 

rather than management disturbances would have a relatively high probability for 

wildfire and insect disturbances, and low probabilities for harvest and prescribed fire. 

For example, Alternative 1 permits no harvest or prescribed burning, but does permit 

wildland fire use. Therefore, the probability of harvest is 0, and the probability of 

prescribed fire is relatively low (prescribed fire in the model includes both management 

ignition and naturally ignited wildland fires) because the only occurrence would be 

wildland fire use. However, the probability of failed fire suppression was relatively high, 

due to the age and condition of the forests. 

In contrast, Alternative 5 emphasizes economic benefits from timber harvest and grazing. 

A high percentage of the forested lands are within group 6 MPCs permitting a relatively 

high level of timber management. Therefore, the probabilities for harvest disturbances 

are relatively high, and the probability of high intensity prescribed fire are low. With the 

emphasis on management, failed fire suppression is less likely, due to the presence of 

roads and the amount stand structure manipulation that would occur with a harvest 

emphasis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 18

Wildland Fire 

Fire probabilities were estimated using fire frequency and size data collected on the 

Forest over the last 30 years. From this data it was determined that 83% of the fires were 

less than 1 acre in size, 15% were between 1 and 1000 acres, and 2% exceeded 1000 

acres. The number of fires and the size of the average fires were used to estimate the 

frequency of normal, high, and severe fire years. These frequencies were entered into the 

model to help understand potential for the occurrence and size of unplanned fires on the 

Forest. A projection of two severe fire years in a 100 year period was used in the model. 

Although the model does not predict when such years will occur (or if in fact they will 

occur), it is useful to look at the effects on vegetation of large burns in comparison to 

smaller, more frequently occurring fires.

Insects and Disease 

Probabilities for insect attack are dependent upon the age and size of forest stands. 

Older, denser stands of large trees are most susceptible to the important insects, such as 

spruce beetles and mountain pine beetles. Therefore the older structural stages in the 

model received relatively high probabilities, while younger or less dense stages received 

low probabilities. 

Sensitivity Testing the Model 

The VDDT model estimates various outcomes based on probabilities of a particular 

disturbance occurring over time. Determining the sensitivity of the model to these 

disturbances is critical to understanding the reliability of the results in predicting the 

relative differences between alternatives. The model contains 2 stochastic disturbances 

(insects and failed fire suppression) and 2 management disturbances (harvest and 

prescribed fire). To determine how sensitive the model is to each of these disturbances, 

runs were made with the base level disturbance probability and with a 1% increase in the 

probability. The results of the two runs were compared to see how great the difference in 

results for each disturbance. A disparity between the increased probability for a 

particular disturbance and the estimated acres disturbed indicates that the model is 

sensitive to that particular disturbance. If the model is not overly sensitive, a 1% increase 

in a disturbance should result in approximately a 1% increase in projected acres affected 

in the model output. Generally, a 1% increase in probability resulted in slightly less than 

a 1% increase in disturbed acres for all 4 disturbances tested, when comparing individual 

decade results. Over the 10 decades projected, the increase was approximately 1%. 

Tables B-2a through B-2d presents the results of the sensitivity testing for disturbances. 

The sensitivity of the model to the initial conditions was also tested, to make certain the 

projected results were not dependent upon the number of acres in a particular class at the 

beginning of the model run. The procedure to test initial conditions was to select a class 

that contained a large acreage of a particular species, remove a percentage of the acres in 

the class and redistribute them equally to the other classes in the model. The model was 

then run and the distribution of acres over time reviewed to make sure the acres moved 

through the model in the expected manner during the decades projected. If the acres had 

built up in a particular class instead of moving through, it would have indicated that the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 19

results were dependent upon the initial conditions. To test the model, spruce-fir in the 

Uinta Mountains was selected, because it has the largest acreage in the old class, and no 

acres in the two youngest classes. The initial conditions were reset by removing 20% of 

the acres from the old class and distributing those acres uniformly to the remaining 4 

classes (GF, SS, IMM, MAT). The model was then run for 100 years to see if the acres 

moved through the classes over time. Table B-3 displays the results of this test. Acres 

did not accumulate in a particular class, but moved through the classes in accordance 

with the succession pathways. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 20

 Table B-2a. Sensitivity Test Results for Harvest Probabilities. 

Decade SS IMM MAT OLD Total

1 41 1,315 11,469 4,357 17,183

2 41 1,274 11,634 3,042 15,991

3 123 1,973 11,757 3,453 17,307

4 123 2,220 9,825 2,631 14,799

5 82 2,713 10,688 2,713 16,197

6 41 3,289 8,715 1,809 13,853

7 164 3,823 8,386 1,727 14,100

8 0 3,864 8,879 1,932 14,676

9 0 3,700 7,235 3,823 14,758

10 41 4,152 9,003 3,289 16,484

Decade SS IMM MAT OLD Total

1 41 1,315 11,469 4,316 17,142

2 41 1,274 11,551 3,042 15,909

3 123 1,973 11,716 3,453 17,265

4 123 2,179 9,825 2,672 14,799

5 82 2,713 10,524 2,754 16,073

6 0 3,289 8,756 1,809 13,853

7 164 3,823 8,468 1,809 14,265

8 0 3,823 8,797 1,932 14,552

9 0 3,700 7,153 3,782 14,634

10 0 4,111 9,044 3,248 16,402

Decade SS IMM MAT OLD Total

1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0095 1.0024

2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0071 1.0000 1.0052

3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0035 1.0000 1.0024

4 1.0000 1.0189 1.0000 0.9846 1.0000

5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0156 0.9851 1.0077

6 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 0.9953 1.0000 1.0000

7 1.0000 1.0000 0.9903 0.9545 0.9885

8 #DIV/ 0! 1.0108 1.0093 1.0000 1.0085

9 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0115 1.0109 1.0084

10 #DIV/ 0! 0.9955 1.0127 1.0050

Percent Change in Results

Resulting From 1% Change in Probability

Sensitivity Test of Harvest Disturbance

One Percent Increase in Disturbance Probability

Sensitivity Test of Harvest Disturbance

Base Level Disturbance Probability
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 21

Table B-2b. Sensitivity Test Results for Prescribed Fire. 

Decade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 123 3,206 2,220 5,550

2 123 2,754 1,521 4,399

3 123 2,590 1,973 4,686

4 123 3,042 1,439 4,604

5 247 2,425 1,480 4,152

6 206 2,590 1,439 4,234

7 206 2,097 987 3,289

8 247 2,631 1,069 3,946

9 329 2,384 1,110 3,823

10 370 1,891 1,192 3,453

Dec ade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 123 3206 2220 5550

2 123 2754 1562 4440

3 123 2590 1973 4686

4 123 3083 1439 4645

5 247 2425 1480 4152

6 206 2672 1480 4357

7 206 2097 987 3289

8 247 2713 1069 4029

9 329 2425 1110 3864

10 411 1891 1233 3535

Dec ade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0270 1.0093

3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

4 1.0000 1.0135 1.0000 1.0089

5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

6 1.0000 1.0317 1.0286 1.0291

7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

8 1.0000 1.0313 1.0000 1.0208

9 1.0000 1.0172 1.0000 1.0108

10 1.1111 1.0000 1.0345 1.0238

Percent Change in Results

Resulting From 1% Change in Probability

Sensitivity Test Rx Fire

Base Level Disturbance Probability

Sensitivity Test Rx Fire

One Percent Increase in Disturbance Probability
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 22

Table B-2c. Sensitivity Test Results for Insects. 

Decade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 0 6,575 5,013 11,588

2 0 6,780 3,205 9,985

3 0 7,684 3,164 10,848

4 82 8,917 2,794 11,793

5 0 11,218 3,739 14,957

6 41 9,616 2,507 12,164

7 41 10,314 3,671 14,026

8 123 9,164 3,287 12,574

9 0 7,479 4,520 11,999

10 82 7,027 5,465 12,574

Decade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 0 6,616 5,054 11,670

2 0 6,862 3,205 10,067

3 0 7,766 3,123 10,889

4 82 8,999 2,794 11,875

5 0 11,424 3,739 15,163

6 41 9,657 2,507 12,205

7 41 10,396 2,712 13,149

8 123 9,287 3,287 12,697

9 0 7,602 4,561 12,163

10 82 7,109 5,342 12,533

Decade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 #DIV/ 0! 1.0062 1.0082 1.0071

2 #DIV/ 0! 1.0121 1.0000 1.0082

3 #DIV/ 0! 1.0107 0.9870 1.0038

4 1.0000 1.0092 1.0000 1.0070

5 #DIV/ 0! 1.0184 1.0000 1.0138

6 1.0000 1.0043 1.0000 1.0034

7 1.0000 1.0080 0.7388 0.9375

8 1.0000 1.0134 1.0000 1.0098

9 #DIV/ 0! 1.0164 1.0091 1.0137

10 1.0000 1.0117 0.9775 0.9967

Percent Change in Results

Resulting From 1% Change in Probability

Sensitivity Test Insects

Base Level Disturbance Probability

Sensitivity Test Insects

One Percent Increase in Disturbance Probability
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 23

Table B-2d. Sensitivity Test Results for Failed Fire Suppression. 

Decade IMM MAT OLD Total

1 41 0 41 1,603 5,383 7,068

2 247 329 1,192 17,464 56,584 75,816

3 41 41 329 4,849 8,506 13,766

4 0 0 0 1,890 2,383 4,273

5 0 0 123 2,424 1,644 4,191

6 164 329 1,644 29,299 26,053 57,489

7 0 82 41 1,808 1,274 3,205

8 0 41 329 4,150 2,630 7,150

9 0 82 329 6,205 3,863 10,479

10 0 82 205 4,233 3,616 8,136

Decade GF SS IMM MAT OLD Total

1 41 0 41 1,603 5,547 7,232

2 247 329 1,192 17,505 56,790 76,063

3 41 41 329 4,849 8,547 13,807

4 0 0 0 1,890 2,383 4,273

5 0 0 123 2,466 1,644 4,233

6 164 329 1,644 29,340 26,094 57,571

7 0 82 41 1,808 1,274 3,205

8 0 41 329 4,150 2,589 7,109

9 0 82 370 6,205 3,904 10,561

10 0 82 205 4,233 3,616 8,136

Decade GF SS IMM MAT OLD Total

1 1.0000 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0000 1.0305 1.0232

2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0023 1.0036 1.0033

3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0048 1.0030

4 #DIV/ 0! #DIV/ 0! #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

5 #DIV/ 0! #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0173 1.0000 1.0100

6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0014 1.0016 1.0014

7 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

8 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9844 0.9943

9 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.1246 1.0000 1.0106 1.0078

10 #DIV/ 0! 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Percent Change in Results

Resulting From 1% Change in Probability

Sensitivity Test Failed Fire Suppression

Base Level Disturbance Probability

Sensitivity Test Failed Fire Suppression

One Percent Increase in Disturbance Probability
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 24

Table B-3. Initial Conditions Sensitivity Test Results. 

Outcomes From the Modeling Process 

The VDDT model projects a wide variety of outcomes from the different alternatives and 

other model formulations such as baseline and sensitivity runs. These outcomes can be 

used to gain an understanding and to discuss effects of the alternatives related to a wide 

range of resource areas and social/economic considerations. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations (36 CFR 219.12(f) (9)) require 

that each alternative indicate 

• the conditions and uses that would result from long-term application of the 

alternative; 

• the goods and services to be produced, and the timing and flow of these resource 

outputs together with associated costs and benefits; 

• standards and guidelines for resource management; and 

• the purpose of the proposed management direction. 

Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the Environmental Impact Statement along with the 

Proposed Forest Plan meet the requirements as listed above for the NFMA. 

Acres by Class by Cover Type 

The formulation of the VDDT model is driven by how forested vegetation changes over 

time with and without management actions being applied. The primary output from the 

modeling for effects analysis is the acres of the different forest vegetation structures over 

Decade GF SS IMM MAT OLD

0 6654 6654 12902 14626 95415

1 9038 7723 17915 26008 77950

2 11176 9490 23914 34719 60856

3 8134 11997 31228 41499 48980

4 2916 9490 41460 47787 42078

5 1602 4395 48447 54032 37352

6 2793 3368 51159 58879 30818

7 16805 3614 47460 60813 14915

8 1561 17421 43021 67222 15532

9 1109 2752 50953 72482 19723

10 12162 2341 41626 72361 14873

Spruc e-fir Initial Conditions

Sensitivity Test Results
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 25

time by cover type. This information is critical for understanding habitat conditions for 

wildlife, insect and wildfire hazards, species composition, integrating ecological 

processes and predicting short- and long-term effects. Table B-4 displays sample output 

from the VDDT model. The change in acreage within the structural stages between 

decades reflects the effect of prescribed burning approximately 6000 acres each year. 

Table B-4. Distribution of Overthrust Mountain Stable Aspen Acres Over 100 Years. 

Decade SS IMM MAT 

0 0 844 101,038

1 55,894 6,236 37,804

2 6,885 67,521 23,904

3 1,234 73,822 21,890

4 30,269 38,519 26,307

5 37,869 37,317 18,058

6 7,210 72,328 16,304

7 1,072 73,530 19,227

8 54,985 23,644 19,032

9 14,290 66,774 14,745

10 2,079 79,798 12,504

Estimation of Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 

The sustainable level of timber harvest volume from suited acres is referred to as ASQ 

and the National Forest Management Act requires estimation of this outcome. Suited 

acres are defined by MPC and were discussed above. 

Estimates of the timber volume generated from mechanical treatments on suited acres 

were included in the VDDT model to estimate ASQ. Yield estimates for the activities 

within Management Actions, discussed above, were the basis for determining ASQ. The 

objective of non-declining flow was included in all alternatives. Table B-5 displays the 

ASQ by Alternative for the Forest. 

Estimation of Total Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) 

The level of timber harvest volume from forested acres is referred to as Total Sale 

Program Quantity and the National Forest Management Act requires estimation of this 

outcome. This total volume amount includes the ASQ. 

Estimates of the timber volume generated from mechanical treatments on forested acres 

were included in the VDDT model to estimate the modeling portion of Total Sale 

Program Quantity (TSPQ). Yield estimates for the activities within Management 

Actions, discussed above, were the basis for determining the modeled portion of TSPQ. 

It is important to note that any volume in excess of the ASQ level is potential volume that 

is dependent upon other resource needs and would be offered only if opportunities arose, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 26

and on an irregular basis. Table B-4 displays the model-generated portion of Total Sale 

Program Quantity by Alternative as calculated by VDDT. Additional volume estimates 

from salvage, post and poles, and firewood were added to the model estimates to 

determine the final amount of Total Sale Program Quantity in the Forest Plan. 

Table B-5. ASQ And TSPQ Estimates From VDDT For All Alternatives 

In Millions Of Cubic Feet (mmcf) and Millions of Board Feet (mmbf) 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt.6 Alt.7 

Allowable Sale Quantity mmcf/yr 0 0 .3 .67 1.3 .40 .40 

Allowable Sale Quantity mmbf/yr 0 0 1.6 3.3 6.2 2.0 2.0 

Total Sale Program Quantity mmcf/yr 0 .4 .6 1.28 1.55 .81 .90 

Total Sale Program Quantity mmbf/yr 0 2.1 3.2 6.2 7.4 3.9 4.5 

Sagebrush Modeling 

A simple tool was used to model sagebrush succession by alternative. The following 

assumptions were made based on estimations of the rate of succession from low canopy 

cover (0-5%) to moderate canopy cover (6-15%), and from moderate canopy cover to 

high canopy cover (>15%). In addition estimations were made on the amount of juniper 

(and pinyon-juniper) communities that were historically maintained in a sagebrush stage 

of succession from historical, natural fires. 

First, it was assumed that 90 percent of the acres treated in this type during any decade, 

were sagebrush communities with high canopy cover. Ten percent of the communities 

treated were juniper communities that now occur on what historically was dominated by 

sagebrush. Not all existing juniper communities occur on these sites. We estimate that 

50 percent of the juniper communities occupy rocky sites that did not support sagebrush 

and did not have fine fuels to carry fire as frequently as those stands that did have 

sagebrush and associated fuels. An of the 50 percent that does currently occupy sites that 

are typically dominated by sagebrush, only half of those acres (19,225 acres) were 

maintained in a sagebrush state on a continuous basis. 

It was also assumed that, on the average, sagebrush communities reach high canopy 

cover within 20 years of disturbance. And that in each decade, 50 percent of the 

moderate canopy cover moved into the high cover class stage. All treated acres would 

move to the low canopy cover stage. 

Various biological, environmental, and management characteristics and factors play a 

role in sagebrush succession. An intrinsic variability in sagebrush communities is caused 

by the different habitats and life history of the 8-9 different sagebrush taxa that occur on 

the Forest. Silver sagebrush and spiked big sagebrush sprout following disturbance, 

while the others do not. Some, including low sagebrush and some mountain big 

sagebrush communities occur on rocky soils that naturally do not have a high amount of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 27

fuels to adequately carry fire. Some stands have historically been overgrazed, which has 

resulted in low fuels and a subsequent inability to carry fires as historically occurred. 

The following tables illustrate how this modeling was completed. Given the natural 

variability in these ecosystems and the probability that some assumptions are not correct, 

the results of these models are only indicators of how the different alternatives would 

affect change in the sagebrush type. 

The desired condition for Sagebrush and for Pinyon-Juniper communities is as follows: 

• Sagebrush: 208,800 acres 

• Pinyon-Juniper: 57,700 acres 

Currently there are 189,600 acres of sagebrush communities and 75,900 acres of pinyonjuniper communities. As noted above, of these p-j communities, approximately 50 

percent occur on sites where sagebrush once was able to maintain dominance through 

frequent natural fires (every 20 to 30 years). And of these acres, with a 50-200 year fire 

frequency for p-j, it was assumed that only half of this was actually dominated by 

sagebrush (25% of total p-j acres or 19,225 acres) at any given time. It is these acres, in 

the desired condition (Forest Plan, Chapter 4) that are moved back toward dominance by 

sagebrush through actions (primarily prescribed fire). This model shows how those and 

the following desired conditions are addressed by alternative. It was assumed that 10% 

of the treatment acres (e.g. 1000 acres of 10000 acre treated - Alternatives 3 and 4) would 

focus on returning pinyon-juniper to sagebrush; that portion that historically was 

controlled by fire and dominated by sagebrush. 

The desired condition for cover classes in sagebrush are as follows: 

• Low Cover (0-5% sagebrush cover) = 5-15 percent of total acres 

• Moderate Cover (6-15%) = 30-50 percent of total sagebrush acres. 

• High Cover (>15%) = 30-50 percent of total sagebrush acres. 

• Acres of P-J that should be Sagebrush = 0-5% of total acres 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 28

Table B-6. Existing and Future Condition of Sagebrush Cover Type by Alternative 

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

Existing Condition 

Juniper and Pinyon-Juniper 76,900 76,900 76,900 76,900 76,900 76,900 76,900

Sagebrush 189,600 189,600 189,600 189,600 189,600 189,600 189,600

Total Acres of Sagebrush and PJ 266,500 266,500 266,500 266,500 266,500 266,500 266,500

Existing Condition 

Acres in Grass Forb Stage 9,480 9,480 9,480 9,480 9,480 9,480 9,480

Acres in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 47,400 47,400 47,400 47,400 47,400 47,400 47,400

Acres in High Canopy Cover Stage 132,720 132,720 132,720 132,720 132,720 132,720 132,720

Acres that should be dominated by 

sagebrush that are dominated by juniper. 19,225 19,225 19,225 19,225 19,225 19,225 19,225

Total Acres of Sagebrush and PJ that 

should be dominated by sagebrush 208,825 208,825 208,825 208,825 208,825 208,825 208,825

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64%

Percent of sagebrush type that is

dominated by juniper 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

Acres Treated per decade 0 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 30,000

Decade 1 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 75% 58% 66% 71% 71% 66% 62%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 7% 8% 9% 9% 8% 8%

Decade 2 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 8% 27% 18% 13% 13% 18% 22%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 83% 48% 66% 74% 74% 66% 57%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 5% 7% 8% 8% 7% 6%

Decade 3 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 4% 33% 18% 11% 11% 18% 26%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 87% 45% 66% 76% 76% 66% 55%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 3% 6% 8% 8% 6% 5%

Decade 4 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 2% 36% 19% 10% 10% 19% 27%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 89% 44% 66% 78% 78% 66% 55%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 2% 5% 7% 7% 5% 3%
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B1 - 29

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

Decade 5 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 1% 37% 19% 10% 10% 19% 28%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 90% 44% 67% 78% 78% 67% 56%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 0% 4% 7% 7% 4% 2%

Decade 6 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 0% 38% 19% 10% 10% 19% 28%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 90% 43% 68% 79% 79% 68% 57%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 0% 3% 6% 6% 3% 1%

Decade 7 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 0% 38% 19% 10% 10% 19% 29%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 91% 43% 69% 80% 80% 69% 57%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 0% 3% 6% 6% 3% 0%

Decade 8 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 0% 38% 19% 10% 10% 19% 29%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 91% 43% 70% 80% 80% 70% 57%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 0% 2% 5% 5% 2% 0%

Decade 9 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 0% 38% 19% 10% 10% 19% 29%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 91% 43% 71% 81% 81% 71% 57%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 0% 1% 5% 5% 1% 0%

Decade 10 

Percent in Grass Forb Stage 0% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 14%

Percent in Moderate Canopy Cover Stage 0% 38% 19% 10% 10% 19% 29%

Percent in High Canopy Cover Stage 91% 43% 71% 81% 81% 71% 57%

Percent of sagebrush type that is 

currently dominated by juniper 9% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-1 

APPENDIX B - 2 

Terrestrial Wildlife Diversity and Viability 

Introduction/Background 

Diversity and viability of species are important factors that must be considered in Forest 

Plans. Their relationship and where they are covered in law and implementing 

regulations can be confusing. A draft of the “White Paper on Managing Viable 

Populations” (USDA 2000f) gives the following on diversity and viability and how they 

relate and are implemented in Forest Planning: 

“The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its implementing regulations 

require National Forests to provide habitat in order to “maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the 

planning area.” (36CFR219.19). Forest Service manual direction extends this 

mandate to include vascular plants. 

“The NFMA regulations define a viable population as “one which has the 

estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its 

continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.” The regulations 

direct that “habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of 

reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those 

individuals can interact with others in the planning area.” The planning area is 

defined as the Forest Service lands included in the Forest Plan. 

“While NFMA regulations focus on species viability, the Act does not use the 

term “viability.” Rather, it directs that management of National Forests “provide 

for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and 

capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use 

objectives.” (NFMA Sec.6 (g)(3)(B) ). Thus, the viability of individual species 

must be considered within the context of overall diversity of plant and animal 

species, and the multiple-use objectives for the planning area.” 

Neither NFMA nor the 1982 Planning Regulations give direction on how to address 

viability. The draft White Paper On Managing for Population Viability (USDA Forest 

Service, 2002f) the relationship of Forest Service Viability Evaluations to Population 

Viability (PVA) is discussed. Viability evaluations center on ecological sustainability 

while PVA is species specific. 

Our approach is based on changes in ecological characteristics of the landscape (e.g. 

ecosystem composition, structure and pattern rather than on demographic characteristics 

of individual species. Sufficient demographic information for assessing viability is not 

available for most species. An ecosystem, or coarse filter, approach is appropriate at 

Forest level scales. Such an approach is a recognized method for addressing issues of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-2 

biodiversity, species-community relationships, and insuring the replication of habitats 

across the forest scale that will include historic ecosystem processes. Kaufmann et al. 

1994 states, “’The concept (coarse filter) assumes that a representative array of 

communities will contain the majority of species and that an array of cover types in an 

ecoregion will include the appropriate vegetation mosaic”. 

Ecological Context 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest falls within two provinces and 3 sections as 

described in “Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section Descriptions” (McNab, 

1994). The majority of the Forest lies within the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe – 

Open Woodland – Coniferous Forest – Alpine Meadow Province (Province M331). 

Within this province, Forest lands are included in two sections, the Overthrust Mountain 

(Section M331D) and the Uinta Mountains (Section M331E). The Stansbury Mountains 

fall in Section 341A (Bonneville Basin) of the Intermountain Semi-Desert and Desert 

Province. 

The Overthrust Mountain Section consists of the southern portion of the Bear River 

Range and the Wasatch Range. The section is made up of steep rugged mountains with 

narrow to broad valleys. Active fault lines still exist, especially on the Wasatch Range. 

Kuchler vegetation types include lodgepole pine-subalpine forest, and Douglas-fir forest 

with outer fringes of sagebrush steppe. Mountain mahogany-oak scrub surrounds 

Douglas-fir forest. Vegetation types depend on a combination of altitude, latitude, slope, 

exposure and prevailing winds. Apline tundra at the highest elevations come down to the 

subalpine zone with spruce-fir forests, the montane zone with ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir forests, and on down to the sagebrush type at the lower elevevations. Faunal 

species including bison, bighorn sheep, and large carnivors such as the gray wolf and 

grizzly bear have been extirpated from the Section due mostly to the activities of man. 

Bighorn sheep have since been reintroduced to some areas. Other fauna typical of the 

Section include elk, mule deer, moose, cougar, and black bear. Habitats within the 

Section support a diverse avifauna of migratory birds, waterfowl, and grouse species. 

There are also a variety of amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. 

The Uinta Mountain Section consists of the north and western slopes of the Uinta 

Mountain Range (the south and eastern slopes are administered by the Ashley National 

Forest). The Uintas were formed by an anticlinal uplift and are the largest east-west 

running range in the United States. Glacial processes have done much to form the 

present mountain range at higher elevations along with freezing, thawing, water erosion, 

and wind at all elevations. Vegetation types, from higher to lower elevations, include 

alpine tundra, Englemann spruce, spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine meadow, 

Douglas-fir, aspen, mountain big sagebrush, oak and mountain brush, pinyon-juniper, 

Wyoming big sagebrush, and desert shrub. The oak is generally found on the western 

portions of the range with pinyon-juniper and sagebrush steppe on the eastern portion. 

Big game animals include elk, mule deer, moose throughout the area, and antelope at 

lower elevations. Bighorn sheep have been reintroduced and mountain goats have been 

introduced. Grizzly bear have been extirpated. Lynx and wolverine, if they still exist are 

in very low numbers. Other predators include cougar, black bear, coyote, bobcat, red fox 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-3 

and pine marten. The diverse habitats support a diverse avifauna of migratory birds, 

some waterfowl, and grouse species including the white-tail ptarmigan. Many species of 

raptors use the area including red-tailed hawks, northern goshawk, harriers, kestrel, great 

horned owls, and golden eagles. Bald eagles winter at lower elevations. 

The Stansbury Range is in the Bonneville Basin Section (341A) of the Intermountain 

Semi-Desert and Desert Province. The Stansburys are one of several ranges in the 

province running north-south which are separated by broad sediment filled valleys. The 

range was formed by faulting and erosion has been a main factor if forming their present 

character. Large alluvial fans have formed at the mouths of most canyons. Elevations in 

the province are generally between 4,000 and 8,000 feet, although Deseret Peak tops out 

at 11,031 feet. Vegetation types include desert shrub, shrub-grass, and woodland 

vegetation. Woodlands consist of juniper-pinyon especially on the west side and south 

end of the range. The eastern slope is dominated by sagebrush at lower elevations, with 

aspen and Douglas fir on the higher sites. The area evolved to support bison, antelope, 

desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, large populations of lagomorphs and sage grouse. 

Major predators included grizzly bear, cougar, wolves, and coyotes. Grizzly bear, 

wolves, desert bighorn, and bison have been extirpated. None have been reintroduced to 

the Stansbury Range. Elk have moved into the Range. Many species of avifauna use the 

area. Besides the neotropical migrants, there are peregrine falcons, goshawks, golden 

eagles, wintering bald eagles and other raptors. 

Process 

We defined species-at-risk (SAR) as, “Federally listed endangered, threatened, candidate, 

and proposed species and other species for which loss of viability, including reduction in 

distribution or abundance, is a concern within the plan area. Other species-at-risk may 

include sensitive species and state listed species.” 

Species at risk are not management indicator species but species of concern that the 

Forest will watch as groups in relation to habitat changes. For most of the species the 

Forest will work with other agencies in gaining more information on presence and 

distribution.

For the purpose of identifying species-at-risk the Forest used the following definition: 

 For the Wasatch-Cache Plan revision the term “species-at-risk includes: 

-Fish and Wildlife Service endangered, threatened, candidate, proposed 

species. 

-Regional Forester designated sensitive species. 

 

 Also considered for inclusion as species-at-risk were species identified by: 

 -The Nature Conservancy as G1, G2, and G3. 

 -State Natural Heritage programs as S1 and S2. 

 -Partners In Flight species of concern. 

 -The Forest that do not appear on any other lists. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-4 

In some cases species may not be considered at-risk. Some species listed as S1 or S2 

should be more appropriately addressed as species that may be at risk, but little is known 

about their distribution patterns or abundance. For these species, the emphasis will be to 

work with states and other governmental agencies to gather additional information 

relative to their rarity, habitat associations and other information. 

Species for which viability is of concern were identified using the following lists: 

Federally Listed and Proposed (P), Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Candidate (C) 

Species And Habitat in Utah by County (USDI 2002b); the Utah State Sensitive Species 

List and Natural Heritage Database (UDWR 1998a, 2002) considering S1 and S2 and G1, 

G2, and G3 species as ranked by the Utah Natural Heritage Program and the Nature 

Conservancy; the Intermountain Region Forest Service Sensitive Species List (USDA 

1994b); the Wyoming Species of Special Concern (Wyoming, 2001), and the Utah and 

Wyoming Partners in Flight Priority Species List (UDWR 1999a, Wyoming 2001). For 

consideration in analysis, the species listed were then evaluated for potential habitat or 

occurrence on the Forest, and for any known historic or current sightings. Only species 

on or in close proximity to the Wasatch-Cache NF are addressed in this paper. For all 

species, maps were generated from the Utah Natural Heritage Database program (UDWR 

2002), if available. For descriptions of rankings, refer to the referenced list. It is also 

noted that the Natural Heritage Database is not exhaustive, and that other species 

occurrences are known and were considered. Only rare species were considered as it was 

assumed that species that were either more abundant or generalists in terms of habitat 

requirements would not be of a concern from a viability perspective. A list of species to 

be considered was generated as follows, and includes their relevant rankings. Viability 

for plants, and aquatic vertebrates was analyzed under separate processes and are 

included in the project file for the Revised Forest Plan. A total 68 species including 32 

species of invertebrates, 2 amphibians, 3 reptiles, 22 birds and 9 mammals are listed for 

the Wasatch-cache National Forest. 

The SAR were then divided into coarse filter species and fine filter species. Fine filter 

species are those that are tracked individually. In general, these included the globally 

imperiled species that have been labeled as G1, G2, G3, Federally listed E, T, C, P 

species, and some Forest Service Sensitive species. Coarse filter species were grouped 

by the vegetation or habitat type that they are associated with so that common goals, 

standards and guidelines can be used for the species group. The final step in the process 

is to identify monitoring that is practical and within expected budgets to track the species 

or species groups. The figure below illustrates the process. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-5 

Figure B2 – 1. Terrestrial Species Viability Process 

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES BIODIVERSITY

Forest Species List 

Species at Risk 

 Coarse Filter Fine Filter 

 (globally secure, locally (globally imperiled: G1G2G3, 

 at risk: S1S2,PIF, some S) TECP*, some S) 

 

 

 

 Group Individual Species 

 (By Risk, Ecological Factors, Narrative

 Or Habitat) 

 

 

 Develop Conservation Develop Conservation 

 Measures Measures

 Evaluate Effects of Evaluate Effects of 

 Alternatives Alternatives 

*Two candidate species have been included in the coarse filter. These are the mountain 

plover and yellow-billed cuckoo. The reasoning is that so little of their habitat exists on 

Forest and they are covered in detail in BA’s for proposed projects within their habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-6 

VERTEBRATES

Species-at-Risk 

The species in the following table have been identified as SAR from the Forest vertebrate 

species list which contains about 300 species including 30 fish, 6 amphibians, 18 reptiles, 

74 mammals, and 190 birds using the criteria discussed under process, above. Fish and 

amphibians are covered in Appendix B3 and plants are covered in Appendix B4. 

Table B2 – 1. Vertebrate Species at risk for Viability 

Species 

Common Name 

Primary Habitat on 

Wasatch-Cache NF 

Federal 

Ranking 

State 

(UT/WY) 

Ranking 

Global 

Ranking 

 

Reptiles

Common 

gartersake 

Generalist, near water None UT S2S3 G5 

Milksnake Generalist None UT S2S3 G5 

Rubber boa Generalist None UT S2S3 G5 

 

Birds

Bald eagle Cottonwood Riparian Threatened UT 

Threatened; 

WY S2BS3N 

G4 

Black rosy finch Alpine None UT PIF G5 

Black swift Waterfalls/Canyons None UT PIF, S1 G4 

Boreal owl Spruce/fir FS Sensitive WY S2 G5 

Brewer’s 

sparrow 

Sage Steppe None UT PIF 

WY S3B,SZN 

G5 

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird 

Riparian/Aspen/ 

Mountain shrub 

None UT PIF G5 

Evening 

grosbeak 

Conifer/Aspen None UT S2 G5 

Flammulated 

owl 

Aspen/Conifer FS Sensitive UT S3S4 G4 

Gray Catbird Lowland Riparian None UT S2 G5 

Lewis’ 

woodpecker 

Ponderosa Pine/ Mixed 

Conifer 

None UT PIF,S2 G5 

Mountain plover High plains and arid 

regions 

Proposed 

Threatened 

UT S1BSZN 

WY 

S2BSZN 

UT,WY PIF 

G2 

Northern 

goshawk 

Conifer/Aspen FS Sensitive UT S3 

WY 

S23B,S4N 

G4 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-7 

Osprey Riparian None UT S1S2B G5 

Peregrine falcon Canyons/Cliffs FS 

Sensitive* 

UT 

Endangered 

WY S2N 

G4 

Sage grouse Sage Steppe None UT S2 G5 

Sage sparrow Sage Steppe None UT PIF 

WY PIF 

Sandhill crane Riparian None UT S1 G5 

Sharp-tailed 

grouse 

Native shrub- grassland FS Sensitive UT S1S2 G4 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

Spruce-fir/Conifer FS Sensitive UT S2,PIF 

WY S3 

G5 

Virginia’s 

warbler 

Mountain Shrub None UT PIF 

WY S2B,SZN 

G5 

Williamson’s 

sapsucker 

Conifer/Aspen None UT PIF,S2 

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Moderately dense 

thickets and woods 

Candidate UT SHB G5 

 

Mammals

Dwarf shrew Alpine/scree None UT S1 

WY S2S3 

G4 

Fringed myotis Caves/Mountain shrub None UT S2 G5 

Idaho pocket 

gopher 

Shallow rocky soils None UT S1S2 

WY S2?1

G4 

Canada Lynx Conifer Threatened UT S1 

WY S1 

G5 

American Pine 

marten 

Conifer None UT S2 G5 

Townsend’s bigeared bat Caves/Riparian FS Sensitive UT S2 G4 

Western red bat Caves/Riparian None UT S1 G5 

Western smallfooted myotis Caves/Mountain shrub None UT S2 G5 

Wolverine Tundra/Coniferous 

Forest 

FS Sensetive UT S1 G4 

* = Recently delisted from threatened under ESA, considered as FS sensitive. 

Many of the species listed are widespread in areas outside of the Forest and Utah, and 

thus may not be affected by other management practices and threats. 

 

1

? = unknown 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-8 

Species Groups (coarse filter) 

Species selected as species of concern from a viability perspective were grouped into 

habitat associations. Groupings were selected to facilitate an ecosystem sustainability or 

landscape scale approach. Table B2-2 indicates habitats used by the species with the 

primary habitat analized shown with the letter “P.” 

 

Some species, such as the American redstart, whose range has been found to be a fringe 

area on the Forest have not been included in detail as a group member. Habitat and 

individuals will benefit and be protected through standards and guidelines that affect 

other species within the group. 

Table B2- 2 Species-at-Risk and Habitats Used 

Species 

Aspen Tall Forb Riparian Aquatic Sage Steppe Alpine Snags Caves/ Mines Conifer Pinyon/ Juniper Waterfall Cliffs Generalist 

 

Black rosy finch P 

Black swift P 

Boreal owl X X X P 

Brewer’s sparrow P 

Broad-tailed 

 hummingbird 

X P X 

Evening grosbeak P 

Flammulated owl P X X X 

Gray catbird X P 

Lewis’ woodpecker X X P X 

Mountain plover P 

Osprey X P 

Peregrine falcon X P 

Sage grouse X P 

Sage sparrow P 

Sandhill crane P 

Sharp-tailed grouse P 

Three-toed 

 woodpecker 

 P X 

Virginia’s warbler P 

Williamson’s 

 sapsucker 

 P X 

Yellow-billed 

 cuckoo 

 P 

 

Dwarf shrew P X 

Fringed myotis X P X X 

Idaho pocket 

 gopher 

 P 

American pine 

 marten 

 X P 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-9 

Townsend’s big- 

 eared bat 

 X X P 

Western red bat X X P 

Western small- 

 footed myotis 

 X X P 

Wolverine X X X X P 

 

Common 

 gatersnake 

 P 

Milksnake P 

Rubber boa P 

Coarse Filter Vertebrate Species/Habitat Summaries 

Aspen 

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) G4, UT-S3,S4. Becoming increasingly 

common as surveys increase, this is an S3S4 species and originally listed as 

sensitive with the Region 4 USFS list (USDA Forest Service, 1994b). Known to 

occur on the Wasatch-Cache through project surveys, primarily using aspen and 

conifer stands with snags. Insectivorous species. Threats would be from loss of 

snags or from nesting disturbance. 

Tall Forb 

Broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus) G5, UT-PIF. Utah is 

near the northern extent of the breeding range, and the species is common to Utah. 

It winters primarily in Mexico. It nests primarily in riparian and adjacent habitats 

(aspen and oak) both in lower valleys and higher elevations, with nests above 

ground. Feeds on nectar of wildflowers. Though common throughout the west, 

the species may be in decline in Utah (UDWR, 1999a). Threats to this species 

would include loss of riparian habitat and lack of wildflowers, among others. 

Riparian 

Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) G5, UT-S2. Known to north-central 

Utah, nesting in riparian shrubs and trees from 4,500 to 7,000 feet. Utah is the far 

western edge of the species’ occurrence (Peterson 1990). It feeds on insects and 

seeds/fruits (USDA Forest Service, 1991). It is likely that loss of riparian habitat 

may be of concern for this species. 

Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) G5, UT-S1. This is a common migrant in 

parts of northern Utah, especially along the Green River. Nesting is restricted to a 

few locations. They are more frequent at lower elevations in cultivated fields. 

They are dependent on secure nesting cover in wide-open riparian meadows. 

Predation and nest disruption is a common problem with the species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-10 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) C, G5, UT-S1,S2B; WYS2B,SZN. This species is rare in the state. In northern Utah it is listed in Weber, 

Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. It breeds in riparian zones in streamside or 

cultivated trees and willows in lower valleys and canyons (UDWR 1998d, 2002). 

All Natural Heritage sites are at or below forest boundaries, and use of the 

Wasatch-Cache is likely to be incidental if at all. Utah is the far western edge of 

its breeding range (Peterson 1990). Because of the limited habitat on Forest and 

protection given to riparian areas this species is best followed in the coarse filter. 

Aquatic 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) G5, UT-S1,S2B. They have been observed nesting 

at Pineview Reservoir and Tea Pot Lake on the Wasatch-Cache NF. Future use 

on the Forest may occur if populations continue to expand, or if nesting platforms 

are developed. 

Sage Steppe 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) G5, UT-PIF; WY-S3B,SZN. Occurs in 

shrub steppe habitats in the western U.S., particularly in the Great Basin area. 

The species winters in the southwest U.S. and into Mexico. It nests in the mid 

canopy of dense sagebrush stands, and consumes insects in the summer, seeds in 

the winter. Considered to be common and strongly viable in Utah (UDWR 

1999a), but in a downward trend range-wide. Loss of sage steppe habitat is 

considered the main threat to the species. 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) UT-PIF, WY-PIF. Requires sagebrush and 

chaparral habitats with scattered bushes. Often found in and among the bushes in 

the Great Basin and other dry desert areas (USDA Forest Service, 1991).

Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) G5, UT-S2. Small populations occur 

in sagebrush areas of the Wasatch-Cache (UDWR 2002). This species is of 

concern throughout the west. Occupies sage steppe ecosystems. Threats 

regionally are from loss of sage habitat, while locally predation may be more of 

concern. 

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) G3, UT-S1B,SXN; WY-S2B,SZN; 

UT and WY-PIF. This species occurs in the Uinta Basin east of the Forest, but 

has not been known to occur on or near the Forest (USGS Biological Survey, 

2000, UDWR 1998a,d, 2002). The main habitats would be along the 

Wyoming/Utah border where it is tied to the high plains sage steppe and short 

prairie grasslands of Wyoming. Because this is a fringe species on the Forest it 

has been carried forward in the coarse filter. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-11 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) G4, UT-S1,S2. Known only 

to northern Utah, with historic locations on or near the Wasatch-Cache (UDWR 

2002). The species habitat consists of grasslands and sage steppe. 

Idaho pocket gopher (Thomomys idahoensis) G4, UT-S1,S2; WY-S2?. The 

species has a restricted range in Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. There are three 

locations on the Ashley. There are also locations near the Wasatch-Cache. 

Usually found in shallow rocky soils, but one specimen in Rich County was in 

deep soils near a stream (UDWR 1998d). Threats in Utah are not known. 

Alpine 

Black rosy-finch (Leucosticte atrata) G5, UT-PIF. Common breeder in the 

mountains of the western U.S., with Utah being the southern limit. The bird 

winters in the same general area, but at lower altitudes. Primarily feeds on seeds 

of alpine plants, with some insects. Nests in cliffs or rock talus slopes. There are 

no perceived management threats to this species (UDWR 1999a). 

Dwarf shrew (Sorex nanus) G4, UT-S1; WY-S2,S3. This species appears to be 

rare, and is suspected to occur throughout the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains 

(UDWR 1998d, 2002). Known to occur on the Wasatch-Cache NF in the high 

Uinta Mountains. The main part of the species range is in Wyoming, Colorado, 

and New Mexico, with a little in Arizonia (Burt & Grossenheider 1976). It is 

typically found at higher elevations and prefers alpine tundra, subalpine 

coniferous forests, and usually subalpine rockslides. No known threats are likely 

from management activities due to the elevation range and lack of management 

disturbances. 

Snags 

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) G5, UT-S2,PIF. Occurs in all but eight 

counties in Utah, the species is generally uncommon (UDWR 1998a,d). Primarily 

known to occur in ponderosa pine forests (southern Utah), and is closely tied with 

occurrences of fire, but also inhabits mixed conifer, oak communities, and 

riparian woodlands. They feed on insects in the breeding season, nuts and berries 

in the winter. Utah is at the southern end of breeding habitat for the species, and 

it winters in the southwest U.S. (UDWR 1999). Threats would be from loss of 

fire created landscapes and loss of snags. 

Northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) G5, UT-S2,PIF; WYS3. Known to occur on the Wasatch-Cache through project surveys. Utah is near 

the southern end of its range, though it occurs through the eastern U.S. and also in 

Europe and Asia (Peterson 1990, UDWR 1999a). Nests in cavities of trees and is 

associated with the spruce beetle in the spruce-fir communities, feeding primarily 

on these insects, and stays in its territory year-round. Threats include loss of 

cavities and a reduction in prey if insect outbreaks are curtailed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-12 

Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) G?, UT-S2,PIF. This is an 

uncommon summer resident in Utah, but occurs throughout most of the 

mountainous areas. Known to the Rocky Mountain states, and the interior coastal 

ranges of the western U.S. (Peterson 1990). They have been found in montane 

riparian woodlands as well as coniferous forests and aspen-conifer mixes (UDWR 

1998a,d). Drills holes in trees to extract sap and the insects it attracts, nesting in 

cavities (USDA Forest Service, 1991). Threats are from loss of snags for cavities. 

Caves/Mines 

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) G5, UT-S2. The species is widely 

distributed in Utah with most references being in southern Utah. The bat occurs 

throughout the western U.S. (Burt & Grossengeider 1976). There are 4 locations 

in Cache County on or near the Forest. The habitats where the fringed myotis has 

been found include caves, mines, rock crevices and buildings in the pine, oak, 

pinyon-juniper and desert shrub communities (UDWR 2000a). Unsurveyed 

and/or unprotected roosts in caves and/or mines would be at risk. 

 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) G4, UT-S2. This species is 

moderately common in the state, and occurs on the Wasatch-Cache (UDWR 

2000a). It is known to occur throughout the western U.S. and branching into the 

east (Burt & Grossengeider 1976). Caves and old mines are their main roost 

areas. Unsurveyed and/or unprotected roosts in caves and/or mines would be at 

risk on the Wasatch-Cache. 

Western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum. Formerly Myotis subulatus 

and Myotis leibii) G5, UT-S2. Occurs statewide in at least 18 counties, and 

throughout the western U.S.. It may inhabit the Wasatch-Cache NF in Salt Lake, 

Weber and Cache Counties (UDWR 2000a). The species uses montane forest and 

woodlands which includes Douglas fir, quaking aspen, pinyon pine, rocky 

mountain juniper, Gambel’s oak, and black sagebrush. They have also been 

found in ponderosa pine and white fir. Roosting occurs in abandoned mines and 

caves. Unsurveyed and/or unprotected roosts would be at risk on the Forest. 

Winter roosts are likely in caves. 

Conifer 

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) G5, WY-S2. Utah is the far southern range of 

this species, which is associated with boreal forests in North America. It is a 

cavity nesting species, and preys largely on red-backed voles which require old 

growth type habitat in spruce-fir (USDA Forest Service 1994d). Its presence has 

been confirmed on the Wasatch-Cache through project surveys, and there are 

likely a few breeding pairs. Threats include loss of old growth habitat or nesting 

disturbance. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-13 

Evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) G5, UT-S2. Thought to be a 

rare breeder in the Uinta and Wasatch mountains in spruce-fir habitats, common 

throughout the state and the western U.S. as a migrant and wintering species 

(Peterson 1990, UDWR 1998d). Eats primarily seeds and insects, nesting in 

conifer branches 20 to 100 feet above ground (USDA Forest Service 1991). No 

known habitat limitations or threats occur on the Wasatch-Cache. 

American pine marten (Martes americana) G5, UT-S2. This species is located 

in the Uinta and Wasatch mountains (UDWR 1998a,d). It is thought to be in 

decline due to loss of habitat and over-trapping. It relies on coniferous forests at 

higher elevations using old growth structure for primary denning and foraging 

sites (USDA Forest Service 1994c). Loss of old growth forest structure would be 

of concern. The marten is known to occur throughout boreal forests in North 

America (Burt & Grossengeider 1976). 

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) G5, UT-S1. This is the rarest bat in 

Utah. It is known from about 5 locations, one of which is on the Wasatch-Cache 

(Providence Canyon). (UDWR 2000a). The species seems to prefer wooded 

areas. It roosts in trees, but occasionally will enter caves. It is not clear what 

habitat is lacking, if any, on the Wasatch-Cache. Unsurveyed and/or unprotected 

roosts in caves and/or mines would be at risk on the Wasatch-Cache, and possibly 

snags. 

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) G4, UT-S1. Historically known to occur in Utah. May 

be present in the Wasatch Mountains, and the Uinta Mountains with occasional 

reports persisting (UDWR 1998a,d, 2002). The species is associated with 

montane coniferous forests. This species is more fully analyzed in the Biological 

Evaluation that accompanies the Revised Forest Plan. It has been sighted in the 

Rocky Mountain and coastal mountains, and is most prevalent in the Arctic and 

Canada (USDA Forest Service 1994c). Human disturbance to habitat may be of 

concern, but threats are not well understood. 

Pinyon/Juniper 

Virginia’s warbler (Vermivora virginiae) G5, UT-PIF; WY-S2B,SZN. Utah is 

near the northern extent of the breeding range (southwest U.S.) for the species, 

and it winters primarily in Mexico (UDWR 1999a). Habitat includes oak 

canyons, brushy slopes and pinyon-juniper. This species is a more common 

ground nester. It is primarily insectivorous. Threats to this species are largely 

unknown, possibly from cowbird parasitism, predation, or loss of habitat. 

Downward trends are not well documented. 

Waterfalls/Cliffs 

Black swift (Cypseloides niger) G4, UT-S1,PIF. This species is associated with 

waterfalls where it nests in colonies, and feeds on insects caught in the air. It is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-14 

known to occur on the Uinta at the Bridal Veil falls, near Aspen Grove, and likely 

near Stewart Falls by Aspen Grove and near Scout Falls near the Timponeeke 

campground (UDWR 1999a, Webb 2000). On the Wasatch-Cache they occur at 

Doughnut Falls. A loss of water flow, or human disturbance at nest sites would 

be the primary threats to the species. 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) G4, UT-Endangered; WY-S2N. 

Historically occurred on the Wasatch-Cache along the Wasatch front canyons 

(UDWR 2002), it still is found in some locations and has potential to occur in 

more. The speicies was recently delisted from the federal endangered species list 

due to species recovery throughout the west following alterations in pesticide use. 

Habitat on the Wyoming portion of the Forest is limited, but the species may use 

or migrate through the area. Threats would be from nest disruption. 

Habitat Generalists 

Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum taylori) G5, UT-S2,S3. Listed as 

occurring in north-central Utah (Stebbins 1985). Known as a secretive snake 

from lowlands into the mountains, preying on reptiles and small mammals. The 

Utah subspecies is an isolated population from the more contiguous occurrence in 

the eastern U.S. Threats are unknown for this species, though collection is often a 

concern and threat with reptiles. 

Common gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis). G5, Ut-S2,S3 .This species is 

found in many environments including grassland, woodland, scrub, and forest 

(Stebbins 1985). It lives near water. In Utah it is generally found at lower 

elevations on the Wasatch Range and western Uintas. 

Rubber boa (Charina bottae). G5, UT-S2,S3. Frequents grassland, woodland, 

and forest (Stebbins 1985). Can be found under rotting logs, rocks, and the bark 

of fallen and standing dead trees. Historically the species has been found 

scattered across the forest. 

Fine Filter Vertebrate Species/Habitat Summaries 

Species used in the fine filter are those for which conservation strategies are available and 

then the discussion is still more towards the vegetation and habitats they use. Two 

candidate species that fit the fine filter definition have been put into the coarse filter 

category. These are the mountain plover that is a short grass prairie species and the 

yellow-billed cuckoo that uses low elevation riparian shrub and deciduous trees. Habitat 

for these two species is so limited on the Forest that it is not logical to deal with them at

the fine filter level. Measures to protect habitat for these species are covered in the 

coarse filter discussion and they will also be discussed in the biological assessment (BA).

The three species carried into the fine filter include two for which there are conservation 

strategies and agreements and one for which there is a recovery plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-15 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) G4, UT-Threatened; WY-S2B,S3N. The 

bald eagle is a wintering species in Utah and southwestern Wyoming. In recent 

years four pair have again begun nesting in Utah (USDI USFWS 2002b). None 

of these are on National Forest lands. None are known to nest in Uinta County, 

Wyoming along the Utah/Wyoming border. They primarily occupy cottonwood 

dominated riparian areas. Threats would be from roost disturbance or loss of 

winter habitat. They are common in the U.S. and being considered for delisting. 

 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) G4, UT-S3; WY-S23,S4N. Occurs 

across the state in conifer-aspen forests. Where literature states that the number 

of populations is, “probably more than 20 and perhaps fewer than 100 

occurrences,” surveys on NFS lands over the past several years have identified 

many more nest sites – probably 300-400 (UDWR 1998a,b). Known to nest in 

several areas on the Wasatch-Cache NF. Threats would be from loss of habitat or 

nest disruption. A Conservation Assessment was conducted for Utah (Graham et 

al. 1999), showing an abundance of potential habitat and listing several 

management recommendations that have been incorporated into the Revised 

Forest Plan. A common breeder to the Rocky Mountain states and Canada, while 

wintering in the plains states and lower elevations of western states. 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) G5, UT-S1; WY-S1. This federally threatened 

species occurred historically on the Wasatch-Cache throughout spruce-fir 

habitats, however none have been sighted in recent years. Utah would be the far 

southwest extension of the species’ range. A Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy have been developed for the species, based on a Conservation 

Assessment that was recently completed (Ruediger, 2000). Hair-snare surveys for 

the species were conducted using the national protocol in 1999, 2000, 2001 with 

no hits from the lynx. Brigham Young University is also conducting a forest 

carnivor study on the Uinta Mountains on both the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache 

National Forests. Their extensive networks of hair snares which also follow the 

national protocol have been negative in 2000 and 2001. Their third year of 

transects will be completed in 2002. The negative results do not indicate that the 

lynx does not exist on the Forest but does indicate that the probability is very low. 

Threats are from development, competition for prey from other species, and loss 

of denning and foraging habitat. 

Risks 

Conservation approaches are tied to risks associated to a vegetation type and species 

group in the coarse filter and to individual species or their habitat in the fine filter. 

Conservation and management efforts for bald eagles are tiered to the Pacific States Bald 

Eagle Recovery Plan. Conservation measures for the lynx are adapted from the work 

being done in Montana by the Lynx Amendment Team and will be published as the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment. Goshawk conservation measures are adapted from 

the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Amendment (March, 2000i). Conservation measures for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-16 

all species are contained in the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. Risks by 

vegetation type or habitat are listed in Table B2-3. 

Table B2 – 3. Ecosystems and Risks 

Grazing Succession Developed Sites Displacement Fire Suppressio

n

Logging Roads Water Development Pesticides Fragmentation Non-Native Plant Invasion 

Aspen X X X X X X 

Tall Forb X X X X 

Riparian X X X X X X X 

Aquatic X X X X X X X 

Sage Steppe X X X X X X X 

Alpine X X 

Snags X X X X X X 

Caves/Mines X X X X 

Conifer X X X X X X X X 

Pinyon/Juniper X X X X X X 

Waterfalls/Cliffs X X X 

Generalists X X X X X X 

Risks to vegetative communities or habitats used by identified speciesat-risk 

Tall Forb Community. 

The tall forb community is listed as primary habitat for only one species, the broad-tailed 

hummingbird. The Forest contains 3,200 acres of the tall forb community. The major 

risk to this community is grazing by mountain goats. At this point mountain goat 

populations are not of a size that evidence of damage to the tall forb community has been 

observed. Monitoring of the tall forb community will provide the information needed for 

documentation. As populations reach the desired herd size identified by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources they will be controlled through hunting. Hunting already 

takes place on a limited basis on all mountain goat units at the present time. 

Wet Meadow Community. 

The sandhill crane is listed under the wet meadow community. There are 16,900 acres of 

wet meadow on the Forest. For the most part the sandhill crane passes through Utah 

during spring and fall migrations. There are some that remain in the state during the 

summer but the State of Utah lists their breeding status as S1 which means there are 

typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres. Standards 

and guidelines for wetlands provide protection needed for the sandhill cranes that use the 

area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-17 

Bottomland Hardwoods and Willows. 

This is the primary habitat of the yellow-billed cuckoo that has recently been listed as a 

candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The State lists the species as a 

historical breeder in the State. The Forest has 39,400 acres of bottomland hardwoods and 

willow that are protected by standards and guidelines for riparian areas and grazing. 

Aquatic. 

The osprey has been listed under the aquatic heading because of its dependence of 

aquatic habitats for foraging. Many of these areas are off Forest but those on Forest are 

protected by standards and guidelines with no proposed changes in management that 

would affect these species. 

Sage Steppe. 

Species included under the sage steppe community are Brewer’s sparrow, mountain 

plover, sage grouse, sage sparrow, sharp-tailed grouse and Idaho pocket gopher. The 

mountain plover is mostly a short grass prairie species. There is little, if any, of this 

habitat on the Forest along the Wyoming border but we have included the species 

because of it’s proposed threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. The sharptailed grouse is only considered in appropriate habitat in Cache, Box Elder, and Weber 

Counties. The Idaho pocket gopher if present is found along the Wyoming border. There 

are 189,600 acres of sage steppe habitat on the Forest. This is an area where habitat 

manipulation could take place under the Revised Plan. Table B2 – 8 shows the amount 

of possible treatment under each alternative. The table includes treatments in sagebrush 

and pinyon-juniper and comes from Table VEG – 4 in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Pinyon-Juniper. 

Pinyon-juniper is the primary habitat of Virginia’s warbler. There are 76,900 acres of 

pinyon-juniper on the Forest. Pinyon-juniper treatments are possible under the revised 

plan. They are included with the sage steppe for planning purposes and are covered in 

Table B2 – 8. 

Table B2 – 8 Possible Treatment in Sage Steppe, Pinyon-Juniper 

Sage Steppe/ PinyonJuniper Alt 

1 

Alt 

2 

Alt 

3 

Alt 

4 

Alt 

5 

Alt 

6 

Alt 

7 

 

Prescribed burns 0 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 30,000

Total area in sage, pinyonjuniper type 266,500 acres 

 

% of area that could be 

treated in 10 year period 

0% 15% 8% 4% 4% 8% 11% 

Alpine. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-18 

The black rosy finch and dwarf shrew use the alpine areas on the Forest. There are 

19,700 acres of this habitat present. The Uinta Mountains are the areas where these 

species occur in the Alpine habitats. There are no habitat manipulation projects that 

would take place in the habitats of these species. 

Snags. 

The Lewis’ woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, and Williamson’s sapsucker are snag 

dependent species that are listed at risk. Snag management is a concern Forest-wide in 

appropriate tree species and a guideline in the Revised Plan identify the densities they 

should occur in. 

Caves/Mines. 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, fringed myotis, and western small-footed myotis are 

dependant on caves and mines. There is a Revised Plan standard that prohibits blocking 

the free ingress or egress from caves and mines. Caves and mines are evaluated on an 

case by case basis to determine the need to restrict public access. 

Aspen and Conifer. 

This category includes all combinations including conifer aspen, aspen conifer, aspen, 

mixed conifer, spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine. There are 

660,100 acres of this combination of species on the Forest. Species-at-risk that depend 

on aspen and conifer include boreal owl flammulated owl, gray catbird, western red bat, 

American pine marten, and wolverine. Many of these species depend more on the 

mature/old growth age classes while others depend more on the younger age classes. The 

Forest does not have a complete mapping of age classes but is working towards that end. 

Table B2 – 9 indicates the possible acreages of treatment by alternative to show what 

changes in age class could occur over a 10 year period and the miles of road that would 

be needed for timber harvest. 

Table B2 – 9 Possible Treatments in Aspen and Conifer 

Timber Treatments Alt

1 

Alt 

2 

Alt 

3 

Alt 

4 

Alt 

5 

Alt 

6 

Alt 

7 

 

Acres Prescribed Burns 

Aspen, Aspen/Conifer 

0 80,000 32,000 7,200 7,200 32,000 32,000

Acres Prescribed Burns 

Douglas Fir 

0 4,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000

Acres Timber Harvest 

Aspen, and Conifer 

0 6,500 7,500 12,500 15,500 5,000 8,500

 

Total Treatment Acres 0 90,500 41,500 19,700 22,700 39,000 42,500

Total Acres of Aspen and 

Conifer 

660,100 

 

% of Area That Could Be 0% 14% 6% 3% 3% 6% 6% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-19 

Treated in 10 Year Period 

New Timber 

Harvest Road 

Construction (miles) 

0 6 39 49 49 6 7 

Waterfalls/Cliffs. 

The black swift nests behind waterfalls where there are no management activities taking 

place. The species on the Wasatch-Cache falls into the category of an inherently rare 

species in that low numbers are due to the rarity of habitat and not on any management 

activity. The peregrine falcon nests on high cliffs again where there are not active 

management activities. If peregrines are found in areas where climbing is popular 

closures will be considered. 

Habitat Generalists. 

The common gartersnake, mildsnake, and rubber boa have been found at most elevations 

in the Forest and in many different habitats. The discussion above on all vegetation types 

and habitats speak to these generalist species. 

Persistence

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its implementing regulations require 

National Forests to provide habitat in order to “maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” (36CFR219.19). 

The NFMA regulations define a viable population as “one which has the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is 

well distributed in the planning area.” The regulations direct that “habitat must be 

provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that 

habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the 

planning area. 

Table B2 – 10 summarizes the above discussions and notes the effects of Alternative 7 on 

the groups. With the low amount of management on the Forest that alters habitats it is 

felt that all species-at-risk will persist through the next planning period. Table B2-10 does 

show that seven species listed as being able to persist through the planning period with a 

“qualified” yes. These species were sandhill crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, 

mountain plover, sharp-tailed grouse, Canada lynx, and wolverine. The qualified “yes” 

was given because there is no evidence that these species are present with the “estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its continued 

existence...”. These species are not present because their life histories or natural ranges 

do not include adequate areas of the Forest. The Forest does, however, have the habitat, 

that in conjunction with habitat adjacent to the Forest could “support, at least, a minimum 

number of reproductive individuals...” Habitat will be maintained to meet the law 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-20 

although the possibility of having a reproductive population is very low. The rationale for 

each species is listed below. 

Sandhill crane. The main population of sandhill cranes passes through Utah on 

spring/fall migrations. There is minimal breeding in the State. There are no historical or 

present breeding known to be taking place on the Forest. The birds use agricultural areas 

more than any other habitat in the State. Riparian and other areas that the birds may use 

on the Forest will be protected through standards and guidelines in the Revised Plan. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo. The State of Utah lists the species as historically breeding in the 

State. Occurrences in the State are very sporadic and have been single birds in a given 

year for the past several occurrences. Lowland riparian shrub and deciduous tree habitats 

will be protected through standards and guidelines in the Revised Plan. 

Bald eagle. There are four known nesting pairs of bald eagles in the State and none are 

on National Forest System lands. There is no historic record of them nesting on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Roost areas on the Forest will be protected. 

Mountain plover. The mountain plover has never been documented on the Forest. 

Habitat on the Forest along the Wyoming border is limited and a viable reproducing 

population would depend more on adjacent lands where the Forest does not have control. 

Habitats need to be mapped and will be protected through standards and guidelines in the 

Revised Plan. 

Sharp-tailed grouse. The sharp-tailed grouse is occasionally seen on or adjacent to the 

Forest but the Forest is on the fringes of the species habitat and would add little to the 

habitat needed for a viable reproducing population. Habitats need to be mapped and will 

be protected through standards and guidelines in the Revised Plan. 

Canada lynx. The FWS, State of Utah, and Forest Service have not been able to 

document the presence of lynx through surveys done over the past three years. Habitat is 

present to maintain a viable population but unless Utah became part of a reintroduction 

plan presented by the FWS there will likely never be a viable population in the State. 

Wolverine. Wolverine are occasionally reported in Northern Utah but even with surveys 

in those areas they have not been confirmed. Habitat is present to maintain a viable 

population but unless there were to be a reintroduction effort this probably will not 

happen.

For the other species-at-risk Forest plan management direction set forth in the Desired 

Future Conditions, goals, objectives, management prescriptions, standards and 

guidelines, when considered with other influences such as the projected flat budget, and 

the level of management activity (see discussions above) and the goal of managing for 

PFC persistence will be maintained through the next planning period. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-21 

Table B2 – 10 Effects of Management 

Species Primary 

Habitat 

Primary 

Age Class 

Used 

Current

Amount

(acres) 

Projected % 

Change in Age 

Class Over 

10 Years 

Under 

Alternative 7 

Persistence 

Over 10 

Years 

Assumptions 

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird 

TF N/A 3,200 0 Yes Biggest threat 

to habitat is 

grazing by 

mountain 

goats. 

Sandhill 

crane 

WM N/A 16,900 0 Yes1 Species most 

often just 

migrating 

through. 

Yellowbilled 

cuckoo 

BH,WI N/A 39,400 Yes1 Species is not 

known to nest 

in Utah. 

Bald eagle Aquatic N/A N/A N/A Yes1

Osprey Aquatic N/A N/A N/A Yes 

See discussion 

of aquatic 

protection in 

Appendix B3. 

Brewer’s 

sparrow 

Sage Steppe Mature/Old 189,600 

Yes 

Mountain 

plover 

Sage Steppe, 

Short grass 

Young 189,600 Yes1 

Sage grouse Sage Steppe All 189,600 Yes 

Sage sparrow Sage Steppe ? 189,600 Yes 

Sharp-tailed 

grouse 

Sage Steppe ? 189,600 Yes1 

Idaho pocket 

gopher 

Sage Steppe ? 189,600 Yes 

 

Virginia’s 

 warbler 

Pinyon/ 

 Juniper 

? 76,900 

Sagebrush and 

pinyon-juniper 

total 226,500 

acres. Under 

Alternative 7 

30,000 acres 

could be 

treated in 10 

years. This is 

11 % of the 

total. 

Yes 

Black rosy 

finch 

Alpine N/A 19,700 0 Yes 

Dwarf shrew Alpine N/A 19,700 0 Yes 

 

Lewis’ 

woodpecker 

Snags N/A N/A N/A Yes 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

Snags N/A N/A N/A Yes 

Williamson’s 

sapsucker 

Snags N/A N/A N/A Yes 

Snag and dead 

down woody 

debris 

guideline will 

ensure proper 

snag densities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-22 

Townsend’s 

big-eared 

 bat 

Caves/ 

 Mines 

N/A N/A 0 Yes 

Fringed 

 myotis 

Caves/ 

 Mines 

N/A N/A 0 Yes 

Western 

 Smallfooted 

 myotis 

Caves/ 

 Mines 

N/A N/A 0 Yes 

Cave and 

mine standard 

will ensure 

protection of 

cave and mine 

dependent 

species. 

Boreal owl CA,AC Mature/Old 205,600 Yes 

Flammulated 

owl 

AS,CA,AC Mature/Old 205,600 Yes 

Gray catbird SF,MC,LP,CA 

AC,DF,PP 

? 557,300 Yes 

Northern 

 goshawk 

SF,MC,LP,CA 

AC,DF,PP 

Mature/Old 557,300 Yes 

Western red 

 bat 

SF,MC,LP,CA 

AC,DF,PP 

Mature/Old 557,300 Yes 

Canada lynx SF,MC,LP,CA 

AC,DF,PP 

All 557,300 Yes1 

American 

pine 

 marten 

SF,MC,LP,CA 

AC,DF,PP 

Mature/Old 557,300 Yes 

Wolverine SF,MC,DF Mature/Old 292,700 

All aspen, 

aspen/conifer 

mixes, and 

straight conifer 

on the Forest 

total 660,100 

acres. Under 

Alternative 7 

42,500 acres 

could be 

treated through 

fire or timber 

sales. 

This is 

6% 

of the total 

acreage. 

Yes1

 

Black swift Waterfalls/ 

 Cliffs 

N/A N/A 0 Yes Nests behind 

waterfalls 

where no 

management 

activities are 

planned. 

Perigrine 

 falcon 

Waterfalls/ 

 Cliffs 

N/A N/A 0 Yes Nests on high 

rugged 

inaccessible 

cliffs with no 

planned 

management 

activities. 

Common 

 gartersnake 

Generalist N/A N/A 

Milksnake Generalist N/A N/A 

Rubber boa Generalist N/A N/A 

 

 1 A qualified yes. See discussion under persistence. 

 AC – Aspen/Conifer MC – Mixed Conifer 

 AS – Aspen PP – Ponderosa Pine 

 BH – Bottomland Hardwood SF – Spruce/Fir 

 CA – Conifer/Aspen TF – Tall Forb 

 DF – Douglas Fir WI – Willow 

 LP – Lodgepole Pine WM – Wet Meadow 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-23 

Cumulative Effects 

The Forest plan identifies what activities might occur during the planning period but does 

not indicate exactly where they will occur except in the general context of management 

areas and prescriptions where the activities are allowed. Cumulative effects will vary due 

to the individual needs and habitat of individual species and impacts from resource uses 

outside the Forest. Cumulative effects to wildlife are also based on the cumulative 

effects described for vegetation, watersheds, and aquatic resources, in their respective 

sections in this chapter. 

Past impacts have included commercial and firewood harvest of timber. While structure 

within some forested stands has been altered, mature overstory canopies have remained 

due to a lack of clearcutting (except in lodgepole) or other such even-aged management 

methods in coniferous stands. Current harvesting methods and those planned for use in 

the future are of uneven aged methods in conifer stands except lodgepole pine, and evenaged methods in aspen stands. 

Temporary changes in habitat may be evident through vegetation management or similar 

type non-permanent disturbances. Commercial timber, prescribed burning and wildland 

fire (including wildland fire use) are methods used for these temporary changes. These 

treatments would meet requirements for residual habitat components such as snags, dead 

and down material, and landscape structure. It is not likely that these activities in 

combined total would affect any of the wildlife SAR to the point where viability is 

compromised beyond current conditions. With the Forest adhering to the most current 

and preventative measures available for managing habitat, the cumulative effects to the 

species are anticipated to be minimal as a result of management activities proposed in all 

alternatives. Old growth would be retained to meet the planned requirement identified in 

the Revised Plan guidelines. 

Livestock grazing has caused the loss of some forb communities and altered the 

understory of forested communities and the structure of shrub and grass/forb 

communities. However, grazing levels (in terms of number of livestock and use levels) 

have been greatly reduced from earlier decades. 

Livestock grazing and associated soil loss has altered watershed conditions and aquatic 

habitats for many species. While management is planned to alter these conditions and 

prevent any future impacts, recovery may not occur at a rate substantial enough to affect 

a change in the long term, particularly in terms of vegetative conditions. Watershed and 

fisheries projects are designed to improve these habitats. 

The lack of younger seral conditions are of concern from a diversity of habitat standpoint. 

Management directed at striving for PFC of vegetation communities would provide 

improved habitat for many species. 

Prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and mechanical (commercial harvest or other methods) 

methods would be used to diversify structural stages in all alternatives, although it is not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-24 

anticipated that the level of activity proposed would bring the communities within PFC 

within the next several decades due to the inability to treat enough habitat, which is in 

part due to other resource concerns (e.g. air quality) and in part due to funding. With 

alternatives that do not allow or significantly limit timber harvest these treatments may 

become dependent on prescribed fire and wildland fire use 

Alternative 5 could increase the potential level of resource commodities. Alternative 1 

would maximize the trend toward passive resource preservation, rather than active 

management, carrying both positive and negative implications for wildlife. 

Potential habitat disturbances can be summarized by the number of acres disturbed 

through typical management activities. While development of roads and campgrounds 

was much greater through the 1960’s, it is not anticipated that the rate of increase will be 

that great in the future. In addition, some acres of habitat may be gained if roads are 

decommissioned, however this is an unknown level at this time. 

Species with unknown distributions and threats, such as the wolverine and marten, may 

have more specific management direction applied should ongoing and recent studies and 

assessments indicate a need for listing them under the Endangered Species Act. There 

are also potentials for immigration from other listed species, such as the wolf, into the 

Wasatch-Cache NF. 

Introductions of non-native wildlife species, which is largely outside of Forest Service 

control, have the potential to increase cumulative effects through diseases or through 

resource competition. In all introductions the Forest Service has the responsibility to 

work cooperatively with the State to assess habitat and potential impacts. 

For wildlife species that are subject to hunting or trapping (e.g. big game and beaver), 

state regulatory mechanisms are responsible for the sustainability of these populations, 

and directly affect the ecology of managing these species. Should severe winters occur, 

effects would be more severe on big game species due to the reduction in amount and 

quality of winter range, primarily off Forest. 

Regional risk trends for many species of wildlife are due to trends started during past 

heavier exploitative uses of habitat. While recovery is slow, it is perceived to be 

occurring for some habitats and species, although the loss of other habitats in areas being 

developed or converted to annual grasses and invasive weeds is also of regional concern 

for many species, both on the Forest and adjacent to it. 

While cumulative impacts within the Forest may affect some species, the implementation 

of goals, objectives, standards and guidelines are expected to conserve existing habitat 

and improve habitat for some of these species. By managing within the range of historic 

variation and properly functioning condition it is expected that all species will be 

sustained in the long term. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-25 

Lands Adjacent to National Forest 

On lands outside the National Forest, most of the activities with the potential to 

negatively affect terrestrial and aquatic resources are outside of Forest Service 

jurisdiction, such as aquatic diversions and urban development. The cumulative effects 

for wildlife resources considers land within the Forest boundary, but takes into 

consideration the private, state, other National Forest, and BLM lands adjoining it as 

wildlife do not recognize property boundaries. The trends of a predominance of mature 

vegetative conditions occur similarly on adjoining federal and state lands, largely due to 

similar fire suppression practices. The value of habitat on the Forest would continue to 

be of higher importance as private land adjoining the Forest is developed in the future. 

The similar management methods on the Uinta National Forest to the south, the Ashley 

National Forest to the east, and the Caribou National Forest to the north provide 

assurance on the maintenance of suitable wildlife habitat and connectivity of forested 

habitats, although similar concerns on lack of young seral conditions exist. 

With the predicted expansion of urban areas adjacent to the Forest, and on inholdings 

within it, the value of the Forest as a biological reserve will continue to escalate. Urban 

areas will exert the most influence on the Forest, through fire suppression needs and 

risks, through expansion of noxious weeds and other undesirable or non-native vegetation 

species, and through the increased user demand for recreation on the Forest. Urban 

expansion and development on private in-holdings within the Forest have the potential to 

increase fragmentation and reduce connectivity of habitats. Similar impacts are 

anticipated in winter range areas because of their lower elevations and development. 

These expansions would not likely affect old growth conditions. 

Concern is generated should trends of increased use of water diversions and increased 

recreation demands continue, carrying an associated risk of population declines and 

potential risks in viability depending on the needs of individual species. Similar trends 

are anticipated on National Forests and BLM lands adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache. 

Fragmentation/Connectivity 

“Fragmentation” of habitat on the Forest is naturally occurring in many areas, especially 

the overthrust belt and the western Uinta Mountains, as is evident viewing the vegetation 

map. In these areas there is a high degree of dispersion of native vegetative communities, 

rather than more contiguous or larger blocks of continuous forest canopy. The exception 

to this is in the Uinta Mountains in the lodgepole, mixed conifer, spruce-fir vegetation 

type. No conversion or loss of vegetation types has occurred to increase fragmentation at 

a large scale on the Forest. The high degree of mosaics was likely historically present, 

however likely represented by more structural diversity within vegetative communities. 

Smaller-scale habitat fragmentation has occurred primarily through the development of a 

network of roads and small recreation site developments within the Forest. Although a 

loss of habitat has occurred historically due to these developments, effects on 

fragmentation are minimal. Loss of some species such as the lynx, wolf, grizzly bear was 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-26 

due to harvesting/trapping and competition from other predators, rather than an increase 

in habitat fragmentation. 

Connectivity of habitats at this point has mostly been compromised through development 

of urban areas adjacent to the Forest. Other than paved highways and small utility 

corridors, the Forest remains largely intact from its original composition. 

The maintenance of the forested corridor of connectivity along the Wasatch range north 

to Idaho and Wyoming, south to the Uinta NF and east to the Ashley NF is important. 

Private land use is the greatest threat to this corridor. Corridor use is important for wide 

ranging species such as neo-tropical migratory birds, raptors, and for larger bodied 

mammals that are capable of dispersing across many miles. 

For some species, such as neo-tropical migratory birds and wide-ranging carnivores, 

impacts from far off-site areas such as deforestation in Central America or urban 

expansions in the northwest and western U.S. may have far greater effects on 

fragmentation and viability than those of Forest management activities both on the 

Wasatch-Cache and neighboring lands. 

Strategy 

Coarse Filter Species 

Coarse filter species will be tracked through the monitoring of habitat changes caused by 

other resource uses and natural disturbance events (e.g. fire). 

Fine Filter Species 

Canada lynx. The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger, 

2000) lists three inventory and monitoring needs for the lynx. First, is inventory and 

monitoring of lynx distribution. This includes delineating distribution through the 

collecting of hair samples (McKelvey et al. 1999). This process has begun on the Forest. 

Hair-snare surveys for the species were conducted using the national protocol in 1999, 

2000, 2001 with no hits from the lynx. Brigham Young University is also conducting a 

forest carnivor study on the Uinta Mountains on both the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache 

National Forests. Their extensive networks of hair snares which also follow the national 

protocol have been negative in 2000 and 2001. Their third year of transects will be 

completed in 2002. 

 

Second, is inventory and monitoring of lynx habitat conditions. This includes habitat 

(denning and foraging) quality and distribution, and effects of major risk factors such as 

recreational activities that cause snow compaction. 

Third, is monitoring and validation of conservation measures outlined in the strategy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-27 

Northern goshawk. The goshawk has been identified as a management indicator species 

in the Revised Forest Plan and monitored as identified in Chaper 4 of the Plan. 

Bald Eagle. Utah and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest were not included in the FWS 

Recovery Plan for the bald eagle. For the most part the species is only a winter visitant to 

the State (in the past few years four pair have begun nesting in Utah at lower elevations 

around sources of abundant prey). The Forest will work with the UWDR and FWS in 

monitoring wintering eagles. 

Vertebrate Species Not Carried Forward 

Although not carried forward for the reasons stated below if the species occasionally uses 

the Forest it would have the needed habitat components because of actions and 

circumstances identified above and the implementation of standards and guidelines in the 

Revised Forest Plan. 

Birds: 

American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) G5, Ut-S2B,SZN. Historically known 

as a rare breeding species occurring at lower elevations on the Provo River 

(UDWR 1998d, 2002). Utah is the far southern edge of the species range 

(Peterson, 1990). It is considered native and natural with presence confident 

regionally in the Uinta and Wasatch Mountains. The species is found in riparian 

vegetation, especially willows, deciduous trees of valleys and low canyons, and 

may use aspen-conifer stands (USDA Forest Service 1991). Brown-headed 

cowbirds are a problem in riparian areas. 

American avocet (Recurvirostra americana) UT-PIF. This species is closely 

associated with the Great Salt Lake wetlands and is an incidental visitor to the 

Forest, if at all (Peterson 1990). 

American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) G3, UT-S1B. The 

species is present because of the wetlands around the Great Salt Lake and Utah 

Lake (UDWR 1998a,d). Use of lakes on the Forest is incidental. 

Black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) UT-PIF. Occurs in Utah in 

connection with Great Salt Lake wetlands habitats. (UDWR 1999a). 

Black tern (Chlidonias niger) G4, UT-S2B. It is a localized breeder in northern 

Utah at Utah Lake, Great Salt Lake, Pelican Lake and the Green River below NFS 

lands. Its use of the Forest is incidental, if at all (UDWR 1998a,d). 

Black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens). UT-PIF. Inhabits conifer 

forests that are open and interspersed with shrubs or forest edges. In Utah it 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-28 

prefers pinyon/juniper and scrub oak. Nesting elevations are from 4,000 to 7,000 

feet (UDWR 1999a). 

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) UT-PIF. Utah is the southern edge of the 

species range. Its main habitats are hayfields and meadows. Its use of the Forest 

is incidental, if at all. Breeding may occur in the Heber and Kamas valleys 

(UDWR 1999a). 

Common loon (Gavia immer) G5, UT-SZN. The common loon occurs in Utah 

as an uncommon migrant and winter visitor. A few individuals remain through 

the summer, but there is no evidence of breeding (UDWR 1998d). 

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) G5, UT-S1B. Known to 

northwest and eastern Utah, with little habitat potential on the Wasatch-Cache due 

to dry grassland habitat required. They are or were an incidental visitant to the 

Forest (UDWR 1998a,d). 

Gray vireo (Vireo vicinoir) UT-PIF. The species is found primarily in southern 

Utah (UDWR 1999a). 

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) G5, UT-SAN. This is an irregular winter 

visitant to Utah and may be in response to harsh winters north of Utah (Peterson 

1990, USDA 1991, UDWR 1998d). The one report of a summer resident bird 

may represent post-breeding wandering 

Green heron (Butorides virescens) G5, UT-S1B,SAN. Inhabits low elevation 

marshes, not known to occur on the Wasatch-Cache NF (UDWR 1998d). 

Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) G5, UT-S1B. This species is tied to the Great 

Salt Lake and Utah Lake (UDWR 1998d). Use of the Forest is incidental if at all. 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) G5, UT-BCP; WY-S3B,SZN. This 

is a high plains, rangeland species associated with wetlands. In winter it uses 

cultivated lands and salt marshes. Occurrences in Utah are tied closely to the 

Great Salt Lake wetlands and Utah Lake (UDWR 1998a,d, 2002). Habitat on the 

Wyoming portion of the Forest is marginal, at best. Use of the Forest is 

incidental. 

Purple martin (Progne subis ). G5, Ut-S2,S3B, WY-S2B,SZN. Open water near 

farms and meadows. 

Snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) G4, UT-S2,S3B. This species is 

known to occupy wetland sites, primarily associated with Utah Lake and the 

Great Salt Lake (UDWR 2002). Use of the Wasatch-Cache NF would be 

incidental, if at all. 

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). UT-S3B,SRN, WY-PIF. Prefers prairies 

and large open valleys. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-29 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) G4, UT-S1N,SHB?. Associated with 

Great Salt Lake wetlands and use of the Wasatch Cache would be incidental, if at 

all (UDWR 1998d). 

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) G5, UT-S2B. Known to occur in northern Utah, 

which is the southern edge of the species’ breeding range (UDWR 1998d, 

Peterson 1990). Migrates to southeast U.S. for the winter. Requires moist 

woodlands or riparian woodlands with understories of shrubs, likely lower 

elevations in Utah. Nests on the ground or in low shrubs (USDA 1991). 

Whooping crane (Grus americana) E, G1, UT-SEN. This species is not native 

to Utah. Birds migrating through Utah between winter and summer range are 

from an artificially established population (UDWR 1998d). Use of the Forest is 

incidental, if at all. 

Mammals: 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) E, G1, UT-S1; WY-S1. Known only 

from eastern Utah. Habitat potential on the Wasatch-Cache is in Rich and 

Summit counties at lower elevations along the Wyoming border. The FWS lists 

Rich and Summit Counties as “historical” range (USDI USFWS 2002b). The 

Forest Service manages little or no habitat for the species in Wyoming. 

Brown (grizzly) bear (Ursus arctos) T, G4, UT-SX. The species formerly 

ranged throughout Utah except for barren areas such as parts of the west desert. It 

is extirpated in the state, the last known animal being killed in the Bear River 

Range above Logan in the `1930’s (UDWR 1998a,d, 2002; USDI USFWS 

2002b). 

Dark kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus) G5, UT-S2. Known to 

occur in Tooele County (UDWR 2002). Its habitat is fine gravelly soils from 

4,400 to 5,400 feet. Known to the Great Basin, Tooele County is the eastern most 

range of this species. 

Fisher (Martes pennanti) G5, UT-SR; WY-S1. The species has been historically 

reported in the state by tracks in the Trial Lake area but it is questioned whether it 

really existed historically or if it does today (UDWR 1998a,d, USDA Forest 

Service 1994c, Burt & Grossenheider 1976). If it did occur, habitat would include 

montane forests, with denning sites in old growth type stands. 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) E, G4, UT-SX; WY-S1. The species formerly used the 

entire state, except possibly the barren areas of the west desert. Extirpated earlier 

in the 20th century (UDWR 1998a,d). It may return through the expansion of the 

packs from the Greater Yellowstone area, and planning for the species return is 

currently being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This species 

and its habitat would be managed through the endangered species process in 

conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-30 

Northern river otter (Loutra canadensis) G5, UT-S1,S2; WY-S3. The species 

has been reported on all three Forests in northern Utah over time. There are 

reports from the ‘50’s, ‘70’s, and ‘80’s. Other reports from southern Utah are 

from the Colorado River. The species is rare in the state and populations are low 

(UDWR 1998a,d, 2002). Habitat does exist on the Forest in Wyoming. 

Preble’s shrew (Sorex preblei) G4, UT-S1; WY-S1,S2. Tooele County is listed 

as habitat for this species, in desert springs, bogs, and marshes (UDWR 1998a, 

2002). No locations are known to the Wasatch-Cache NF, although potential 

habitat may occur in the Stansbury’s. Loss of habitat would be of concern. 

Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) G5, UT-S3; WY-S2. Relatively common to Utah. 

Tends to seek rocky country with cliffs and rock outcrops near water. No known 

habitat threats, but possible population threats from potential animal damage 

control and trapping. Utah is the northern most extension of its range as it is 

common throughout the southwest (Burt & Grossenheider 1976). 

Skull Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae robustus) G5, UT-S2. This 

subspecies is known from one population in Skull Valley, Tooele County (UDWR 

2002). They were first recorded in 1946 and Natural Heritage has no record 

since. 

Spotted bat (Euderma maculata) G4, UT-S2; WY-S1. Utah is in the center of 

the species range. The spotted bat inhabits arid country and occasionally enters 

buildings and caves. Most occurrences in the state are in the southern portions. 

The closest occurrence to the Wasatch-Cache was a female that was collected off 

of a school at 4800 South Redwood Road in Salt Lake City in 1934 (UDWR 

2002, Burt & Grossenheider 1976). 

Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans) G5, UT-S2,S3. The species 

is known from about 7 locations in Rich, Summit, and Daggett Counties. None 

are on NFS lands. Habitat consists of greasewood, and sagebrush areas, in open 

areas along roadsides, and along the margins of irrigated farmland and meadows 

(UDWR 1998a,d, 2002). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-31 

INVERTEBRATES 

Invertebrates were selected from the Utah Natural Heritage database (UDWR 2002). 

Because of the lack of distribution knowledge all invertebrates close to the Forest are 

included in the chart. If it has been determined that a species probably does not exist on 

the Forest it is removed from further consideration in later narrative. 

Table B2 – 11. Federal, State, and Global Ranking of Invertebrates 

Species 

Common 

Name 

Primary Habitat on 

Wasatch-Cache NF 

Federal 

Ranking 

State 

(UT/WY) 

Ranking 

Global 

Ranking 

Analysis 

Groupings 

Aquatic snails 

Fossaria 

rustica 

Aquatic None UT S1S2 G5 Aquatic 

Glass phsya Aquatic None UT S2 G5 Aquatic 

Green River 

Pebblesnail 

Aquatic None UT S2 G2 Aquatic 

Lance aplexa Aquatic None UT S2? G5 Aquatic 

Mountain 

marshsnail 

Aquatic/riparian None UT S2? G3 Aquatic 

Pygmy 

fossaria 

Aquatic None UT S1S2 G5 Aquatic 

Rocky 

Mountain 

Duskysnail 

Aquatic None UT S1 G3G4 Aquatic 

Terrestrial Snails

Amber glass Riparian, 

Spruce/Fir 

None UT S2? G5 Riparian, 

Spruce/Fir 

Black gloss Riparian None UT S1 G5 Riparian 

Crestless 

column 

Riparian None UT S2 G5 Riparian 

Cross 

snaggletooth 

Riparian None UT S1 G? Riparian 

Cross vertigo Riparian None UT S2 G5 Riparian 

Deseret 

mountainsnail 

Oak/Maple, on 

limestone 

None UT S2 G2 Oak/Maple 

Lyrate 

mountainsnail 

Limestone, 

mt.brust/maple/sage

None UT S2? G2G3 Generalist 

Mellow 

column 

Riparian None UT S2? G? Riparian 

Mill Creek 

mountainsnail 

N facing slopes, 

moist coniferous 

forests 

None UT S1 G1 Generalist 

Mitered Aspen/Conifer None UT S2? G? Generalist 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-32 

vertigo 

Wasatch 

mountainsnail 

Oak/Maple on 

limestone 

Candidate Ut S1 G2 Oak/Maple 

Mussels 

Western 

pearlshell 

Aquatic None UT SH G4 Aquatic 

Insects 

American 

emerald 

Springs/Bogs None UT S2 G5 Aquatic 

Black 

meadowhawk 

Wet grassy areas None UT S2? G5 Aquatic 

Bleached 

skimmer 

Spring fed ponds 

and springs 

None UT S1S2 G3 Aquatic 

Boreal 

whiteface 

Lakes and wet 

meadows 

None UT S1 G5 Aquatic 

Dot-tailed 

whiteface 

Lakes and ponds None UT S1S2 G5 Aquatic 

Hudsonian 

whiteface 

High elevation 

lakes 

None UT S1? G5 Aquatic 

Lake darner High elevation 

lakes 

None UT S1S2? G5 Aquatic 

Mountain 

emerald 

High elevation 

lakes 

None UT S2 G5 Aquatic 

Pacific 

spiketail 

Clear shady foothill 

and mt. streams 

None UT S1S2 G5 Aquatic 

Red-waisted 

whiteface 

High elevation 

lakes 

None Ut S1? G5 

Spangler’s 

hydroporus 

diving beetle 

Aquatic None UT SH GH Aquatic 

Taiga bluet Aquatic None UT S2? G5 

Zigzag darner Aquatic None UT S1S2 G5 Aquatic 

Invertebrates Species Considered: 

Most of the work on invertebrates on the Wasatch-Cache, and in Utah in general, was 

done prior to the 1950’s. Just the lack of knowledge of life cycles, habitat needs, 

presence and distribution makes it impossible to put meaningful conservation measures in 

place. It also does not lend itself well to assign a state ranking to these species. At 

present the Forest relies on surrogate measures such as grazing and riparian guidelines, 

and properly functioning condition for conservation. 

The need for basic baseline information on invertebrates dictates a coarse of inventory to 

document presence and distribution of species, and then a program of monitoring, and the 

development of conservation measures. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-33 

The one exception to this approach is with the Deseret mountainsnail (Oreohelix 

peripherica wasatchensis). This subspecies is a candidate for Federal listing. The only 

know population is on a parcel of land approximately 40 acres in size that is in three 

ownerships (Federal – Forest Service, the city of Ogden, and private). The Forest, 

working through Weber State University, has a recent inventory and Conservation 

Assessment for the species (Meadows, 2000) and a Conservation Strategy is being 

developed. Genetic work is also being done to determine if O.p. wasatchensis is indeed 

a distinct subspecies. 

Aquatic Snails 

Fossaria snail (Fossaria rustica) G5, UT-S1,S2. Known from Utah Lake and 

other localities, including streams off of the Forest. Habitat may be present on the 

Wasatch-Cache, but none of the species are known to occur. Surveys are needed 

to determine if it is extant in Utah and if so its distribution and abundance 

(UDWR 1999b, 2002). Hovingh (2000) indicated the species is quite common. 

Glass physa (Physa skinneri) G5, UT-S2. The known locations of this species 

are from the Wasatch-Cache NF and from southern Utah (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Green River pebblesnail (Fluminicola coloradoensis) G1,G2, UT-S1?. The 

species has been identified in Blacksmith’s Fork and on the Weber River close to 

the Forest boundary (UDWR 1999b, 2002). Hovingh (personal communication, 

2000) indicates the species is abundant north of the Provo River in the Upper 

Weber River and Bear River. 

Lance aplexa (Aplexa elongata) G5, UT-S2?. Known from Ogden Canyon and 

other locations near the Forest (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Mountain marshsnail (Stagnicola montanensis) G3, UT-S2?. Has been 

identified on Beaver Creek of the Logan Ranger District. (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Pygmy fossaria (Fossaria parva) G5, UT-S1,S2. Historical records from 

northern Utah, show the species in the Bountiful area in Davis county and Fort 

Union area of Salt Lake County (UDWR 1999b, 2002). Fresh water streams at 

low elevations appears to be habitat. Hovingh (2000) again indicates the species 

is quite common. 

Rocky Mountain duskysnail (Colligyrrus greggi) G3,G4, UT-S1. Two 

locations are known in Cache County (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Terrestrial Snails 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-34 

Amber glass (Nesovitrea electrina) G5, UT-S2?. This snail may use a variety of 

habitats in Utah, from spruce-fir moist areas to lower elevations, and may exist on 

the Wasatch-Cache (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Black gloss (Zonitoides nitidus) G5, UT-S1. This terrestrial species is reported 

historically on the banks of streams, and has been found on the Blacksmiths Fork 

River, Ogden Canyon and Bell’s Canyon, (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Crestless column (Pupilla hebes) G5, UT-S2. Known from 10 historic locations 

in Utah, the closest is in Little Cottonwood Canyon on the Wasatch-Cache NF 

(UDWR 1999b, 2002). The species is associated with litter under deciduous trees 

(Hovingh, personal communication, 2000). 

Cross snaggletooth (Gastrocopta quadridens) G?, UT-S1. Known from 2 

locations in the state, the closest on the Wasatch-Cache NF, in Lamb’s Canyon 

(UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Cross vertigo (Vertigo modesta) G5, UT-S2. Historically reported in Bell’s 

Canyon, Lamb’s Canyon, Weber Canyon, and Ogden Canyon. The terrestrial 

species may be associated with swampy ground (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Deseret mountainsnail (Oreohelix peripherica) G2, UT-S2. The closest 

populations of this type are on the Wasatch-Cache NF in oak/maple and limestone 

outcrops and boulder fields. (UDWR 1999b, 2002). The race O.p. wasatchensis

is a federal candidate for possible listing. 

Lyrate mountainsnail (Oreohelix haydeni) G2,G3, UT-S2?. There are 5-6 

locations on the Wasatch-Cache, with other locations near the Forest. A terrestrial 

species occupying limestone outcrops in shrub habitats (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Mellow column (Columella columella) G?, UT-S2?. Two locations are known 

to northern Utah, one being in Lamb’s Canyon (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Mill Creek mountainsnail (Oreohelix howardi) G1, UT-S1. Three populations 

are known within Mill Creek Canyon, in Salt Lake County on the Wasatch-Cache 

NF (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Mitered vertigo (Vertigo concinnula) G?, UT-S2?. Populations on the WasatchCache NF have been identified in Lamb’s Canyon, at Brighton, and in Little 

Cottonwood Canyon (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Wasatch mountainsnail (Oreohelix periferica wasatchensis) C, G2, UT-S1. 

Populations on the Wasatch-Cache, and in Utah, are limited to the mouth of 

Ogden Canyon. They may occur throughout the area from Ogden Canyon to 

Taylor Canyon but this has not been verified. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-35 

Mussels 

Western pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) G4, UT-SH. Have been found in 

Northern Utah mostly at lower elevations adjacent to the Forest boundary 

(UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Insects 

American emerald (Cordulia shurtleffi) G5, UT-S2. There are 8 sites for this 

species, 5 on the Wasatch-Cache, 1 on the Uinta, and 2 on the Ashley, all within 

the Uinta Mountains (UDWR 1999b). 

Black meadowhawk (Sympetrum danae) G5, UT S2?. Common in wet grassy 

areas away from flowing water (Dunkle 2000).

Bleached skimmer (Libellula composita) G3, UT-S1,S2. Species is scattered and 

rare. It prefers spring fed ponds and streams (Dunkle 2000).

Boreal whiteface (Leucorrhinia borealis) G5, UT-S1). This species is found in 

high elevation lakes and wet meadows. 

Dot-tailed whiteface (Leucorrhinia intacta) G5, UT-S1,S2. Found in high lakes 

and ponds. 

Hudsonian whiteface (Leucorrhinia hudsonica) G5, UT-S1?. Found in high 

elevation lakes. 

Lake darner (Aeshna ermita) G5, UT-S1,S2?. There are known populations on 

the Wasatch-Cache NF, ranging from high mountain lakes to lower elevation 

streams (UDWR 2002). 

Mountain emerald (Somatochlora semicircularis) G5, UT-S2. This species is 

found in high elevation lakes. 

Pacific spiketail (Cordulegaster dorsaus) G5, UT-S1,S2. The species has been 

known from Red Butte Canyon (UDWR 2002). 

Red-waisted whiteface (Leucorrhinia proxima) G5, UT-S1?. Found in high 

elevation lakes. 

Spangler’s hydroporus diving beetle (Hydroporus spangleri) GH, UT-SH. 

This species is known only from its type location in Lamb’s Canyon on the 

Wasatch-Cache NF (UDWR 2002). 

Taiga bluet (Coenagrion resolutum) G5, UT-S2?. The species is found in ponds 

and lakes. Elevational range appears to be from about 5,000 feet to 8,000 feet. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-36 

Zigzag darner (Aeshna sitchensis) G5, UT-S1,S2. There are 6 locations 

identified from northern Utah in the Uinta mountains (UDWR 2002). 

Invertebrate Species Not Considered 

The following invertebrate species were not considered in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan 

Revision. The same discussion applies that is at the beginning of the invertebrate species 

that were considered. Known occurrences were outside of the Forest, the species’ 

occurrence on the Forest is incidental, and/or no potential habitat exists on the Forest. 

These are species for which viability is also of concern, however their main habitat is not 

associated with the Forest. They are mentioned here as they may occur within the same 

counties or adjacent to the Forest. If species are not mentioned, it is due to their locality 

being too far from the Forest to be mentioned. If inventory efforts show that any of these 

species do exist on Forest, they will be added to the list above. 

Aquatic Snails 

Ash gyro (Gyraulus parvus) G5, UT-S2?S3?. Known from 11 sites in Utah. 

None are on the Wasatch-Cache. While there may be potential habitat on the 

Forest, none are known to occur (UDWR 2002). Hovingh (personal 

communication, 2000) indicated that the species is very common across the 

country and could be taken off the list. 

Coarse ramshorn (Planorbella binneyi) G4Q, UT-S2?. Of the locations listed in 

Salt Lake County, the only probable one where the species may still occur is City 

Creek Canyon which is off Forest (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Creeping ancylid (Ferrissia rivularis) G5, UT-S2. Off Forest. The nearest 

location is East Canyon (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Desert tryonia (Tryonia protea) G3,G4, UT-S2?. A west desert, Great Basin 

species. There are 3 populations known in larger spring areas at lower elevations 

around the Stansburys (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Glossy valvata (Valvata humeralis) G5, UT-S2. Off Forest (UDWR 1999b, 

2002). 

Mud amnicola (Amnicola limosus) G5, UT-S2?. Off Forest. Closest site is 

Beck Hot Springs in 1939 (USWR 1999b, 2002). 

Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea stagnalis) G5, UT-S2?. The closest population was 

in Utah Lake and associated ditches and streams, and is likely extirpated (UDWR 

1999b, 2002). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-37 

Toquerville springsnail (Pyrgulopsis kolobensis) G5, UT-S?. This species is 

widespread over the Great Basin, known as a result of a coop study between the 

BLM and the Smithsonian in 1993-94. It is possible that many springsnails were 

not classed out to genus and species and lumped in this group (UDWR 2002). 

Hershler (Smithsonian) thinks that P. Kolobensis in Utah may actually be a 

complex of several undescribed, unnamed species. 

Utah physa (Physella utahensis) UT- Extirpated. Extirpated from Utah Lake, 

but occurs elsewhere in the State at low elevations (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Widelip pondsnail (Stagnicola traski) GU, UT-S2?. Two historic locations from 

northern Utah are listed, however none on the Uinta (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Potential habitat is likely limited due to elevation. 

Sharp sprite (Promenetus exacuous) G5, UT-S1,S2. Populations in Lamb’s 

Canyon and three other locations at lower elevations (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Southern Bonneville springsnail (Pyrgulopsis transversa) G2, UT-S1,S2. 

There are populations of this species off Forest in the vicinity of the Stansbury’s 

and Vernon Units. Habitat and the species could occur on Forest (UDWR 2002). 

Striate disc (Discus shimelii) G4, UT-S2. Eight locations were historically 

reported in Utah from high altitudes. One of these is in Logan Canyon (UDWR 

1999b, 2002). 

Terrestrial Snails 

Rustic ambersnail (Succinea rusticana) G?, UT-S2?. Off Forest at lower 

elevations on the Wasatch Front and in Cache Valley (UDWR 2002). 

Texas glyph (Glyphyalinia umbilicata) G5, UT-S1?. Historically reported from 

near the Wasatch-Cache NF in cottonwood groves (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Widespread column (Pupilla muscorum) G4, UT-S1?. Off Forest. Closest 

location is City Creek Canyon (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Mussels 

California floater (Anodonta californiensis) G3, UT-S1. This species is in the 

Bear River drainage. It may go onto the Forest (UDWR 1999b, 2002, Hovingh, 

personal comm. 2000). 

Oregon floater (Anodonta oregonensis) G5, UT-S1,S2?. Located in Utah, Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties, this species may be extirpated (UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Hovingh (2000) stated that the species is only found in Utah Lake and below the 

Forest boundary in Farmington Creek and probably does not exist on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B2-38 

Winged floater (Anodonta nuttalliana) G3,G4, UT-S2?. Historically located in 

Utah Lake, in Farmington Canyon and at lower elevations in Salt Lake County 

(UDWR 1999b, 2002). 

Insects 

California darner (Aeshna californica) G5, UT-S2. Known from 8 sites in 

Utah, none on the Wasatch-Cache NF. Habitat is likely lower elevation ponds 

and marshes (UDWR 2002). 

Nokomis fritillary (Speyeria nokomis nokomis) G3, UT-S2?. The species is 

known from the Duchesne River at lower elevations (UDWR 2002)

Plains clubttail (Gomphus externus) G5, UT-S2. Off Forest at lower elevations 

along the Wasatch Front (UDWR 2002). 

Conservation Approaches of Invertebrates 

Invertebrates present a unique problem in that so little is known about them. Most survey 

work was accomplished prior to 1950 and work was very spotty. There has been no 

Forest wide survey of invertebrates to determine species composition and distribution. 

Forest direction will be to inventory streams and terrestrial habitats used by the 

invertebrates of concern to determine what is present and the distribution of the different 

species. With this knowledge the Forest can then develop conservation strategies and 

agreements, as necessary. Goals, subgoals, standards, and guidelines under Watershed 

Health and Biodiversity and Viability offer the protection needed for these species until 

more specific measures are determined to be necessary. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 3 

Aquatic Diversity and Viability 

Introduction 

This section describes the viability assessment that was conducted for fish species. 

Amphibians and aquatic invertebrate species are addressed in the “Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Aquatic Invertebrate Species Viability” section. 

Planning regulations at 36CFR 219 require: “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed 

to maintain viable populations of existing native and desirable non-native vertebrate 

species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded 

as one which as the estimated number and distribution of reproductive individuals to 

insure it continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.” The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, McElhany et al. 2000) defines a viable salmonid 

population as “an independent population of salmonid that has a negligible risk of 

extinction due to threats from demographic variation (random or directional), local 

environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes (random or directional) over a 

100-year time frame.” 

In assessing a population, it is important to consider time frame and how individual risks 

may change over short and long time frames. A population that 15 years ago may have 

survived well under the threats of that day may not survive with increased threats that 

have been added over the past 10 years. For this analysis, threats are considered for two 

time frames, 15 years and 100 years. Fifteen years is being used because this is the 

maximum potential time frame for a Forest Plan and two to three generations of a fish. 

One hundred years is being used because it is long enough to allow for natural processes 

to occur. NMFS also suggests evaluating risks and threats over a 100-year time frame 

(McElhany et al. 2000). NMFS (McElhany et al. 2000) identifies four key parameters for 

evaluating populations status. They are abundance, productivity, population spatial 

structure and diversity. They believe that the general life history and habitat interactions 

are reflected in these factors. Although we have not directly related our process of risk 

and threat evaluation directly on NMFS parameters, we have addressed them through the 

analysis and will be identifying them in the steps that follow (Figure B-3-1). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 2 

Figure B-3-1. Population status flow chart to assess risks and threats as part of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 3 

Viability Assessment Process 

This fish species viability assessment comprises the selection of fish species used in the 

analysis, including identification of fish species-at-risk and, if possible, focal species that 

could serve as indicators for effects on others. These species were then reviewed for 

existing risks at the 4th and 6th level Hydrological Unit Codes (HUC), potential threats 

and general trends. Viability for these species was assessed according to the likelihood 

of persistence of the species and their habitat through the alternatives given the risks and 

threats occurring for each. The specific steps used in this assessment are as follows: 

Viability Assessments 

1. Identify species to be used in analysis 

a. Identify all fish species known to historically be on the Wasatch-Cache 

NF, those that currently exist on or near the Wasatch-Cache NF, and those 

known to be downstream of lands managed by the Wasatch-Cache NF 

b. Identify species-at-risk selection criteria 

i. Those listed as Forest Service “Sensitive”, “Threatened”, 

“Endangered”, “Candidate” or “Proposed”. 

ii. Those of limited distribution 

c. Identify potential focal species that can be indicators for ecological 

conditions that affect viability for other species, and provide rationale 

d. Identify species and rationale for not addressing a species either directly or 

through an indicator 

2. Provide ecological context for the species and their habitat. 

a. Ecosystems 

b. Species-wide 

c. Forest-wide 

3. Provide background on data used in analysis 

a. Ecosystem information 

b. Species Status 

i. Extinction Risk Factors 

ii. Potential threats 

4. Assess potential for extinction of a species at the 6th and 4th level HUC 

a. Potential for extinction by 6th level HUC 

i. Extinction risks by 6th level HUC 

ii. Potential threats by 6th level HUC 

iii. Likelihood of population persistence for 15 years and 100 years 

b. Assess potential for extinction by 4th level HUC 

i. Extinction risks by 4th level HUC 

ii. Likelihood of metapopulation persistence for 15 years and 100 

years 

5. Develop conservation approaches 

6. Assess likelihood of species persistence across the Wasatch-Cache NF for 15 

years and 100 years 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 4 

The goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and monitoring and evaluation guidance in 

the proposed revised Forest Plan for these species and their habitats were reviewed for 

adequacy in addressing risks and threats. The effects analysis for these species is 

documented in the Aquatic Resources section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Step 1. Identifying Species Used in the Analysis 

Step 1(a). Identify all species historically known to the Wasatch-Cache 

N.F. 

Numerous fish species occur on the Wasatch Cache National Forest (WCNF, Table B-3-

1). Fish native to the Forest are presented here. The distribution of fish species was 

identified through review of survey information and discussions with the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources. Much of this data was developed during the Inland West 

Watershed Initiative (IWWI). Species downstream of the Forest that could be affected by 

management of the Forest were also considered. Habitat descriptions are also presented 

for all fish species except those for which effects on viability by WCNF management 

actions are a concern, as determined in Step 1(b), below. Unless otherwise specified, 

description of range and habitat is based on species range-wide information.

Mottled and Paiute Sculpin (Cottus sp.) –Sculpin are found on the Forest. These 

fish are well distributed across the Forest (Table B-3-2) and are not viewed at risk 

based on their distribution and densities. Both sculpin need cool, clean, welloxygenated water for survival. This is identical to the cutthroat trout. A number of 

streams on the forest contain sculpin (Table B-3-2). By maintaining habitat to 

support cutthroat trout, it assumed thatthe likelihood of supporting the viability of 

mottled and Paiute sculpin would be maintained. 

Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) – This species occurs in much of the 

western United States. The species is native to Utah, and can be found in both the 

Bonneville Basin and Colorado River system. The primary habitat for the mountain 

sucker is found off the WCNF with only fringe habitat being found on the Forest. 

The locations where mountain sucker have been found on Forest vary greatly; but are 

similar to those for mountain whitefish (Table B-3-2). The primary exception is that 

they are found in some lakes on the Forest. The mountain sucker population of 

greatest concern is the stream population located up Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

During surveys in 1998 only 2 suckers were captured near Brighton Ski Resort in Big 

Cottonwood Creek. No other suckers have been captured in Big Cottonwood Creek 

over the past 10 years, although much of the drainage has been surveyed for fish 

species. These fish may however just come downstream from Twin Lake, which 

contained mountain sucker when surveyed in 1981. Cook (1999) suggests that the 

suckers in Big Cottonwood Creek may be Catostomus Pantosteus, subgenus Acomus 

generosus. This was based on a review of what appears to be incomplete records of 

fish collected in the mid 1850’s,when researchers identified the site as Cottonwood 

Creek. For this analysis, the mountain sucker in Big Cottonwood Creek will be 

grouped with mountain sucker in general because of the lack of any scientific data 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 5 

suggesting they are a unique subspecies. This species is wide ranging and is not 

viewed as at risk by actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. By 

maintain habitat to support trout, it assumed that mountain sucker would be viable. 

Sigler and Sigler (1996) state, “Prevent of habitat degradation is the primary 

protection requirement.”. In this plan, this is accomplished by providing habitat for 

the Bonneville and Colordo River cutthroat trout. 

Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus) – Bluehead sucker are distributed in the 

Green River, upper Colorado River and upper Bear River drainages south to Arizona. 

They are also found in the Snake River above Shoshone Falls (Sigler and Sigler 

1996). This species was identified as being present in the Analysis of the 

Management situation for forest planning revised in February 1984 page 50-46. It 

was then dropped from the Draft Forest Plan published in 2001. A recent review of 

the Natural Heritage database currently being developed by the, State of Utah, 

identified that bluehead sucker had been collected from the East Fork of Smiths Fork 

in 1967. Surveys have not been conducted recently to verify presence or absence of 

this species in the East Fork Smith Fork. This species has not been found in streams, 

adjacent to the East Fork Smith Fork, which have been survey. Bluehead sucker 

prefer cold stream of 68o

F or less, but they prosper in arm small stream tolerating 

waters as warm as 82oF (Sigler and Sigler 1996). They are found in moderately 

swift moving water with a substrate of rocks, gravel or boulders mixed with mud and 

sand (Summerfelt 1983). This species is wide ranging and is not viewed as at risk by 

actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. There is a difference 

between the general habitat of this species and the Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

The bluehead sucker generally lives in larger, warmer streams, which would be 

downstream of most of the trout habitat. By maintaining habitat to support trout, 

conditions to support the bluehead sucker should be maintained and the populations 

on forest would remain viable. Sigler and Sigler (1996) identify predation and 

hybridization as the primary threats to the species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 6 

Table B-3-1. Fish believed to have been found pre-settlement (1845) on the land 

currently administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Fish found downstream 

from the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that may be affected by land management 

activities. Fish introduced on the land administered by the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest that continue to persist as of January 2002. 

Fish Scientific Name Historically Downstream Introduced

Cutthroat Trout, 

Bonneville 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

utah 

X 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Colorado 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus 

X 

Long Nose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi X 

Paiute sculpin Cottus beldingi X 

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni X 

Mountain Sucker Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

X 

Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus X 

 

Colorado 

Pikeminnow 

Ptychocheilus lucius X 

Colorado River 

Roundtail Chub 

Gila robusta robusta X 

Humpback Chub Gila cypha X 

Bonytail Chub Gila elangas X 

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus X 

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus 

mictus 

 X X 

 

Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus X 

Black Crappie Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus 

 X 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X 

Brown Trout Salmo Trutta X 

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio X 

Golden Trout Oncorhynchus 

aguabonita 

 X 

Kokanee 

(lacustrine sockeye 

salmon) 

Oncorhynchus nerka X 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X 

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X 

Tiger Muskie Esox ♀masquinongy 

X ♂lucius 

 X 

Yellow Bullhead 

Catfish 

Ameiurus melas X 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X 

Yellowstone 

Cutthroat Trout 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri

 X 

(Adapted from Lentsch et al. 1995) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 7 

Table B-3-2. Stream and lakes surveyed on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

that containing native fish other then cutthroat trout. There are many additional 

lakes and some streams that have not been surveyed and/or summarized. The 

information presented in the table comes from surveys conducted by Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Game and Fish and the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest.

Stream Drainage County Whitefish Sculpin 

Mt. 

Sucker Dace 

East Fork Bear River Bear River Summit No Yes Yes Yes 

Hayden Fork Bear River Summit Yes Yes No No 

Mill City Creek Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Mill Creek Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

North Fork Mill Creek Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Ostler Fork Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Stillwater Fork Bear River Summit Yes Yes Yes No 

Teal Lake Trib. Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

West Fork Bear River Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Hidden Lake Beaver Creek Summit No No Yes No 

Middle Fork Of Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Summit No Yes No No 

East Fork Of Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit Yes Yes No No 

Little East Fork Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit Yes No No No 

Little West Fork Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit No No Yes No 

West Fork Of Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit Yes Yes Yes No 

Curtis Creek Blacksmith Fork Cache No Yes No No 

Rock Creek Blacksmith Fork Cache No No Yes No 

Henrys Fork Henrys Fork Summit No Yes Yes No 

Big Cottonwood Creek Jordan River Salt Lake No No Yes No 

West Fork Muddy Creek Muddy Creek Summit No Yes No No 

Left Fork, South Fork Ogden Ogden River Weber No Yes No No 

Right Fork, South Fork Ogden Ogden River Weber No Yes No No 

Boulder Creek Provo River Summit No Yes No No 

North Fork Provo River Provo River Summit No Yes Yes No 

Upper Provo River Provo River Summit No Yes No No 

China Lake Smiths Fork Summit No No Yes No 

Steel Creek Smiths Fork Summit No Yes No No 

West Fork Of Smiths Fork Smiths Fork Summit No Yes Yes No 

Beaver Creek Weber River Summit Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Coop Creek Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Gardners Fork Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Redpine Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Shingle Creek Weber River Summit Yes Yes Yes No 

Slate Creek Weber River Summit Yes Yes No No 

South Fork Weber Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Yellow Pine Creek Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

W.F. Beaver Burnt Fork Summit No Yes No Yes 

W.F. Smiths Fork Smiths Fork Summit Yes Yes Yes No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 8 

Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)

The primary habitat for the dace is found off the WCNF with only fringe habitat 

being found on the Forest. The two locations where dace have been found on Forest 

are at the Forest boundary in Beaver Creek (Weber River Drainage, Summit County) 

and the East Fork of the Bear River (Table B-3-2). These species are wide ranging 

and are not viewed as at risk by actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest and will not be discussed further. Sigler and Sigler (1996) identify predation 

as the primary limiting factor and also state that water quality is important 

management factor. Bonneville cutthroat trout are found in all of the locations where 

the long nose dace is found. By maintain habitat to support trout, it assumed that the 

longnose dace would be viable. 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Ochorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) – The Colorado 

River cutthroat trout has been petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. This species has been identified as a “Species-at-Risk” under step 1(b) 

and will be discussed further under the “Species-at-risk” section (Step 1(a,b)) and 

Species status (Steep 2a, 3a). 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Ochorhynchus clarki utah) – The Bonneville cutthroat 

trout has been petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is 

also listed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species. This species has been identified as a 

“Species at Risk” under step 1(b) and will be discussed further under the “Species at 

Risk” section (Step 1(a,b)) and Species status (Step 2a, 3a).

Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) – In general, this species is wide 

ranging and is viewed as at minimal risk by actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. The primary habitat for the mountain whitefish is found off the 

National Forest with only fringe habitat being found on the Forest. The locations 

where mountain whitefish have been found on Forest are at the Forest boundary in the 

upper Bear River, Beaver Creek (Weber River Drainage, Summit County) and the 

Blacks Fork River (Table B-3-2). They are also found in the Logan River Drainage 

and the Blacksmith Fork. Monitoring of the Logan River population by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (Thompson et al. 2000) in 1999 suggest that no 

change has occurred in these isolated populations. Sigler and Sigler (1996) in Fishes 

of Utah state that, “Mountain whitefish appear to be prospering throughout their 

range.” Cutthroat trout are found in all streams containing mountain whitefish. By 

maintaining habitat to support cutthroat trout, it is assumed that mountain whitefish 

would be viable. This is assumed because the two species are found occupying 

similar habitat where they coexist and their basic habitat requirement are similar. 

Whitefish are fall spawners and so some of the threats would be reduced as the 

potential for trampling is reduced. 

There are a number of fish not historically found on the WCNF, but which were 

historically found in Utah, that could potentially be impacted by management actions. 

These species live in streams, rivers, lakes and/or reservoirs within a reasonable distance 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 9 

downstream of the Wasatch-Cache NF. These include the following Species at Risk, as 

identified in Step 1(b), and are as follows: 

Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) – This federally endangered species, 

previously known as the Colorado squawfish, historically occurred in large rivers 

throughout the Colorado River system. The remaining populations are largely limited 

to Utah. Threats include habitat alterations, especially construction of large dams, 

which are believed to prevent spawning migrations and to change the flow and 

temperature regimes are critically important to the species. Another probably threat is 

predation from exotic game fish species. The primary WCNF concern has been with 

water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. No site-specific projects 

are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the Forest. No 

viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) –This Federally Endangered species is 

endemic to large rivers of the Colorado River system. Alterations in water flow and 

temperatures, due to damming; and possibly predation by introduced fishes have been 

identified as potential threats to this species. The primaryWCNF concern has been 

with water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. No site-specific 

projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the 

Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

Humpback chub (Gila cypha) – This Federally Endangered species is endemic to the 

Colorado River system, where it is uncommon and locally concentrated, usually in 

deep, swift-river, canyon-shaded segments. Damming has eliminated and altered 

habitat and favored exotic fish predators and competitors. The primary WCNF 

concern has been with water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. 

No site-specific projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water 

flows from the Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this 

species. 

Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans) – This Federally Endangered species is endemic to the 

Colorado River system, and has now been extirpated from much of its range. It 

possibly survives only in the Green River in eastern Utah. Habitat alteration is 

considered the greatest threat to this species. The primary WCNF concern has been 

with water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. No site-specific 

projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the 

Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) – The June Sucker is currently listed as an 

Endangered species. It historically inhabited Utah Lake and migrated up large 

tributary streams to spawn. Historically, commercial fishing, dewatering ofthe Provo 

River, and severe drought decimated this species. Pollution, predation by nonnative 

species, and hybridization with other species has been identified as current threats.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 10 

June suckers were stocked in Red Butte Reservoir, on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, in 1992. The purpose of this stocking was to provide a holding area for the 

fish. Since then the fish have successfully reproduced. It is suspected that there are 

currently more juvenile fish in the reservoir then its natural habitat of Utah Lake. Red 

Butte Reservoir is currently within a Research Natural Area and will not be impacted 

by the Forest’s land management actions. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is also upstream of the native habitat of the June 

Sucker. The primary concern has been with water withdraws on the Forest in the 

Prove River Drainage. Other Forest land-management impacts would be eliminated 

as the water passes through Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoirs. No site-specific 

projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the 

Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

In addition, several fish species not historically found on the WCNF or in Utah, inhabit 

streams, lakes and reservoirs on the WCNF. Many of these are valued for providing a 

sport fishery, but none are considered rare. These fish are well distributed across their 

range, are very common, and are not considered to be at risk based on their distribution 

and population levels. Habitat for the trout and kokanee are similar to those of cutthroat 

trout. As we provide habitat conditions for the cutthroat trout the conditions for these 

species should be met. These species include: 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) – The rainbow trout is an extremely popular 

sport fish. Although native to western North America, it is not native to Utah. This 

species has been introduced to many Utah, and WCNF, coldwater streams, rivers, 

lakes and reservoirs. Only a few streams contain naturally reproducing populations 

of rainbow trout. Many of the accessible lakes are stocked to provide for local 

fisheries. It is anticipated that the stocking of sterile rainbow trout will be focused on 

lakes and reservoirs over the next 15 years as the importance of protecting and 

enhancing native fish expands. 

Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) – This sport fish species is native to Europe and western 

Asia. Over the last 100 years, the species has been stocked in many streams in Utah 

and is common in many WCNF streams. Brown trout populations have remained 

relatively stable on the Forest over the past 15 years. Brown trout are not currently 

stocked on the Forest, and populations are maintained by natural reproduction. 

Brown trout are not viewed at risk on the WCNF. 

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) – This sport fish is native to eastern United 

States and Canada. Although not native to Utah, the species is common in many of 

Utah’s cold high-elevation lakes and streams. In Utah, successful reproduction of 

brook trout often leads to overcrowding. The species is present in several WCNF 

streams and lakes. Brook trout in streams and some lakes are maintained by natural 

reproduction and through stocking or natural reproduction in local lakes. Brook trout 

are not viewed at risk on the WCNF. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 11 

Kokanee Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) – The kokanee is a landlocked form of 

sockeye salmon. The kokanee is a popular non-native game fish. This species has 

been introduced into many reservoirs in the western United States, including several 

in Utah. Kokanee are currently found only in Causey Reservoir on the WCNF. This 

population appears to be able to sustain it’s self. If the cutthroat trout populations are 

provided for in the drainage there should be little need to analyze the kokanee. The 

species will not, therefore be considered for viability analysis. 

Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) 

Grayling are able to reproduce in lakes and appear to do well in a variety of 

conditions. All known populations on Forest appear to be self sustaining and capable 

of supporting sport fisheries. 

Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita) 

Golden trout have occurred in a limited number of lakes on the Forest. They require 

streams to reproduce and are thus limited by spawning habitat in the areas where they 

have been stocked. Golden trout are used as a management species to provide a 

diversity of fishing opportunities. These populations will only be maintained or 

expand through stocking by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. General land 

management actions will not affect the viability of these species throughout the 

planning area. 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri) 

It is currently undetermined if Yellowstone cutthroat trout migrated into the Bear 

River during presettlement times. The fish in the Bear River are viewed as 

Bonneville cutthroat trout as identified in the conservation plans. Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout populations have been maintained primarily through stocking. 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout stocking has been reduced as the need to preserve and 

expand existing native cutthroat trout populations was emphasized. Because these 

fish are stocked, they are not viewed at risk on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Warm Water Species 

Black crappie, bluegill, common carp, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, tiger 

muskie, yellow bullhead catfish and yellow perch are only found on the Forest at 

Pineview Reservoir. Management activities in the area are predominately 

recreational boating, swimming and fishing. The greatest impact to these fish is 

water withdraws which are outside the control of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

It is beyond the ability of the Forest to directly alter the viability of these species 

through our management activities. These fish will not be address further. 

Step 1(b): Identify Species-at-Risk 

Fish Species-at-Risk (SAR) and their distribution within the planning area were identified 

(Table B-3-3). The planning area includes lands within the administrative boundary of 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Of the known fish species on or near the WCNF that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 12 

management activities could impact, fish species-at-risk were identified (Figure B-3-1) 

and selected based on the following criteria from other known lists: 

1. Occurrence on the Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

lists (USDI 2000), 

2. Utah State Sensitive Species List and Natural Heritage Database (UDWR 1998) were 

used to identify S1 and S2, and G1, G2, and G3 species. Wyoming Fish Species of 

Concern (http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/fish/fish.htm)

3. Intermountain Region Forest Service Sensitive Species List (USDA 1995), 

Table B-3-3. The fish species at risk on or downstream of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah. 

Fish Scientific Name Comments 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Bonneville 

Oncorhynchus clarki utah FS Sensitive 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Colorado River 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus 

FS Sensitive 

Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FWS Endangered 

Humpback Chub Gila cypha FWS Endangered 

Bonytail Chub Gila elangas FWS Endangered 

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus FWS Endangered 

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus mictus FWS Endangered 

(Adapted from Lentsch et al. 1995) 

For consideration in this viability analysis, the species listed were then evaluated for the 

extent of potential habitat or occurrence on the WCNF based on any known historic or 

current collections. The potential of Forest activities in affecting their status and 

condition of their habitat was reviewed. 

This list of SAR, from a viability perspective, will likely change in the future, with 

species added and possibly others being deleted. The revised Forest Plan will incorporate 

adaptive management to allow for appropriate changes to revised goals, subgoals, 

objectives, standards and guideline. 

Species-at-Risk: Bonneville and Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout were the only fish identified by this 

analysis as species-at-risk for which a viability assessment was conducted (Table B-3- 

4). These two subspecies are viewed at risk not because of their existing condition on the 

Forest but because of their current range-wide condition and their status as a sensitive 

species (30CFR219.36). Both of these subspecies have been petitioned for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 13 

Table B-3-4. Fish species of concern for viability on or potentially affected by 

management of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Habitat Federal Status State Rank Global Rank 

Colorado River cutthroat 

trout (Ochorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus)

Native to and presently 

found on Wasatch-Cache 

NF 

FS Sensitive S2 G4T2T3 

Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki 

utah) 

Native to and presently 

found on Wasatch-Cache 

NF 

FS Sensitive S1S2 G4T2 

Proposed FS Sensitive: Proposed for addition to the Intermountain Region Sensitive 

Species List, per draft list dated 07-20-1999. 

** Natural Heritage Program conservation rankings 

G: Ranking based upon “global” or range-wide distribution and abundance 

T: Range-wide ranking for a sub-specific “taxon,” such as a variety or subspecies. 

S: “State” ranking, i.e., within Utah. 

G1/T1/S1: Indicates extreme rarity or other factor(s) making the species especially vulnerable to extinction or 

extirpation (typically five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres). 

G2/T2/S2: Indicates rarity or other factor(s) making the species very vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (6-20 

occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres). 

G4/T4/S4: Indicates a species that is widespread, abundant, and apparently secure, though it may be quite rare 

in parts of its range, especially at the periphery (usually more than 100 occurrences). 

Step 1(c): Species-at-risk for which viability analysis will be based on 

assessment for Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout 

Several native species-at-risk found on or are adjacent to the Forest will be analyzed 

for viability through the analysis for Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout as 

an indicator of their viability requirements. The assumptions is made that by meeting 

the biological needs of the cutthroat trout, the biological needs of these species will 

also be met. These species, for which the cutthroat trout would be considered their 

“focal species”, are mountain whitefish, mountain sucker, bluehead sucker, sculpin, 

arctic grayling and rainbow, brook, brown, and golden trout. 

Step 1(d): Species-at-risk for which viability analysis was not conducted 

because of no effect or because viability requirement are addressed by 

aquatic ecosystem management 

Colorado River Fishes 

The Colorado River fishes that may be a concern include the bonytail chub (Gila 

elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta). All of 

these fish, with the exception of the roundtail chub, are listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. These species reside off-Forest, and Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is required only for 

water withdraw projects on the Forest (personal communication from Michael M. 

Long, 22 March 2000). No site-specific projects are identified in the Forest Plan that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 14 

would restrict water flows from the Forest; therefore, no effects from Forest activities 

are expected. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

June Sucker 

This species historic habitat is off-Forest, and Forest Service consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service is similar to the Colorado River fishes. Water withdraw 

projects are the only projects that may impact the June suckers found in their historic 

habitat. No site-specific projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict 

water flows from the Forest; therefore, no effects from Forest activities are expected. 

No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

Other Fish Species 

No desirable non-native species have been identified as being at risk. 

Step 2. Ecological Context for the Species and Their Habitat 

Step 2(a) Ecosystem 

An important viability consideration for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is the 

role that National Forest lands contribute to habitat for the Bonneville and Colorado 

River cutthroat trout. This includes considering the connectivity of populations of 

cutthroat trout within and between watersheds. The ecological systems on which 

these species depend on the WCNF are the stream systems of the Forest. The 

description of the watersheds, conditions, ecological processes, and land uses is 

presented in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (PAMS) and 

summarized in Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan. Other fish species on the Forest are 

previously described in Step 1 of this assessment. 

The IWWI database, along with other sources, was used to define the ecological 

context for the cutthroat trout (Figure B-3-3). The data for the Rocky Mountain and 

Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service were developed in 1999 through a joint 

effort between the state wildlife and fish agencies and the Forest Service. The 

WCNF data was then checked by the Forest Fish Biologist to identify potential errors 

in the datasets. Data for the other forests were to be reviewed by their staff. The 

ecological context contains a number of parts and logic paths (Figure B-3-2). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 15 

Figure B-3-2. Factors considered as part of the overall ecological context of a species. 

Ecological Context – Biota – Fish 

Biotic information is the primary factor used from the IWWI to define the Ecological 

Context (Figure B-3-2). Biotic Information was collected at each 6th-field subwatershed 

and rated for the status of the cutthroat trout subspecies. The status calls for the 6th field 

subwatersheds were then combined to formulate a range wide and a Forest wide 

discussion for Ecological Context. Other reports and information were also used to 

supplement the data for this discussion. Data for the biotic part of the Ecological Context 

were obtained on 9 November 2000. It was downloaded from 

(Htttp://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html). The value of the streams on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, for cutthroat trout, is described at the subspecies level. 

This provides the context for the discussion of land management in the planning area. 

During this analysis, the only time private lands or other national forest lands are 

discussed is at the range wide level. Streams where cutthroat trout populations have been 

extirpated are reviewed for their restoration potential. Generally, streams identified for 

cutthroat trout restoration are those where (1) existing populations in the drainage could 

be expanded, (2) restoration work is technically feasible, and (3) where meta-populations 

could be strengthened. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 16 

Figure B-3-3. The flow chart to develop the ecological context for fish species-atrisk on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, at the species wide and Forest wide. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki utah) [Imperiled Status: Petitioned for 

listing as “Threatened”—ESA; “Conservation Species”—State of Utah, “Native 

Species Status 2”—State of Wyoming, S2-Natural Heritage Rank]

Step 2(b) Species Range-Wide: For the range of the Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, the Snake River Drainage forms the boundary on the north, the Colorado River 

on the east and south and the Nevada desert lands and drainages on the west. 

Historically, Bonneville cutthroat trout occupied approximately 90% of the 

Bonneville Basin (Duff 1996). May, in a rough estimate, suggests that Bonneville 

cutthroat trout are presently found in about 5% of their historic habitat (Personal 

Communication, Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout Conservation Coordinator, April 

12, 2000). 

Step 2(c) Forest Service and Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Eighty to ninety percent of the remaining populations currently reside on National 

Forest Lands (Personal Communication, Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout 

Conservation Coordinator, April 12, 2000). If Bonneville cutthroat trout were 

spread throughout what are now National Forest lands, within its historic range, the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had Bonneville cutthroat trout in 92 

sixth level HUCs. Rangewide, Bonneville cutthroat trout are found in 134 (20%), 

sixth level HUCs, of their historic 686 sixth code HUCs found on National Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 17 

lands. Of the 134 HUCs where Bonneville cutthroat trout are present, they are strong 

in 48 (36%), depressed in 75 (56%) and present with the strength being unknown in 

15 (11%) of the HUCs. It is unknown what is in 45 HUCs. If all of the 6th level 

HUCs on National Forest Lands, within their historic range, were counted, the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had 17 percent (Figure B-3-4). The 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest has 65 (49%) of the existing 134 HUCs in which 

cutthroat trout are present (Figure B-3-4). 

Figure B-3-4. Historic and current distribution of Bonneville cutthroat trout between 

forests by the number of6th level HUCs. 

Historic Distribution of Bonneville Cutthroat 

Trout on NF Lands (686 hucs)

Uinta

6%

BridgerTeton

6%

Dixie

25%

HumboltToiyabe

3%

Caribou

11%

Manti-La 

Sal

4%

Fishlake

28%

WasatchCache

17%

Current Distribution of Bonneville Cutthroat 

Trout on NF Lands (134 hucs)

WasatchCache

49%

Uinta

5%

BridgerTeton

16%

Fishlake

9%

Caribou

15%

Manti-La 

Sal

3%

HumboltToiyabe

1%

Dixie

2%

Other lands: The above analysis does not take into account the populations on 

private, tribal or of Bureau of Land Management lands (BLM). The main population 

known of on private lands is in the Chalk Creek Drainage, a tributary to the Weber 

River. The Chalk Creek Drainage was surveyed in 1999 and was found to contain 

103 stream miles of habitat occupied by cutthroat trout believed to be the Bonneville 

subspecies (Thompson 2000). The BLM and the Goshute Indian Tribe manages 

approximately 36 miles of stream containing Bonneville cutthroat trout. These 

populations are primarily found in the Deep Creek Mountains (USFWS 2000). 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki pleuriticus) [Imperiled Status: 

Petitioned for listing as “Threatened”—ESA; “Conservation Species”—State of 

Utah, “Native Species Status 2”—State of Wyoming, S2-Natural Heritage Rank] 

Step 2(b) Species Range-Wide: The range of the Colorado River cutthroat 

trout is bounded by the Missouri, Snake, and Bonneville drainages and then the 

temperature gradient of the Colorado River it’s self. Historically Colorado River 

cutthroat trout occupied all accessible cool waters of the Upper Colorado River 

Drainage, including the Green, Yampa, Gunnison, Dolores, San Juan, Duchesne, and 

Dirty Devil rivers (Young et al. 1996). May, in a rough estimate, suggests that 

Colorado River cutthroat trout are presently found in about 1-2% of their historic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 18 

habitat (Personal Communication, Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout Conservation 

Coordinator (April 12, 2000). Ninety-five to one hundred percent of the remaining 

populations currently reside on National Forest Lands (Personal Communication, 

Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout Conservation Coordinator (April 12, 2000). This 

subspecies was found on eight national forests in the states of Wyoming, New 

Mexico, Colorado and Utah. 

Step 2(c) Forest Service and Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Historically, if a person were to assume that Colorado River cutthroat trout were 

spread throughout what is now National Forest Lands, within its historic range, the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had cutthroat trout in 15 sixth level 

HUCs. If all of the 6th level HUCs on National Forest Lands, within the historic 

range, were counted the Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had 1 percent. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has 11 (3%) of the existing 364 HUCs in which 

cutthroat trout are present (Figure B-3-5). Colorado River cutthroat trout are found in 

364 (26%), sixth level HUCs, of their historic 1,357 sixth level HUCs found on 

National Forest lands. Of the 364 HUCs whereColorado River cutthroat trout are 

present, they are strong in 56 (15%) of which 10 (18%) are on the WCNF (Figure B3-6). Populations are depressed in 129 (35%) HUCs, of which 1 in on the WCNF. 

Range-wide on National Forest Lands Colorado River cutthroat trout are present with 

the strength being unknown in 179 (49%) of the HUCs. It is unknown if cutthroat 

trout are present in 520 HUCs. 

Figure B-3-5. Historic and current distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout between 

forests by the number of HUCs. 

 Historic Current 

WRIV

26%

GMUG

18%

SANJUA

N

24%

WC

1%

UINTA

2%

ASHLEY

15%

BTET

6%

MANTI

8%

WC

3%

SANJUAN

21%

UINTA

4%

ASHLEY

22%

BTET

8%

WRIV

22%

GMUG

17%

MANTI

3%

WC= Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

UINTA= Uinta National Forest 

ASHLEY= Ashley National Forest 

BTET= Bridger-Teton National Forest 

MANTI= Manti-LaSal Naitonal Forest 

GMUG= Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests 

WRIV= White River National Forest 

SANJUAN= San Juan National Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 19 

Figure B-3-6. Current strong population distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout 

between forests by the number of HUCs. 

WC

18%

UINTA

11%

ASHLEY

30%

BTET

23%

MANTI

0%

GMUG

0% WRIV

18% SANJUAN

0%

WC= Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

UINTA= Uinta National Forest 

ASHLEY= Ashley National Forest 

BTET= Bridger-Teton National Forest 

MANTI= Manti-LaSal Naitonal Forest 

GMUG= Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests 

WRIV= White River National Forest 

SANJUAN= San Juan National Forest 

Step 3. Data Used in the Analysis 

A number of existing and newly developed databases were used in the analysis. The 

data used in the analysis is listed below. 

Step 3 (a) Ecosystem Information 

1. Lakes, Reservoirs, and Streams: The Forest GIS data base was used to identify 

intermittent and perennial streams, and lakes and reservoirs. 

2. 4th through 6th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Sixth (6th) level HUCs were 

used as a primary analysis layer in the IWWI analysis (Figure B-3-7). The watershed 

layer on the Forest’s GIS system identifies watersheds at varying scales and this data 

was used in the viability assessment. 

3. Forest Boundary: The WCNF administrative boundary was used in the analysis. 

This allowed the information to be applied on lands managed by the Forest. 

 

4. Land Ownership: Existing land ownership was used. All alternatives project some 

land adjustment (amount does not vary by alternative); however, the alternatives do 

not identify what tracts would be acquired or disposed of. It would be highly 

speculative to project where this might occur. Existing land ownership is displayed in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 20 

the Forest’s GIS system and this was used for all analyses. Lands not managed by the 

WCNF were not included in the analysis. A review of the land ownership GIS layer 

verified that all of the latest land purchases or exchanges had been identified and 

included. 

Figure B-3-7. Forth and sixth level HUCs found on the Wasatch-Cache, Ashley and Uinta 

National forests in Utah and Wyoming. 

14040106

14060003

16010203

16020202 14060004

16020102

14040107

16020203

16020101

14060002

16010101

16020305 16020204

16020201

16010204

16020304

16010202

14060005

16030005 14060007

14040108

16010201

14060001

Subbasins (4th field HUCs) in the Wasatch-Cache, 

Uinta, and Ashley National Forests

N

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING

COLORADO

5. Fish Survey Data: For the WCNF, fish survey data is located in the “Locations.xls” 

database and includes fish species distribution, fish densities, sample locations and 

some general notes about the sample sites. Also included in the review are the yearly 

reports compiled by the Forest Service and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

This information covers the years 1993 through 2001 and includes surveys 

throughout the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

6. Grazing Allotment Boundaries and Head Months: Existing grazing allotment 

boundaries were used for the analysis. Head months for animals were pulled from the 

INFRA Forest database. A headmonth is one animal spending 30.416667 days on an 

allotment (365 days/12 months = 30.4 days per month). If 365 days divided by 12 

months = 30.416667 days per month. Chapter 3 Topic 7 contains the head month 

data used in the analysis. It is recognized that grazing threats may be reduced by a 

number of management actions (ie. herding, off channel water development, grazing 

rotations, fencing etc.). In this analysis these management actions are not taken into 

account because examples exist across the Forest where such actions have not been 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 21 

fully successful in preventing impacts to aquatic ecosystems. These are considered at 

the project level analysis. 

7. Capable Grazing Lands: This is a GIS map layer of the lands capable of being 

grazed by sheep and/or cattle on the WCNF. 

8. Timber Boundaries: This is a GIS map layer of the lands capable of providing 

harvestable timber on the WCNF. 

9. Alternative Maps: Alternative maps were used to identify management 

prescriptions. 

Landscape conditions: Information used for establishing the landscape conditions for 

the species are based on IWWI classifications at the 6th field HUC for Geomorphic 

integrity, water quality integrity, and watershed vulnerability. The synopsis across the 

Forest is presented below. 

10. Geomorphic Integrity: Each 6th-field subwatershed will be rated for its soilhydrologic function and stream resilience. This information was collected as part of 

the Inland West Watershed Analysis and was obtain on 9 November 2000 from. 

Http://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html) These calls were made by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist and Fish Biologist. The geomorphic integrity was 

identified as moderate for about 73% of the WCNF watersheds analyzed. 

Geomorphic integrity was considered high for about 23%, and low for about 4% of 

the WCNF watersheds (east sides of the Logan and Ogden Districts which drain into 

the Bear River) analyzed (Table B-3-5). In the Colorado River Drainage all of the 6th

level HUCs were “moderate” (Table B-3-5). 

11. Water Quality Integrity: Each 6th-field subwatershed was rated for the water 

quality of its segments. This information was collected as part of the Inland West 

Watershed Analysis and was obtain on 9 November 2000 from. 

Http://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html) The calls were made by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist and Fish Biologist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 22 

Table B-3-5. Geomorphic integrity, watershed vulnerability and water quality ratings as 

developed for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, as part of the Inland West 

Watershed Initiative. 

Rating Geomorphic 

Integrity 

Water 

Quality 

Watershed 

Vulnerability 

Forest Wide 

Low 4% 14% 9% 

Moderate 73% 80% 71% 

High 23% 6% 20% 

Bonneville Drainage 

Low 5% 16% 10% 

Moderate 67% 77% 67% 

High 28% 7% 22% 

Colorado Drainage 

Low 0% 6% 0% 

Moderate 100% 94% 89% 

High 0% 0% 11% 

 The water quality integrity was identified across the Forest. Minor parts of stream, 

segment miles are damaged across the Forest (80%, Table B-3-5). About 14% 

(Davis County north along the Wasatch Front) of the WCNF watersheds analyzed 

were considered to have few if any segments damaged, while about 6% (mostly 

Upper Provo River watersheds) of the watersheds analyzed were considered to have a 

major part of the segments damaged. Water quality integrity did not vary greatly 

between the Colorado and Bonneville basins. 

12. Watershed Vulnerability: Each 6th level HUC was rated for its inherent 

vulnerability to disturbance. This information was collected as part of the Inland 

West Watershed Analysis and was obtain on 9 November 2000 from. 

Http://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html) The calls were made by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist and Fish Biologist. 

 Across the Forest, 71% of the Subwatersheds (6th level HUC) were rated as 

moderate Watershed Vulnerability. Twenty percent of the Forest had major 

parts (20%) of the watershed in sensitive lands include, the Bear River, Box 

Elder Creek Drainage, the Wasatch Front in Davis County, and Mill Creek 

Drainage. 

 

Step 3(b) Species Status 

Because there are no quantitative models that completely represent risks to salmonid 

populations (McElhany et al. 2000), the viability assessment that follows in Step 4 is 

based on a qualitative analysis of risks and threats. The datasets used for the analysis are 

described below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 23 

Step 3(b)(i)Extinction Risk: 

Extinction risks are considered those items imposed by the nature of the environment and 

population. Although the impact may be influenced by man these are considered 

biological constraints. Extinction risk factors were reviewed and documented through 

use of local resources. Extinction risk factors include temporal variability, population 

size, growth and survival, and isolation at the 6th HUC level (Figure B-3-8). Replication 

and synchrony at the 4th HUC level, where appropriate for an assumed metapopulation 

(Rieman, B. D. Lee, J. McIntyre, K. Overton and R. Thurow 1993) were also considered 

extinction risk factors (Figure B-3-8). The following six extinction risk factors were 

identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service for the viability of evolutionarily 

significant units of Pacific salmonids (McElhany et al.2000). Conceptually they can be 

applied to any aquatic species. 

Figure B-3-8. Factors included in the four extinctions risk associated with the 6th

level HUCs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 24 

Figure B-8-9. Factors included in the four extinctions risk associated with the 6th

level HUCs. 

1. Population Size: Population size addresses the current population size 

and age structure. The greater the number of breeding adults, the less risk 

of extinction there is. Population size, density dependent factors (e.g. sex 

ratios, etc.) and genetic diversity are critical risk factors (McElhany et al. 

2000) that directly relate to population size. NMFS (McElhany et al. 

2000) also stresses the importance of building in a margin of error on 

population size calls. Populations should on average be able to replace 

themselves and should not exhibit declines in abundance that span 

multiple generations (McElhany et al. 2000). 

2. Growth and Survival: Habitat quality is evaluated by the ability to meet 

all of the life history needs and maintain good juvenile and adult survival. 

The channel is stable with minimum sediment inflow. Habitats are 

recognized as being dynamic, but they should not be decreasing either in 

total size or number of habitat patches (McElhany et al. 2000). Habitat 

patches are those areas that provide important habitat for a population of 

fish (for example rearing habitat or spawning habitat). 

3. Isolation: Populations are reviewed for their ability to commingle with 

other populations and expand into vacated or new areas. This affects the 

potential for reestablishing lost or diminished populations as well as the 

potential for genetic interchange to maintain the genetic variability of a 

metapopulation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 25 

4. Replication: The number of populations that exist within a potential 

metapopulation, allow for a variety management options to reestablish 

populations if one goes extinct. Widespread replication of populations 

reduces the possibility that a single uncharacteristic event will cause the 

population to go extinct, while geographically close populations allow 

metapopulation dynamics to function (McElhany et al. 2000). 

5. Synchrony: To best provide for the long term survival of populations 

within a 4th level HUC, environmental variation needs to be low and 

habitats complex. If populations within a metapopulation fluctuate 

together their ability to persist amid environment change decreases. 

Concern over environment variation was also identified by NMFS 

(McElhany et al. 2000). 

Step 3(b)(ii) Threats: 

For this assessment, threats are considered those management activities that 

would result in an increased level of extinction risk, as identified Step 3(b)(i). In 

addition, the term threat was used to distinguish between those broad factors cited 

by Rieman et al. (1993) and the more specificland management actions initiated 

locally. A number of threats were reviewed and the most critical ones identified 

and used in this analysis. The primary threats identified were roads, trails, 

motorized trails, grazing, developed recreation sites and special uses authorized in 

riparian zones on National Forest System Lands. Timber harvest allocations and 

the presence of non-native fish have also been included in the analysis. Factors 

eliminated from review because site specific environmental analysis would be 

required prior to implementation included gas and oil drilling, dams and 

diversions, non-timber or grazing forest products, wilderness, and reseeding and 

planting. 

The analyzed threats identified below, primarily affect habitat conditions which in 

turn affect population size, complexity to withstand temporal variability in 

habitats, habitat support for growth and survival and, if passage and connectivity 

are an issue, isolation of a population. If fish passage is an issue in some road 

systems, then the metapopulation may be affected (i.e. through effects to isolation 

and replication). The metapopulation would also be affected by changes in 

habitat because the potential loss of complexity reduces the ability of the habitat 

to support its metapopulation through changing conditions and stochastic events. 

1. Roads Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Roads within 300 feet of a stream were 

included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural function of the 

vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the channel. This 

increases sedimentation in the stream channel, alters the macroinvertebrate 

community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Roads also provide 

direct routes for sediment to enter the stream. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 26 

The roads layers, in the Forest’s database, were used to identify existing Forest 

Service classified and other non-Forest Service (e.g. city, county, state) roads. The 

percent of the 300 feet from the stream that has been taken out of properly 

functioning condition because of roads, on the Forest, ranged from 0 to 

approximately 2 percent (Figure B-3-10 and B-3-11). This database also identifies 

maintenance level. The Forest does not currently have an inventory of 

unclassified roads, and therefore, geographic data for these was not available for 

this analysis. Roads were assumed to be 12 feet wide for the analysis. It is 

recognized that a number of paved roads are wider, but the barrow non-paved 

sections would be close to the 12 feet. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed by Roads

FigureB-3-10. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural 

functioning condition by roads within 6th level HUCs on the WasatchCache National Forest, Utah and Wyoming. HUCs are in order of drainage 

starting with the Green River Drainage and ending with the Stansbury 

Mountains. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 27 

Rds%300 Variable

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING COLORADO

N

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

RDS%300 Variable Values

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 +

Subbasins

Figure B-3-11. Percent of the land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken 

out of naturally functioning condition by construction of a road, by 6th level HUCs. 

These calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley, and Wasatch-Cache National 

Forests. Calculations were only completed on National Forest lands within 6th

level HUCs although full HUCs are displayed. 

Roads also affect fish passage. As roads cross streams, populations can become 

cutoff from habitat upstream of the crossing. The potential for these impacts was 

identified in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest’s Road Analysis. There has not been 

broad enough inventory work on this matter to validate these potential problems. 

2.Non-motorized Trails Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Non-motorized trails within 

300 feet of a stream were included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural 

function of the vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the 

channel. This increases sedimentation in the stream channel, alters the 

macroinvertebrates community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Trails 

also provide direct routes for sediment to enter the stream. 

The non-motorized trails layer from the Forest’s GIS database was used to identify 

existing non-motorized trails. The percent of land 300 feet from the stream that has 

been taken out of naturally functioning condition because of non-motorized trails, on 

the Forest, ranged from 0 to approximately 0.5% Trails were assumed to be four feet 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 28 

wide for the analysis and include developed and maintained trail. This analysis does 

not include the user-defined trails. 

Figure B-3-12. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by non-motorized trails within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River Drainage and 

ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed with Trails

3. Motorized Trails Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Motorized within 300 feet of a 

stream were included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural function of the 

vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the channel. This increases 

sedimentation in the stream channel and alters the macroinvertebrates community and 

causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Trails also provide direct routes for sediment 

to enter the stream. 

The motorized trails layer from the Forest’s GIS data base was used to identify existing 

motorized trails. Trails were assumed to be 4 feet wide for the analysis and include 

developed and maintained trail. This analysis does not include the user-defined trails. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 29 

Figure B-3-13. Percent of the land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by construction of a trail, by 6th level HUCs. These 

calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley Wasatch-Cache National forests. 

Calculations done only for National Forest lands within 6th level HUCs although full HUCs 

are displayed. 

TRL%300 Variable 

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 - 50

Subbasins

TRL%300 Variable Value

N

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING COLORADO

Figure B-3-14 Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by motorized trails within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Utah. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River Drainage and ending 

with the Stansbury Mountains. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed with Motorizied 

Trails
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 30 

Figure B-3-15. Percent of the land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by construction of a motorized trail, by 6th level HUCs. 

These calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley Wasatch-Cache National forests. 

Calculations done only for National Forest lands within 6th level HUCs although full HUCs 

are displayed. 

COLORADO WYOMING

UTAH

IDAHO

N

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 - 50

Subbasins

TRM%300 Variable Value

TRM%300 Variable 

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

4. Suited Timber Harvest Lands Within 300 feet of a Stream: Timber removal along 

a stream course precludes large woody debris from entering the stream and increases the 

complexity of the fish habitat. Timber harvest also reduces shading and increases water 

temperatures. Sediment runoff can also occur in areas where harvest has occurred. 

Suited timber lands where timber harvest may occur (management prescription 5.2) that 

are within 300 feet of a stream course were analyzed. 

5. Domestic Livestock Grazing: Domestic livestock grazing can affect fish and their 

habitat by reducing overhanging cover, destabilizing banks, increasing sedimentation and 

trampling of redds (Chase, 2000). 

Boundaries of allotments, allotment status (active or vacant), and type of livestock 

authorized (sheep or cattle) were reviewed and considered. The number of livestock per 

mile of stream within each 6th level HUC was generated using the Forest’s GIS system, 

and also in the INFRA database. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 31 

Figure B-3-16 Head months per mile of stream in 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, Utah. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River 

Drainage and ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

17

131925313743495561677379

6th Level huc

Head Months/Mile of Stream

cattle

sheep

6. Non-native Fish: The distribution of non-native fish was also viewed as a threat to 

the Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout. Non-native fish compete directly with 

the cutthroat trout for habitat and food. . Exotic species pose potential threats to genetic 

purity of the populations through hybridization and introgression. 

7. Develop Recreation Sites Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Developed recreation sites

within 300 feet of a stream were included in the analysis because they can eliminate the 

natural function of the vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the 

channel. This increases sedimentation in the stream, alters the macroinvertebrate 

community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Stream access trails also 

provide direct routes for sediment to enter the stream. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 32 

The recreation layer from the Forest’s GIS database was used to identify existing 

developed and special use sites. The percent of land 300 feet from the stream that has 

been taken out of naturally functioning condition because of developed use sites on the 

Forest, ranged from 0 to approximately 28% (Figure B-3-17 and Figure B-3-18). 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

18

152229364350576471788592

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed by Develope Use 

Sites

Figure B-3-17. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by developed use sites within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah and Wyoming. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River 

Drainage and ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 

8. Special Use Sites Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Special use sites within 300 feet of a 

stream were included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural function of the 

vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the channel. These sites can 

also decrease riparian vegetation. This increases sedimentation in thestream, alters the 

macroinvertebrate community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Stream 

access trails from these sites can also provide direct routes for sediment to enter the 

stream. 

The recreation layer from the Forest’s GIS database was used to identify existing 

developed and special use sites. The percent of land 300 feet from the stream that has 

been taken out of naturally functioning condition because of special use sites on the 

Forest ranged from 0 to approximately 2.6 (Figure B-3-19 and B-3-20). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 33 

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

DU%300 Variable Values

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 +

Subbasins

N

COLORADO

WYOMING

UTAH

IDAHO

Du%300 Variable

Figure B-3-18. Percent of land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by construction of developed uses (trail heads, 

campgrounds, picnic area etc.), by 6th level HUCs. These calculations were done for the 

Uinta, Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National forests. Calculations done only for National 

Forest lands within 6th level HUCs, although full HUCs are displayed. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed by Special Use 

Areas

Figure B-3-19. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by special use sites within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah and Wyoming. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River 

Drainage and ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 34 

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

SU%300 Variable 

SU%300 Variable Value

Subbasins

2 - 50

1 - 2

0.25 - 1

0 - 0.25

0

N

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING COLORADO

Figure B-3-20. Percent of land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by existing special use facilities (summer homes, ski 

resorts etc.), by 6th level HUCs. These calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests. Calculations done only for National Forest lands 

within 6th level HUCs although full HUCs are displayed. 

Step 4 Assessments for potential extinction 

Step 4(a) Potential extinction at the 6th Level HUC 

The threats identified in Step 3 along with the extinction risk factors, also in Step 3, were 

used to identify the potential for extinction of the populations within the 6th code HUC 

level. Most of the determinations were qualitative using the following basic thought 

processes: 

1. Do we know what the trend has been over the last 15 years? In most cases, the data 

was not available to make this determination. In areas where trend datawas available (ie. 

Logan River Drainage), the confidence intervals were large enough to mask any 

differences that may have occurred over time. 

2. Is there an extinction risk, be it (a) Temporal Variability in recruitment or survival, 

(b) Population Size, (c) Growth & Survival and/or (d) Isolation that is in a high or 

extreme risk to the level thata 6th code HUC may become vacated of native fish over the 

next 10 to 15 years? 

3. Is there a current threat, be it (a) Grazing, (b) Recreation/Special Uses, (c) Roads 

and/or trails, (d) Non-native Species, and/or (e) Timber treatment, that is high enough 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 35 

that a 6th level HUC may become vacated of native fish over the next 10 to 15 years? 

The assumption is that one threat may be sufficient to cause a population to vacate a 6th

level HUC. This also takes into account the Inland West Watershed Initiative 

information of Geomorphic Integrity, Water Quality, and Watershed Vulnerability. 

Data from the above factors have been combined into a single table for easier comparison 

and analysis. For the analysis, the following steps were taken: 

a. All of the risk factors for the 6th level HUCs were combined into a single 

factor. Generally these were averaged unless local information was known 

and could be combined with the averaged risk factor to more accurately reflect 

the overall risks. 

b. The potential impacts from roads, motorized trails and trails were summed 

into one threat factor. 

c. Developed and special uses were summed to generate one threat factor. 

d. Threats for grazing and non-native fish were left separate with cattle and 

sheep grazing densities both being identified. 

e. Trend for 6th level HUCs were then identified. An upward trend was 

identified where addition habitat had been added or habitat improvements had 

occurred. If a stream had been treated to remove non-native fish, the general 

trend was viewed as increasing. A downward trend was identified if the 

population had an overall risk rating of 3 or 4,had lost potential functioning 

condition in over 2.5% of the huc’s riparian zone, and/or had two or more 

non-native fish with potential interbreeding. The population was considered 

stable if there was no evidence of major change from the last Forest Planning 

period. 

It should be recognized that with any data set there are limitations, shortcomings, and 

errors. Risk ratings were used to describe the 6th code HUC area as a whole, although, 

watersheds and their associated environmental conditions vary greatly. One stream may 

run north while another stream runs to the west, or one stream may have a road adjacent 

to it while another may be in wilderness. Fish populations may reflect these differences. 

As a result, their risk rating may differ greatly between streams and even between stream 

sections if evaluated at that level. That level of analysis is beyond the 6th level HUC area 

that is being used for the Forest Planning effort. The results of the analysis at the 6th level 

HUC are presented in Table s B-3-6 through B-3-17. 

Step 4(b) Likelihood of persistence of the metapopulation for 15 and 100 

years 

The trend and potential for extinction, assessment at the 6th level HUC was combined 

with the replication risk factor and synchrony risk factor at the 4th level HUC to make a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 36 

determination on the likelihood of persistence of the metapopulation for 15 and 100 

years. For this assessment, the metapopulation was assumed to be those populations 

within the 4th level HUC that could possibly have connectivity. Persistence at 15 and 100 

years was assumed if any of the individual populations were expected to persist for that 

time period. Changes in the risk factors with expected changes in the 6th level HUC 

populations were described. 

The likelihood of persistence is described below for each of the metapopulations (4th

level HUC). Identification of the more critical threats is also made. 

COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT 

Henrys Fork Drainage 

15 Years It is believe that these populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout, in the 

Henrys Fork Drainage (HUC 14040106) will persist over the next 15 years based on the 

limited risks and moderate threats (Figure B-3-21). The replication risk is 2, with 

multiple strong populations across the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. The 

synchrony risk is 2, with populations being found in moderate quality complex habitats. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The frequency and potential of large-scale 

uncharacteristic events is assumed to be moderate, with fire being the major concern. 

The primary concern in the drainage is the movement of non-native fish coming upstream 

(Table B-3-6). Grazing in the upper Henrys Fork is also a concern, with a large number 

of head months per mile of stream occurring in the 6th level HUC. The availability of 

water in the drainage may reduce the potential impact from grazing. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Colorado River cutthroat trout will persist over the 

next 100 years also. Again the risks and threats are expected to remain constant. At this 

4th level HUC, it is likely that we may loose some of the range currently occupied by 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. However, based on the limited risks and moderate 

threats, it is believe that they will continue persist in the 4th level HUC. 

Blacks Fork Drainage 

15 Years It is believe that these populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout will 

persist over the next 15 years in the Blacks Fork Drainage, based on the limited risks and 

moderate threats (Figure B-3-22). The replication risk is 2 with major populations in 

Smiths Fork, Blacks Fork, Brush Creek, and Sage Creek. The synchrony risk is 2 with 

impacts from historic tie hacking continuing to affect fish habitat. The frequency and 

potential of large-scale uncharacteristic events is assumed moderate. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concern in the drainage is the upstream 

movement of non-native fish. This concern has been addressed with the installation of 

migration barriers in some of these drainages. Grazing in the Gilbert Creek Drainage is 

also a concern with a large number of head months per mile of stream occurring in the 6th
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 37 

level HUC (Table B-3-6). The availability of water in the drainage may reduce the 

potential impact from grazing. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Colorado River cutthroat trout will persist over the 

next 100 years also. Again the risks and threats are expected to remain constant. 

Muddy Creek 

15 Years The persistence of Colorado River cutthroat trout in the Muddy Creek 

Drainage, over the next 15 years, will be dependent on what occurs off National Forest 

lands (Figure B-3-22). There is very limited mileage of habitat on National Forest lands. 

The replication risk is 4 with a very limited population on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. The synchrony risk of 3 is that the fish population could be affected by an 

uncharacteristic event. 

Risks and Threats of Concern Isolation is the primary risk of concern for the WCNF 

population. The risks and threats are expected to remain constant (Table B-3-7). 

100 Years If no changes occur off National Forest Lands, it is anticipated that this 

population will persist over the next 100 years. 

Duchesne River 

15 Years In surveys conducted in 2001 no cutthroat trout were found in the upper 

Duchesne River Drainage on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This upper portion of 

the river contained only rainbow and brook trout. The surveys conducted in 2001 were 

the first know survey conducted in the upper portion of the drainage (Figure B-3-23). 

The replication risk is 5 with no populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 

synchrony risk is 5 with no populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The assumed risks and threats are low to moderate and 

expected to remain constant (Table B-3-8). 

100 Years With no population currently occurring on the Forest, no population can 

persist over the next 100 years unless a population is transplanted into the area. 

Upper Bear River 

15 Years It is believed that the Bear River populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout, on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, will persist over the next 15 years based on the 

limited risks and moderate threats (Figure B-3-24). The replication risk is 2 with 

metapopulations in Mill, Stillwater and the Woodruff Creek drainages. The synchrony 

risk was 2 with most of the environment being stable and the habitat is very complex 

across the 4 HUC. The frequency and potential of large-scale uncharacteristic events is 

assumed low. It is expected that the risks and threats will increase over the next 15 years 

as more land is sold for development. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 38 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in the drainages are the non-native 

fish and some habitat impacts from historic tie hacking and grazing (Table B-3-9). 

Grazing in the Woodruff and the West Fork of the Bear drainages are also a concern with 

a large number of head months per mile of stream occurring in the 6th level HUC. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 

100 years also. The risks and threats are expected to increase over the next 100 years as 

demands for recreational opportunities and water increases. 

North Cache Valley 

15 Years It is believed that most of the populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout will 

persist over the next 15 years even though there are a limited number of isolated 

populations. The High Creek population is expected to be lost because of its limited size 

and the current interbreeding which is occurring. When sampled in 1997, no fish had the 

appearance of being pure cutthroat trout. All fish appeared to be crossed with rainbow 

trout. Follow up surveying in 1998 also found no fish which appeared to be pure. The 

replication risk is 4, with very limited populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The synchrony risk was 3 where habitat could be affected by uncharacteristic natural 

events across the 4 HUC. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in the drainages are the limited 

small populations with no connection between drainages and continued expansion of the 

population along the Wasatch Front. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will not persist in this 4th

level HUC over the next 100 years because of continued declines in population size and 

continued lack of connectivity between drainages. This is because demands for 

recreational opportunities, water and general population growth are expected to increase. 

West Wellsville 

This 4th level HUC will remain without cutthroat trout. 

South Cache Valley 

15 Years It is believed that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 15 

years based on the limited risks and moderate threats in the 4th level HUC. The 

replication risk is 2, with major populations in the Logan and upper Blacksmith Fork 

Rivers. The synchrony risk was 2 with good habitat complexity and environmental 

variation across the 4th level HUC. The frequency and potential of large-scale 

uncharacteristic events is assumed low. It is anticipated that over the next 15 years the 

population in Saddle Creek will be lost. It is believed that this population will be lost 

because of the cumulative impacts of the natural lack of water found in the area, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 39 

environmental factors (i.e. drought) and habitat impacts in the water including roads and 

grazing. This population is currently excluded from cattle grazing through the use of 

letdown fences. Cattle have been known to trespass in the area. The population is 

currently experiencing year class failures and is confined to a very small segment of the 

stream. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in the drainages are the major 

highway along the river and grazing. Grazing in the Right Hand Fork, Temple Fork and 

Tony Grove HUCs in the Logan River Drainage and Saddle Creek and the Left Hand 

Fork in the Blacksmith Fork drainages are of concern. The risks and threats are expected 

to increase over the next 15 and 100 years as demands for recreational opportunities and 

water increases. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 

100 years. The population in the Left Fork Blacksmith Fork is expected to be lost over 

the next 100 years because of the threats associated with the 6th level HUC. There is a 

road adjacent to the river up the entire length of the stream. There are also two nonnative fish in the stream. Sedimentation from the road and adjacent side hills can reach 

the stream. Grazing numbers are the second highest in this HUC and recreational use is 

high is this drainage. The population is also isolated from other populations. 

Weber River 

15 Years It is believed that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 15 

years based on the limited risks andthreats in the 4th level HUC. The replication risk is 2. 

Major populations occur in the upper Weber, N.F. Ogden and Beaver Creek. All of these 

populations are isolated from each other but do contain a number of connected miles of 

stream habitat. The synchrony risk was 2 with some evidence of regional decline with 

good habitat complexity and environmental variation across the 4th level HUC. The 

frequency and potential of large-scale uncharacteristic events is assumed low. The 

population in the South Fork of the Weber River is expected to be lost over the next 15 

years. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in these drainages are non-native 

fish. The risks and threats are expected to increase over the next 15 to 100 years as 

demands for recreational opportunities and water increase. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will probably decline but 

not be lost over the next 100 years. 

Ogden River – Wasatch Front 

15 Years It is believed that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 15 

years in most of these 6th level HUCs, based on the limited risks and limited threats in the 

4th level HUC. The replication risk is 3 with mostly small, isolated populations of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 40 

cutthroat trout. The synchrony risk was 2 with good habitat complexity and low 

environmental variation across the 4th level HUC. The frequency and potential of largescale uncharacteristic events is assumed low. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in these drainages are non-native 

fish and the isolated nature of the populations. During the 1982-83 winter, excessive 

snow accumulated across the State of Utah. During spring runoff, debris flows occurred 

in a number of these smaller canyons. Pre and post surveys indicate that cutthroat trout 

were lost from Parish and Willard Creek during this period. Historically, these streams 

may have connected to others allowing for repopulation. Most of these small headwater 

streams have been diverted at the Forest boundary preventing recolonization. The risks 

and threats are expected to increase over the next 15 to 100 years as demands for 

recreational opportunities and water increases. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout, in the 4th level HUC will 

probable decline over the next 100 years, but will not be lost. Some of the smaller 

populations are likely to be lost over the next 100 years due to natural events. 

Salt Lake County Drainages 

15 Years There are four known populations of cutthroat trout in the 4th level HUC with 

two of these being found on National Forest Lands. All of these populations: Little 

Cottonwood, Deaf Smith, Parleys and Red Butte Creeks are limited in size. None of 

these populations are connected. The replication risk is 3, with populations being 

isolated with no potential for interbreeding. The synchrony risk is 2, with populations 

found in moderately complex habitats 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns for these populations areisolation 

and small population size. 

100 Years The population in Red Butt is expected to persist due to the habitat being 

protected, and no fishing or recreation. The population in Parleys Creek is also expected 

to persist over the next 100 years, although only a limited number of fish in this 

population are on the WCNF. The population inLittle Cottonwood Creeks is not likely to 

persist for 100 years because of inbreeding impacts and a high risk from environmental 

conditions. Little Cottonwood Creek currently has water chemistry problems, primarily 

heavy metals. It is undetermined as to the source of these heavy metals whether they are 

from natural sources or historic mining in the drainage. The Little Cottonwood Creek 

population is very isolated and limited in distribution. A toxicant spill from one of the 

ski resorts or private cabins could easily cause the loss of this population. 

East Side Stansburys 

This 4th level HUC will remain without cutthroat trout. 

West Side Stansburys: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 41 

This 4th level HUC will remain without cutthroat trout. 

Provo River Drainage 

15 Years There are four known populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout in this 4th level 

HUC on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These are Soapstone, Rock, Boulder creeks 

and a population that is found in the upper mainstem Provo River as evidence by the 

capture of a few isolated cutthroat trout. There is a very limited understanding of the 

upper mainstem Provo River population on National Forest lands. The populations are 

considered isolated with no large fluvial fish being captured during surveys. The 

populations in Soapstone and Rock creeks are not expected to persist over the next 15 

years because of the limited population size and the lack of connectivity. In 2001 and 

2002, Soapstone Creek was dry by late June. This would have caused the lost of year 

classes during these years. Rock Creek, when surveyed in 1995 had a population 

estimate of one fish collected in 89 meters of stream. The stream itself is very small. If 

the mainstem Provo River had a population of cutthroat trout in it these two feeder stream 

may be more likely to survival the natural low water years and isolation. A population is 

not believed to exists there. The replication risk is 3 with a very limited number of 

populations of which allareisolated. The replication risk is 2 with the existing 

populations being very dispersed. 

Risks and Threats of Concern Water demand and recreation use is expected to continue 

to increase. 

100 Years The population in Boulder Creek is expected to remain viable for the next 

100 years. The Bonneville cutthroat trout in the 4th level HUC are viewed as viable over 

the next 100 years because the strongest population is expected to persist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 42 Table B-3-6. Risks and threats associated with the Henry Fork Drainage (HUC-14040106) on the Wasatch-Cac

with the identified trend. 

Subwatershed and 6th

Field HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gra

H

mo

(cow

Upper Burnt Fork 

140401060601 

2,2,2 1 1 1 2 

subwatersheds 

with no 

connection 

1 very 

limited 

isolation 

good 

complexity 

0.383142 0.111691 47

East &Middle Fork 

Beaver140401060602 

2,2,2 1 2 MF= 

64/mile 

2 4 isolated 3 0.357808 0.448796 27

West Fork Beaver 

140401060603 

3,2,2 1 1 1 2 2 0.414233 0.161104 38

Upper Henrys Fork 

140401060604 

2,2,2 1 1 2 2 well 

connected 

2 0.408527 0.115991 699/

Lost, Spring, Poison 

creeks 140401060605 

2,2,2 1 1 211/mile 2 2 well 

connected 

3 Isolated 

limited 

numbers 

0.635677 0.000000 20

Lower part of Burnt 

Fork 

140401060606 

2,1,2 1 1 1 2 2 limited 

and isolated 

0.887314 0.000000 14
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 43 

140401060101

140401060103

140401060102

140401060105

140401060104

140401060204

140401060301 140401060401 140401060405

140401060303 140401060404

140401060302

140401060403

140401060508140401060304 140401060406 140401060605

140401060501

140401060905 140401060407

140401060707

140401060606

140401060640

140401060408

140401060604

140401060708

140401061004140401060409 140401060705 14040106

140401060706

140401060603 140401060602 140401060704 140401060806

140401060601 140401060808

140401061003 140401060702

14040106100

140401061001

140401060807

140401060802

140401060701

140401060703140401060803

140401060805

140401060801

140401060804

140401061201 140401060809

Henry's Fork River Drainage (14040106)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N

5 0 5 10 Miles

Figure B-3-21. Map of the Henry’s Fork River Drainage (4th HUC - 14040106) with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache and As
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 44 Table B-3-7. Risks and threats associated with the Blacks Fork Drainage (HUC-14040107) on the Wasatch-Cach

with the identified trend. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Head-mon

(cow/shee

Gilbert Creek 

140401070601 

2,3,2 1 2 treated 

fy2000 

2 4 3 migration 

barrier, 

limited 

population 

0.372141 0.098862 822/453

West Fork 

Smiths Fork 

140401070602 

3,3,3 1 1 557-

1016/mile 

2 tie 

hacking 

1 connected 

stream 

miles = 16 

1 good size 

and stream 

mileage 

0.227125 0.000000 1477/0 

Willow Creek 

140401070603 

3,3,3 3 2 2 4 4 isolation 0.038341 0.000000 648/0 

Little Dry Creek 

140401070604 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 

Cutthroat 

not 

present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

2.123823 1.700436 0/99 

Sage Creek 

140401070606 

2,2,2 3 2 3 4 4 0.398150 0.000000 565/0 

E. F. Blacks 

Fork 

140401070701 

3,2,2 1 1 2 1 1 0.227115 0.005295 61/3240 

W. F. Blacks 

Fork 

140401070702 

2,2,2 1 1 2 1 1 0.263057 0.140805 3/7274 

Lower Blacks 

Fork River 

140401070703 

3,2,2 2 2 2 tie 

hacking 

1 good 

connection 

2 0.215440 0.149231 79/742 

Little West Fork 

Blacks Fork 

140401070760 

3,2,2 2 low 

diversity 

1 998/mile 2 tie 

hacking 

3 Not 

connected 

3 0.528278 0.000000 0/1019 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 45 

140401070907

140401070906 140401070908

140401071008

140401071009

140401070606

140401070604

140 140401080302 401070603

140401080301

140401070601

140401070602

140401070760

140401070703

140401070702

140401070701

Muddy Creek (14040108) 

and Blacks Fork (1404017)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N

5 0 5 10 Miles

Figure B-3- 22. Map of the Blacks Fork (4th HUC - 14040107) and Muddy Creek (4th HUC – 14040108) drainages with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatc

National forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 46  (Table B-3-8). Risks and threats associated with the Muddy Creek Drainage (HUC-14040108) on the Wasatch-

with the identified trend.

Subwatershed and 6th

Field HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

G

(co

W.F. Muddy Cr. 

140401080301 

3,2,2 2 1 2 4, 1 mile of 

stream on 

Forest 

4 0.088594 0.000000 0/0 

140401080302 2,2,2 5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no 

water on 

Forest 

5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no water 

on Forest 

0.000000 0.000000 5 

o

Table B-3-9. Risks and threats associated with the Duchesne River Drainage (HUC-14060003) on the Wasatch-

with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head-mo

(cow/sh

Middle North 

Fork on w-c 

140600030102 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.330787 1.193287 34/0 

Lower North 

Fork on w-c 

140600030103 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.321923 0.410352 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 47 

140600031201 1 140600031301 40600031302

140600030901

140600030802

140600030902 140600031202 140600030801

140600030401

140600030903 140600030101

140600031204

140600031303 140600031203

140600030403 140600030904 140600030402 140600031101 140600030803 140600031205 140600031103 140600030905 140600030804 140600031102

140600030102 140600031401

140600031104

140600031304 140600031402 140600030103 140600031206 140600030405

140600031403

140600030404

140600030805

140600030501

140600031501

140600031003

140600030301 140600031107

140600030906

140600030302140600030203 140600031001

140600030304

140600030502 140600030204

140600030202

140600030201 140600030303

140600030601

140600030704 140600030707 140600030702 140600030703 140600030705

140600030706 140600030701

Duchesne River

(14060003)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 23. Map of the Duchesne River Drainage (4th HUC - 14060003) with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache, Uinta and Ashley National f
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 48 Table B-3-10. Risks and threats associated with the Upper Bear River Drainage (HUC-14040107) on the Wasatc

Forest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Graz

Hea

mon

(cow/s

East Fork Bear 

River 

160101010101 

2,2,1 2 Some 

disturbance 

in drainage 

2 limited 

metapopulation, 

non-natives 

1 limited 

influence 

2 good 

connectivity 

3 0.432246 0.014046 285/7

Stillwater 

Drainage 

160101010102 

2,2,1 1 Mostly in 

wilderness 

1 large 

metapopulation 

322 fish/mile, 4 

miles of stream 

1 habitat 

excellent 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.426281 1.147866 0/10

Hayden Fork 

160101010103 

3,2,1 2 less 

stable 

conditions 

1 large 

metapopulation 

3 tie 

hacking 

impacts 

2 fewer 

main river 

individuals 

3 

population 

is Hayden 

Fork is 

limited 

0.431153 1.832368 0/67

West Fork Bear 

River, Meadow, 

Humpy, Deer C 

160101010104 

3,2,3 2 Dam 

natural 

hydrograph 

disrupted 

1 large 

population 1562 

fish/mile) 

2 dam and 

flow 

alteration 

2 some 

restriction in 

access 

between 

populations 

2 0.590703 0.000000 0/60

Lower Part near 

Guard Station 

160101010105 

2,2,2 1 relatively 

stable 

3 potentially 

connected to 

metapopulations 

seasonally 

3 water 

temperature, 

diversions, 

road impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

3 1.905344 9.799349 0/29

Lower Part of 

Bear River 

160101010106 

Non-Forest 0 private 

lands 

0 private land 0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Mill Creek 

Drainage 

160101010201 

3,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 low population 

number 85-50 

fish/mile 

3 tie 

hacking and 

road 

impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 0.826135 0.439950 9/17
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 49 Table B-3-10. conti. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Graz

Hea

mon

(cow/s

Upper 

Woodruff Creek 

160101010501 

3,2,3 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.496641 0.000000 252/2

Sugar Pine 

Creek 

160101010502 

3,2,3 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 grazing 

impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 0.171206 0.003036 1428

Birch Creek 

160101010503 

2,2,3 0 private 

lands 

0 private land 0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0.232451 0.000000 0/48

Lower 

Woodruff Creek 

160101010504 

Non-Forest 0 private 

lands 

0 private land 0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private lands

0 private lands

0 privalands

Upper Big 

Creek 

160101010601 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.430222 0.000000 0/42

Dry Canyon 

160101010602 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.844647 0.000000 0/0 

Old/Pole/Spring 

Canyon 

160101010603 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.545517 0.000000 0/4

Otter Creek 

160101010604 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.969241 0.000000 0/4
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 50 

160101010604

160101010603

160101010602

160101010601

160101010503

160101010502

160101010501

160101010106

160101010105

160101010104

160101010201

160101010103

160101010101

160101010102

Subbasins (HUC4)Subwatersheds (HUC6)

Upper Bear River Drainage

(16010101)

N

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

Figure B-3- 24. Map of the Upper Bear River Drainage (4th HUC - 16010101) with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forests. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 51 

160102020403

160102020402

160102020401

160102040501

160102010101

160102040502

160102040503

Wellsville West Side (16010204),

North Cache Front (16010202),

Bear Lake (16010201)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 Miles

Figure B-3- 25. Map of the North Cache Valley, the western Wellsville and the Bear Lake 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National For
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 52 Table B-3-10. Risks and threats associated with the North Cache Valley (HUC-16010202) on the Wasatch-Cachwith the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

G

m

(co

Cache N. Front 

160102020401 2,2,2 

2 nonnative 

species, 

some 

physical 

disturbance 

3 small 

isolated 

population 

2 road up 

bottom, water 

diversion 

4 very 

isolated 4 0.353667 0.315409 

Cache N. Front 

2160102020402 2,2,2 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 0.139644 0.000000 

High Creek 

160102020403 2,1,2 

1 good 

stability 

3 small 

isolated 

population 

2 Road and 

trails causing 

concerns 

4 very 

isolated 

4 isolation, 

crossbreeding 0.304283 0.190738 

Table B-3-11. Risks and threats associated with the West Wellsville Mountains (HUC-16010203) on the Wasatc

Forest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

West side of 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

160102040501 

1,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.064383 0.000000 

Box Elder 

Creek 

160102040502 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat not 

present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

1.299956 4.689932 

Perry area 

160102040503 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.068590 0.000000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 53 

160102030101

160102030102

160102030103 160102030105

160102030104

160102030306

160102030202

160102030406

160102030106

160102030107

160102030201

160102030310 160102030307160102030305 160102030309

160102030308

160102030304

160102030405 160102030303

160102030302

160102030301

160102030404

160102030401

160102030402 160102030403

Logan River and Blacksmith Fork

(16010203)

Subwatershed (HUC6)Subbasin (HUC4)

5 0 5 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 26. Map of the South Cache Valley and West Wellsville Mountain 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 54 Table B-3-12. Risks and threats associated with the South Cache Valley (HUC-16010203) on the Wasatch-Cachwith the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head

mont

(cow/sh

Beaver Creek 

160102030101 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road and 

trails causing 

concerns 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.520308 0.000000 343/33

Franklin Basin 

160102030102 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.335658 0.000000 0/0 

Tony Grove 

area 

160102030103 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.576588 1.202126 2567/3

Temple Fork 

160102030104 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.446727 0.017268 1726/1

Cottonwood 

Canyon 

160102030105 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road 

causing 

concerns 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 limited 

water 

0.380745 0.343881 494/3

Right Hand 

Fork 

160102030106 

3,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road 

causing 

concerns 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 limited 

resident 

population 

0.572908 0.399213 996/88

Lower Logan 

Canyon 

160102030107 

2,2,2 2 power 

and water 

diversions 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road and 

trails causing 

concerns 

2 dams limit 

migration 

2 

Migration 

barriers 

0.699064 4.410107 0/38

Green Canyon 

160102030201 

3,2,2 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 0.413891 0.691854 0/110

Hyde Park 

160102030202 

2,2,2 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 0.105781 0.000000 11/0 

Sheep Creek 

160102030301 

2,2,2 2 some 

physical 

disturbance 

2 moderate 

population 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 Very 

limited 

water on 

Forest 

0.100261 0.000000 0/135
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 55 Table B-3-12. continued. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head

mont

(cow/sh

Mill Creek 

160102030302 

Non-Forest 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0.703329 0.000000 Non W

Fore

Land

Upper 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030303 

2,2,2 2 some 

physical 

disturbance 

2 moderate 

population 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 0.406382 0.000000 0/47

Curtis Creek 

160102030304 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 moderate 

population 

2 grazing 

impacts 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

2 limited 

distribution 

0.172322 0.000000 0/106

Rock Creek 

160102030305 

Non-Forest 1 good 

stability 

2 moderate 

population 

2 grazing 

impacts 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

2 limited 

distribution 

0.391799 0.000000 233/24

Saddle Creek 

160102030306 

3,2,2 2 channel 

moderately 

variable 

4 small isolated 

population 

3 system 

altered 

upstream 

4 very 

isolated 

4 very 

isolated, 

water 

quality 

0.701763 0.000000 4930/3

Left Hand 

Fork 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030307 

3,2,2 2 high 

impacts 

form a road 

and large 

drainage 

area above 

a narrow 

canyon 

2 limited 

migration 

between 

populations 

3 major road 

up the bottom 

and 

campground 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

3 limited 

population 

0.599150 0.081217 1803/5
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 56 Table B-3-12. continued. 

Middle Part of 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030308 

2,2,2 2 channel 

moderately 

variable 

3 limited 

population 

3 a dam and 

road and 

recreation 

impacts 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

3 limited 

population 

0.342149 1.186801 46/0 

South Logan 

Area 

160102030309 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.471315 0.000000 726/3

Lower Part of 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030310 

Non Forest 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Upper East 

Fork Little 

Bear 

160102030401 

2,2,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0.339207 0.000000 0/313

Davenport Cr. 

160102030402 

2,2,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 0 0/0 

Upper Little 

Bear River 

160102030403 

3,2,2 2 low 

habitat 

diversity 

2 moderate 

population 

2 roading and 

diversions 

3 limited 

distribution 

 0.684120 0.000000 246/

East side of the 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

160102030406 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.207081 0.013714 259/
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 57 Table B-3-12. Risks and threats associated with the West Wellsville Mountains (HUC-16010203) on the Wasatc

Forest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

West side of 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

160102040501 

1,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.064383 0.000000 

Box Elder 

Creek 

160102040502 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat not 

present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

1.299956 4.689932 1

Perry area 

160102040503 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.068590 0.000000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 58 

160201010201

160201010202

160201010103

160201010107

160201010102

160201010104

160201010105

160201010106

160201010101

Weber River Headwaters

(16020101)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Figure B-3- 27. Map of the Weber River Headwaters 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 59 Table B-3-13. Risks and threats associated with the Weber River Headwaters (HUC-16020101) on the Wasatch-Forest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed and 6th

Field HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

Beaver Creek 

160201010101 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 brook trout 

and stocked 

rainbow 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 good 

overall 

0.566531 1.453240 12

Weber Headwaters 

160201010102 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 limited 

numbers 153 

fish/mile 

1 good 

condition 

2 some 

restriction in 

access 

between 

populations 

2 0.347654 0.037295 0

Upper-Middle Weber 

160201010103 

2,2,2 5 No water 

on Forest 

5 No water 

on Forest 

5 No 

water on 

Forest 

5 No water 

on Forest 

5 No 

water on 

Forest 

0.236504 0.000000 0/

Smith Morehouse 

160201010104 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 limited 2 limited 

juvenile 

habitat 

2 some 

connection 

with other 

tribs. 

2 0.369794 1.409371 10

South Fork Weber 

River (Nobletts Creek) 

160201010105 

3,2,2 1 good 

stability 

3 

interbreeding 

with rainbow, 

brook trout 

present 

2 road 

impacts, 

habitat 

impacts 

2 some 

restrictions 

caused by 

non-native 

fish 

3 cross 

breeding 

concerns 

0.254413 0.083949 5

Lower Beaver Creek 

160201010106 

3,2,2 5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no water on Forest

5 no water on Forest

5 no water on Forest

5 no water on Forest

0.347213 0.000000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 60 

160201020501

160201020606 160201020604

160201020402

160201020502

160201020601

160201020608

160201020605

160201020602

160201020401 160201020603

160201020607

160201020302

160201020205

160201020301

160201020304

160201020203

160201020303

160201020202

160201020201

160201020702

160201020701

160201020703

Ogden River - Wasatch Front

(16020102)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)

Subbasins (HUC4)1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 26. Map of the Ogden River and Wasatch Front’s 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Fore
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 61 Table B-3-14. Risks and threats associated with the Ogden River – Wasatch Front (HUC-16020102) on the WasForest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Headmonths 

(cow/sheep

Woods Creek 

160201020201 

Non-Forest NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.000000 0.000000 Non-Forest 

Hardscrable 

Area 

160201020202 

1,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 

1331/mile 

2 moderate 

condition 

2 Connected 

with 

Hardscrabble 

2 limited 

waters on 

Forest 

0.196652 0.000000 0/1239 

Deep Ck. 

160201020203 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 unknown 2 moderate 

condition 

3 more 

limited 

3 isolation 0.143842 0.000000 0/103 

N.E. Morgan 

160201020205 

Non-Forest NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Peterson area 

160201020301 

2,2,2 5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

0.066109 0.000000 0/274 

Strawberry 

160201020302 

2,1,1 5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

0.064996 0.000000 0/0 

Cottonwood 

Ck. 

160201020303 

2,2,2 NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.270148 0.000000 0/0 

Enterprise 

East 

160201020304 

Non-Forest NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Ogden 

Canyon 

160201020401 

2,1,1 3 highly 

regulated 

from 

Pineview 

dam 

3 Limited 

number of 

adult 

cutthroat 

trout 

2 canalized 

stream 

through 

private 

residences 

and the road 

4 very 

isolated 

4 limited, 

isolated 

population 

0.073004 0.007010 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 62 

Table B-3-14. continued. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Headmonths 

(cow/sheep

Willard Creek 160201020402 

2,1,2 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.028069 0.391183 0/0 

Upper Part of 

North Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020501 

2,2,2 2 roading 

and 

irrigation 

diversions 

 1 good populations 

2 some 

canalizations 

2 some what 

isolated 

2 overall 0.045420 0.000000 44/0 

North Ogden 

160201020502 

2,2,2 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0.343040 0.000000 81/0 

Left Fork 

South Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020601 

1,1,1 1 good 

stability 

1 good 

numbers 

567 

fish/mile, 7 

miles of 

stream 

1 good 

condition 

2 some 

water falls in 

area 

2 good 

overall some 

crossbreeding 

0.045449 0.000000 0/71 

Wheat Grass 

Creek 

160201020602 

3,2,2 1 Overall 

good 

stability 

2 A mix of 

native & 

nonnative 

fish 

2 some 

sedimentation 

and grazing 

and trail 

impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 some 

habitat 

concerns 

0.488347 0.009386 0/4373 

Right Fork 

South Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020603 

1,1,1 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 little water 

on Forest 

0.031915 0.000000 16/0 

Beaver Creek 

160201020604 

2,2,2 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non -C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non -C 

Forest Lands 

0.320175 0.000000 0/0 

Middle South 

Fork Ogden 

River 

160201020605 

2,2,2 2 Causey 

Reservoir 

influenced 

2 limited 

numbers 

2 non-native 

species 

2 somewhat 

limited 

3 very 

limited with 

many risks 

0.855498 7.461755 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 63 Table B-3-14. continued. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Headmonths 

(cow/sheep

Middle Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020606 

2,2,2 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

less than 1⁄2 

mile on 

Forest 

0.076456 0.000000 0/0 

Wheeler 

Creek 

160201020607 

2,2,3 2 

relatively 

stable 

2 limited 

population 

2 some in 

channel impacts 

4 three miles 

of stream 

3 limited 

population 

0.610209 16.679276 0/0 

Pineview 

Reservoir area 

160201020608 

2,2,1 2 

Pineview 

Dam 

regulated 

2 limited 

population 

2 non-native 

species 

2 some 

diversions 

3 very 

limited with 

many risks 

0.335841 2.747821 0/0 

Bountiful area 

160201020701 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.284618 0.727147 5 cutthroat 

not present

Farmington 

Centerville 

area 

160201020702 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not present

0.361340 1.081580 5 cutthroat 

not present

Kaysville area 

160201020703 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not present

0.115174 0.161373 5 cutthroat 

not present
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 64 Table B-3-15. Risks and threats associated with the Upper Provo River (HUC-16020203) on the Wasatch-Cache the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

Upper Provo 

River 

160202030101 3,3,2 

3 heavily regulated dams 

2 moderate populations very dispersed between lakes 

3 a lot of nonnative fish stocked 

4 extremely isolated by dams and flow and nonnative fish 

4 isolation small populations 0.865851 1.939378 817

North Fork 

Provo River 

160202030102 2,2,2 

2 impacted 

by high 

lakes dams 

3 very limited 

numbers of 

fish 16 

fish/mile 

2 

impacted 

historic 

dam 

runoff 

2 some 

instream 

particular 

barriers 

3 small 

populations 0.454641 0.000000 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 65 

160202040108

160202040107

160202040105

160202040104

160202040103

160202040102

160202030102

160202040101

160202030105

160202030301

160202030202

160202030203 160202030103

160202030303

160202030206

160202030204

160202030302

160202030305 160202030403

160202030205

160202030304

160202030306

160202030101

160202030104

No HUC6 Number

Salt Lake County Drainages (16020204) 

and Upper Provo River (16020203)

Subwatersheds (HUC6) Subbasins (HUC4)

N

5 0 5 Miles

Figure B-3- 29. Forth and sixth level HUCs of the Jordan River and Provo River drainages on the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National forests, Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 66 

Subwatershed and 

6th Field HUC 

Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head

mont

(cow/sh

Draper Area 

160202040101 

2,1,1 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.408762 0.000000 0/0 

Little Cottonwood 

Canyon 

160202040102 

1 mile of cutthroat 

trout 

2,3,2 4 impacted 

by mine 

drainage, 

chemical 

problems 

4 very 

limited 

population 

3 water 

chemistry 

problems 

3 very 

isolated 

4 0.572512 27.298643 0/0 

Big Cottonwood Ck 

160202040103 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.728849 9.180067 0/0 

Mill Creek 

160202040104 

3,3,3 1 natural 

hydrograph 

2 limited 

native 

population 

2 Road and 

trails 

causing 

concerns 

3 very 

isolated 

3 cutthroat 

present, 

CXR 

0.753913 5.958687 0/0 

Parleys Canyon 

160202040105 

2,1,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non 

W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0.243888 0.000000 0/0 

Red Butte Canyon 

160202040107 

2,2,3 2 some 

natural 

flood 

impacts 

2 good 

population 

2 some 

natural fine 

sediments 

2 entire 

drainage 

in use 

2 in RNA 

doing well, 

habitat 

protected 

0.553078 0.000000 0/0 

City Creek Canyon 

160202040108 

2,1,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non 

W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0.140571 0.000000 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 67 

160203050001

160203040403

160203040401

160203050002

160203040402

160203040302

160203040303

160203040301

160203040201 160203040102

160300051101 160203040101

160300051102 160300050902

160300051002

West Side (16020305, 16030005) 

and East Side (16020304) Stansburys

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 30. Forth and sixth level HUCs of the Stansbury Mountains on the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National forests, Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 68 Table B-3-16. Risks and threats associated with the East Stansburys (HUC-16020304) on the Wasatch-Cache Nidentified trend. 

Subwatershed and 

6th Field HUC 

Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazin

Head

month

(cow/she

East Stansburrys 

160203040401 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.220481 0.000000 140/0 

East Hickman 

Canyon 

160203040402 

 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.627181 1.526135 327/0 

Magpie Canyon 

area 160203040403 

 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.361260 0.073273 510/0 

Table B-3-17. Risks and threats associated with the West Stansburys (HUC-16020305) on the Wasatch-Cache N

the identified trend.

Subwatershed and 

6th Field HUC 

Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Hea

mont

(cow/sh

Northwest 

Stansbury 

Mountains 

160203050001 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.151549 0.000000 433/

Southwest Side of 

Stansbury 

Mountains 

160203050002 

2,2,3 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.220316 0.000000 0/0 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 69 

Conclusions regarding viability of populations and metapopulations on the WCNF 

under current management: 

The Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout are believed to be able to persist on 

the WCNF under current risks and threats (Alternative 4), although losses of some 

populations and declines in some metapopulations are expected. The small, isolated 

populations appear to be at the greatest risk of extirpation either through physically losing 

the population, or loss through introgressions (i.e. crossbreeding with rainbow trout). 

Some of these populations will probably be lost through the actions or lack thereof of 

man in conjunction with natural events. Other may be lost as a result of natural 

consequences from past actions and/or natural events. There are seven populations of 

cutthroat trout that we expect to lose over the next 15 years (Table B-3-18). A number of 

other populations could be lost due to natural or man caused uncharacteristic events such 

as high intensity fires, debris flow, or even chemical spills. This has occurred in the past 

with limited documentation. 

At the subbasins (4th level hucs) level, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are expected 

to continue to provide habitat for the Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout and 

many other aquatic and semi-aquatic species. There were assumptions made about 

effects to viability through risks and threats described above because of the lack of all the 

data and basic understanding of life history stages. In addition tohaving a limited 

population data set, data is not available for these species’ genetic variability, sex ratios, 

movements within and among populations, or meta-populations. As such, assessments 

were made based on potential threats relative to current risk and status of the populations. 

Table B-3-18. Populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that are believe to be 

headed for extirpation during the next 15 years, the suspected cause and current efforts to 

maintain the population. 

6th Level HUC Population 

Name 

Suspected Cause Potential Additional Action 

160101010103 Hayden Fork Limited population size. 

Non-native fish 

competition. Loss of 

complexity from historic 

tie hacking. 

Treatment to remove non-native 

fish and habitat enhancement to 

restore complexity could decrease 

threats. Habitat survey work 

completed in 2001. 

160102020403 High Creek Interbreeding with nonnative rainbow trout. No 

connectivity with other 

populations. Only 

hybridized 

cutthroat/rainbow trout 

have been found in the 

drainage. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage 

160102030306 Saddle 

Creek 

Lack of water, habitat 

impacts from roads, nonnative fish and grazing 

upstream of the 

population. No 

connectivity with other 

Site-specific analysis to identify 

exact location of the problems and 

potential corrective solutions need 

to be identified. North Rich 

Allotment Management Plan 

currently under revision. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 70 

populations due to 

intermittent stream flows. 

Current year class 

failures. 

160201010105 South Fork 

Weber River 

Limited population size. 

Non-native fish 

competition. Interbreeding 

with non-native rainbow 

trout. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage. 

160202040102 Little 

Cottonwood 

Creek 

Limited population size. 

Poor water chemistry 

(heavy metals). 

Upstream access to the 

stream and the potential 

for toxic spills are 

moderate. 

Efforts to explore correction of the 

water chemistry problem are being 

made. 

160202030101 Soapstone 

Creek 

The stream has been dry 

by late June in 2001 and 

2002, which would cause 

year class failures. Lack 

of habitat complexity. No 

connectivity with other 

populations. Limited 

population size. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage. 

160202030101 Rock Creek Limited habitat and water. 

No connectivity with other 

populations (suspected 

biological barrier). 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if a 

biological barrier exists for this 

population. 

Table B-3-19. The 15 and 100 year expectations regarding the likelihood of the species 

to maintain viability at the 4th level HUC under current management. 

Watershed 

Code 

Watershed Name 15 Year Call 100 Year 

Call 

Comments 

14040106 Henrys Fork River Viable Viable 

14040107 Blacks Fork River Viable Viable 

14040108 Muddy Creek Viable Viable Contingent on 

private land 

stewardship 

14060003 Duchesne River No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16010101 Upper Bear River Viable Viable Loss of a 

population 

16010201 Bear Lake Off Forest Off Forest No fish on Forest

16010202 North Cache Valley Viable 

(declining) 

Nonviable Loss of a 

population 

16010203 South Cache Valley Viable Viable Some populations 

nonviable 

16010204 West Wellsville Mountains No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16020101 Upper Weber River Viable Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of a 

population 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 71 

16020102 Ogden Front Viable Viable 

(declining) 

16020203 Provo River Viable 

(declining) 

Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of 

populations 

16020204 Jordan River Viable 

(declining) 

Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of 

populations 

16020304 Rush-Tooele Valleys No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16020305 Skull Valley area No cutthroat No cutthroat 

Step 5. Conservation approaches for species-at-risk to 

maintain existing populations. 

There are a number of guiding documents, directives and processes currently in-place 

that will aid in the long-term conservation of aquatic ecosystems and pertinent to the 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The existing documents that guide the management of the general water quality 

conditions are found in the Desired Future Conditions, Goals, Subgoals, Standards and 

Guideline sections in this Forest Plan and EIS. The existing documents that provide 

direction for the long-term persistence of the cutthroat trout include: 

1. “Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures” of the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (1997). This document set out the general policy and procedures 

for stocking and transplanting of fish in the State of Utah. In it’s policy 

direction it states, “Fish stocking . . .will only be conducted in a manner that 

does not adversely affect the long-term viability of native aquatic species or 

their habitat, aids native species conservation, and enhances fish populations 

in existing aquatic habitats and aids the efficient and effective management of 

recreational fisheries to provide angling diversity and participation.” 

2. The Conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the 

State of Utah” (Utah Division of Wildlife Resource 1997). This conservation 

strategy identifies the major threats and actions to be taken to preserve this 

species. It is generally a fish management document with minimal emphasis 

on habitat protection and enhancement. 

3. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in 

the State of Utah” (Utah Division of Wildlife Resource 1997). This 

conservation strategy identifies the major threats and actions to be taken to 

preserve this species. It is generally a fish management document with 

minimal emphasis on habitat protection and enhancement. 

4. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming” (2001) provides a unified direction for the conservation of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 72 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

5. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki utah) in the States of Idaho, Utah, Nevada and 

Wyoming ” (2000) provides a unified direction for the conservation of 

Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

6. The “Range-wide conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat 

trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah)”, (2001) provides a unified direction for the 

conservation of Bonneville cutthroat trout across its range. 

7. The Final Environmental Impact Statement on Rangeland Health (WCNF 1996), 

as ammended with this EIS, provides recognition of the value of waters with 

native cutthroat trout. The waters containing native cutthroat are identified 

with class I riparian values. 

8. The goals, standards and guides in this document also provide conservation 

measures along with the Forest Service Manual section 2600. As part of this 

direction, prior to approval of any ground disturing activity, a biological 

evaluation/assessment must be prepared. This document must then be signed 

by the botanist, terrestrial and aquatic ecologist identifing the consequences of 

those activities. 

9. On the ground actions also continue to occur at site specific locations. Range 

exclosures, monitoring and habitat improvement projects continue to be 

implemented. 

10. A major action that has taken place istherecognition of the value of the streams on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the long term preservation of the 

cutthroat trout in the states of Utah and Wyoming. In Alternative 7 this had 

been done by designating all areas inhabitated by cutthroat trout as 

perscription 3.1 riparian. This sets forth the objectivers for the area and the 

importance of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in preserving these species. 

The Forest Plan will provide additional direction and conservation measures for reducing 

risks and threats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 4 

Botanical Resource Diversity and Viability 

Introduction 

This Appendix provides information used to evaluate potential environmental consequences of 

alternatives in the FEIS as well as to assess the current situation with regard to plant Species At 

Risk (SAR), which includes Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, and Recommended 

Sensitive, and Watch List plant species. It includes a listing of these plant species along with 

their status, global and state ranking, global and management area distribution. It identifies 

potential threats to viability in three categories. This approach then aggregates Wasatch-Cache 

SAR plants by habitat groups and identifies potential threats to each group. Finally it includes a 

brief discussion of rare and unique communities, traditional and cultural species of interest to 

American Indians and special forest products.

Table B4-1. Federal and State Status, Endemism, Global distribution, and Management 

Area Distribution of the SAR Plants that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Species Common Name Global1 State2 Endemism3 Global 

Distribution

Management 

Area 

Distribution4

Angelica wheeleri 

Wats. 

Wheeler's 

angelica G2 S2 Utah Regional Endemic CW, CHBE 

Arabis glabra var 

furcatipilis (L.) Bernh. 

Hopkins 

Hopkin's towermustard G5T2? S1 Northeastern Utah, 

western CA 

Sparsely 

Distributed CW, CHBE 

Arabis lasiocarpa 

Rollins 

Wasatch rockcress, Toiyabe 

rock-cress 

G3 S3 Wasatch Mountains Local 

Endemic 

CHBE, 

NWOV, CW 

Artemisia norvegica 

var. piceetorum 

(A.arctica Less. ssp. 

arctica) Welsh & 

Goodrich 

Spruce 

wormwood G5T1Q S1 UT, AK, CAL, CO. Regional endemic EUM, WUM 

Aster sibericus var.

meritus L. (Eurybia 

sibirica (L.) Nesom) 

Siberian aster G5T5 S1 UT, AK, Yukon, OR, ID, 

WY Eurasia Disjunct EUM 

Astragalus flexuosus 

var. flexuosus (Hook.) 

Rydb. 

Bent milkvetch G5T5 S1 Western and Central US Widespread WUM 

Astragalus jejunus var.

jejunus Wats. 

Starvling 

milkvetch G3T3 S1 Western US? Regional Endemic BEAR 

Astragalus robbinsii

(Oakes) Gray

Robbins' 

milkvetch G5 S1 

AK to Newfoundland, So 

to OR, NV, CO, and 

Vermont 

Regional 

Endemic WUM 

Botrychium crenulatum

Dainty 

moonwort, 

Crenualte 

moonwort 

G3 S1 Western US Disjunct WUM 

Botrychium lineare Dainty G1 S1 North America Sparsely CW 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 2 

Species Common Name Global1 State2 Endemism3 Global 

Distribution

Management 

Area 

Distribution4

moonwort Distributed 

Cirsium eatonii var.

murdockii Welsh Murdock's thistle G5T2T3 S2S3 CO, ID, NV, UT Regional 

Endemic EUM 

Corydalis caseana ssp 

brachycarpa (Rydb.) 

Ownbey 

Wasatch fitweed G5T2 S2 Central Wasatch Mtns. Regional 

Endemic CW, NWOV 

Cymopterus acaulis 

var. parvus Goodrich 

Small spring 

parsley G5T2T3, S2S3 Western US Regional Endemic S 

Cymopterus lapidosus 

(Jones) Jones 

Echo springparsley G3 S1 Western Summit Co. and 

southwest WY 

Local 

endemic EUM, WUM 

Cypripedium calceolus 

var parviflorum L. 

(Cypripedium 

parviflorum – Salisb.) 

Lady’s slipper G5 S1 

Utah, British Columbia to 

Washington , New York 

and Louisiana, Eurasia 

Widespread CW 

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum Kellogg 

ex Wats. 

clustered lady's 

slipper, brownie 

lady's slipper 

G4 S1 Ut, Id, Wy & CO west to 

WA, OR &CAL 

Sparsely 

Distributed CW, CHBE 

Dodecatheon dentatum 

var. utahense 

Utah shooting 

star, Wasatch 

shooting star 

G4T1 S1 SLC Co., UT Local 

Endemic CW 

Draba brachystylis Wasatch draba G1G2 S1 Wasatch Mtns. 

Charleston Mtns. NV 

Regional 

Endemic CW, EUM 

Draba globosa (D. 

densifolia var.

apiculata) 

Rockcress 

draba G3 S2 Western US Sparsely Distributed EUM, WUM 

Draba maguirei sensu 

lato Maguire's draba G3 S3 Logan Canyon Local Endemic CHBE 

Draba maguirei var. 

burkei Burke's draba G3T2 S2 Northeastern Utah Local 

Endemic 

CHBE, 

NWOV 

Epipactis gigantea 

Dougl. ex. Hook 

Giant 

Helleborine G4 S2S3 Western US Sparsely Distributed CHBE 

Erigeron arenarioides 

(D.C. Eaton) Gray Wasatch daisy G3? S3? Utah Local 

Endemic NWOV, CW 

Erigeron cronquistii

Maguire Cronquist daisy G2 S2 Cache County Utah Local Endemic CHBE 

Erigeron garrettii A. 

Nels Garrett's daisy G2 S2 Central Wasatch Mtns Local Endemic CW 

Eriogonum brevicaule 

var. loganum (A. 

Nels.) Welsh 

Logan 

buckwheat G2Q S2 Logan Canyon Local 

Endemic CHBE, BEAR

Ivesia utahensis Wats. Utah Ivesia G2 S2 Utah Local 

Endemic CW, WUM 

Jamesia americana 

var. macrocalyx 

(Small) Engler 

Wasatch 

Jamesia, 

Wasatch 

cliffbush 

G5T2 S2 Utah Local 

Endemic CW 

Lepidium montanum 

var. alpinum Wats. 

alpine pepper 

plant, Wasatch 

pepper-wort 

G5?T1 S1 Wasatch and Oquirrh 

Mtns. 

Local 

Endemic CW 

Lesquerella garrettii 

Payson 

Garrett's 

bladderpod G2 S2 Wasatch Mtns. Local 

Endemic CW 

Lesquerella utahensis 

Rydb. Utah bladderpod G3 S3 UTAH? Local Endemic CW 

Musineon lineare 

(Rydb.) Mathias 

Rydberg’s 

Musineon G2 S2 Bear River Range Regional 

Endemic CHBE 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 3 

Species Common Name Global1 State2 Endemism3 Global 

Distribution

Management 

Area 

Distribution4

 

Papaver radicatum ssp

kluanense 

(P. kluanense)

Artic Poppy G5T3 T4 S1 

AK,CO, 

ID,MT,NM,UT,WY & 

Canada 

Regional 

Endemic 

EUM, WUM 

Penstemon compactus 

(Keck) Crosswhite 

Cache 

beardtongue G2 S2 Logan Canyon Local Endemic CHBE 

Penstemon 

platyphyllus Rydb. 

Broad-leaf 

beardtongue, G2G3 S2S3 Utah Regional 

Endemic NWOV, CW 

Penstemon uintahensis Uinta 

Beardtongue G3 S3 Uinta Mountains Regional Endemic EUM, WUM 

Potamogeton foliosus 

var. fibrillosus (Fern.) 

Haynes & Reveal 

Fibrous-stipuled 

pond-weed G5T2T4 S1 Western US Regional 

Endemic EUM 

Potentilla cottamii N. 

Holmgren 

Cottam's 

cinquefoil, G1 S1 Northeastern Utah, Southern Idaho 

Sparsely 

Distributed S 

Potentilla pensylvanica 

var. paucijuga (Rydb.) 

Welsh & Johnston 

Alpine 

cinquefoil, fewleaflet cinquefoil G1 S1 Utah Regional 

Endemic EUM, WUM 

Primula maguirei L.O. 

Williams 

Maguire's 

primrose G1 S1 Logan Canyon Local 

Endemic CHBE 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Sheviak 

Ute ladies'-

tresses G2 S1 Western US Sparsely Distributed PH – all 

Thelesperma 

pubescens Dorn 

Uinta 

greenthread G1 S1 Utah Local 

Endemic EUM 

Viola beckwithii T. & G. Beckwith's violet G4 S2 Western US Peripheral CW, NWOV, 

CHBE 

Viola frank-smithii N. 

Holmgren 

Frank Smith 

Violet G2 S2 Logan Canyon Local 

Endemic CHBE 

1

 Global = Global ranking as assigned by Natural Heritage Program and Utah Native Plant Society. 

2

 State = Utah State ranking, Utah Conservation Data Center and Utah Native Plant Society Rare Species 

list 2000; * = Utah State ranking, Utah Natural Heritage Program, 2000. 

3

 Endemism = Utah = Utah endemic, SLC Co. = Salt Lake County Endemic, Logan Can. = Logan 

Canyon Endemic, Wasatch = Central Wasatch Endemic. 

4

 Management Area Distribution 

EUM = Eastern Uinta Mountains, 

WUM = Western Uinta Mountains, 

BEAR = Bear, 

CHBE – Cache- Box Elder, 

NW-OV = North Wasatch – Ogden Valley, 

CW = Central Wasatch, and 

S = Stansbury 

Threats 

Threats are defined as those activities, Forest Service or otherwise, or natural conditions that 

currently or potentially have negative effects on the viability of the TES plants and plant species 

at risk or their habitat. To adequately address the current or potential threats to the viability of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 4 

each species, they were split into three categories: 1) impacts to plants, 2) alteration of ecological 

factors, and 3) habitat reduction. This categorization system is adapted from the Region 4 

viability module (Region 4 Viability Module 1999). Within each category, primary threats have 

been identified. For each category, a finding of no information (we found no current information 

of viability or threats) or no known threats (the species is not threatened by anything within that 

threat category) is possible. The current threats documented for each species and their intensities 

are summarized in Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5. References documenting each finding 

are summarized in Appendix F, Table F-6. 

Impacts to Plants 

This category represents those activities, Forest Service or otherwise, that may have direct or 

indirect effects on SAR plants. The following activities may threaten SAR plants: 

 Livestock Grazing Activities: Livestock grazing and associated activities pose various 

threats to TES plants and plant species at risk and their habitats. Direct impacts may include 

livestock trampling, herbivory, congregation, and soil disturbance and compaction. Indirect 

impacts are more variable and include: increased potential for the spread of noxious weeds, 

the introduction of exotic species, and changes in species composition and species density. 

Impacts of grazing can occur in a variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands and 

woodland environments and often affect the habitat available for the TES plants and plant 

species at risk. Livestock often utilize and congregate in riparian areas and meadows, which 

can alter species composition, and change and reduce the habitat available to TES plants and 

plant species at risk. Additionally, these changes in vegetation and bank stability can affect 

hydrological cycles, further impacting plants that depend on stable hydrological conditions 

i.e. Angelica wheeleri Wats. As plant species have evolved with herbivory by native 

ungulates, some species could benefit from grazing at appropriate intensity levels. 

 Recreation: Recreational activities pose some of the greatest threats to rare plant species on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Activities such as rock climbing, hiking, horseback 

riding, mountain biking, ORV use, and undeveloped camping can have direct and indirect 

impacts to TES plants and plant species at risk and their associated habitats. These types of 

activities particularly threaten many TES plants and plant species at risk. Road building and 

development of campgrounds and other facilities used by recreationists also contributes to 

the impacts faced by TES plants. Development of these facilities can make areas more 

accessible and concentrate use. Parking areas, particularly when undeveloped recreation 

areas are utilized, pose similar impacts to plants. In Appendix F, the recreation threat code is 

assigned when the specific type of recreational impact is unknown. Specific types of 

recreational activities and their impacts are described below.

Rock Climbing – Rock climbing can directly impact the habitat of cliff and rock outcrop 

TES plants and plant species at risk. Small soil pockets can be dislodged by climbers, 

which can directly impact the plants and the possible seed bank stores. Primula maguirei 

and Viola frank-smithii habitats are ideal for rock climbing and plants have been 

threatened by such activities in the past. Lichens and moss species endemic to rock 

habitats can also be damaged when areas are frequently used. Plant cover, species 

richness, and species abundance have been shown to decrease in cliff and rock 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 5 

communities as the intensity of rock climbing activities increase (Camp and Knight, 

1999).

Off-Road Vehicles (ORV’s) - Off-Road vehicle use can disturb soil, impacting both 

habitat and potential habitat. Direct and indirect impacts from ORV use can threaten 

existing populations of TES plants and plant species at risk. Overuse and ORV 

congregation can decimate riparian areas. Non-recreational use of ORV’s (i.e. used in 

livestock management activities) also poses a threat to TES plants and plant species at 

risk and their habitat.

Hiking/Trampling: Hikers pose the greatest threat to TES plants and plant species at 

risk by not staying on the designated trails or paths, which results in trampled vegetation 

and soil compaction. Early spring and summer hiking, when there is still snow on the 

ground, can cause hikers to choose alternative hiking routes. This is especially 

detrimental when a population of a TES plant or plant species at risk is in a highly 

utilized recreation area, i.e. Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense a proposed Sensitive 

species, is found in a picnic area. Trampling, hiking, and undeveloped recreation can be 

detrimental and sometimes lethal for these species. Associated undeveloped camping can 

also result in the destruction of and their surrounding habitat. 

 Wildlife: Wildlife introduction programs, which include mountain goat introduction and 

non-native goat introductions, can pose severe impacts to rare species. Several of the 

current and proposed Sensitive species (i.e. Aster kingii var. barnebyana (Welsh & 

Goodrich) Welsh, Lesquerella garrettii, Jamesia americana var. macrocalyx) could be 

impacted by wildlife is such programs are employed within these habitats. Mountain goats 

were released on Willard Peak in 1994 in close proximity to a Draba maguirei var. burkei 

population (USDA Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). While the diets 

of mountain goats do not typically include this small Sensitive species, trampling and 

trailing impacts have been observed within the population. The herd size at present has 

more than doubled. As the mountain goat population continues to grow, the severity and 

extent of the impact is likely to increase.

 Chemical Treatment: Herbicides and pesticides used to manage for undesired species can 

directly and indirectly impact TES plants and plant species at risk. Herbicide drift from 

agricultural communities can pose major threats to many TES plants and plant species at risk. 

Additionally, chemical-spraying efforts for non-native species and exotic weed species can 

impact such species. Many of the TES plants and plant species at risk are dependent upon 

pollinators for sexual reproduction and seed set. The application of insecticides to reduce 

non-native pests can jeopardize important native pollinator populations, thus negatively 

impact the seed production and viability of TES plants and plant species at risk. 

 Timber Harvest: Logging and its associated activities can have many impacts to plant 

species. Vernally wet habitats are often used for log yarding and equipment storage. Road 

construction can directly impact existing populations of TES plants and plant species at risk. 

Additionally, mycorrhizal associations can be destroyed through ground disturbing actions 

such as trailing or skidding. Rare plant viability is ultimate affected by those activities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 6 

associated with logging that result in ground disturbance, soil compaction, microsite 

alteration, and increased erosion. 

 Collection: Many vascular plants, lichens, and fungi are widely collected and harvested for 

personal and commercial use. Gathering of forest products for a variety of uses is an 

historical practice; however, new uses of plant species are constantly being discovered. 

Increased market and public demand for special forest products is rapidly surpassing the 

capabilities of the National Forests to monitor the impacts of such activities. Many TES 

plants and plant species at risk populations would be severally jeopardized if wide scale 

collection and harvesting were permitted. Rock garden species, i.e. Primula maguirei, 

Draba maguirei var. burkei, are extremely desirable and can be highly collected by amateur 

and professional gardeners (Welsh et al. 1993). 

 Fire Suppression: Suppression of natural fire on the landscape can be helpful or harmful to 

native plant communities and to TES plants and plant species at risk and their habitats (Hesel 

and Spackman 1995). Fire may help maintain open habitat, encourage sexual and asexual 

reproduction, and reduce competition of aggressive plant species. Suppression efforts could 

prevent ecological processes necessary for TES plants and plant species at risk survival. The 

actual activities associated with fire suppression, such as cutting lines, concentration of 

personnel in areas, roads, etc., can also threaten plant populations. Only those species that 

required fire for growth, population expansion, or establishment were given a threat score in 

this category. Those species with known adverse effects to fire were included in the fire 

inclusion threat category below. 

Appendix F, Table F-3 summarizes the impacts to plants and their associated magnitude (low, 

moderate, high) that are currently or potentially impacting these TES plants and plant species at 

risk. 

Alteration of Ecological Factors

This category represents the activities, Forest Service or otherwise, that directly or indirectly 

affect the natural ecology and associated interactions of the TES current or proposed sensitive 

species and other species at risk. The following activities or conditions may impact the 

ecological factors associated with the TES plant species: 

 Fire exclusion: Fire suppression efforts have altered the historical fire regime within 

National Forest Service lands. Many TES plants and plant species at risk require fire for 

expansion of their populations, for breaking seed dormancy, creation of habitat for seedling 

expansion, reduction of competition from aggressive or exotic species, and alteration of 

successional pathways (Hesel and Spackman, 1995). Wildfire prevention and suppression 

have affected stand structure, composition, and fire intensity. This in turn has altered the 

habitat conditions for SAR plants. 

 Fire inclusion: Many species are adversely affected by fire inclusion either by directly 

killing plants or indirectly by encouraging the establishment and competition of exotic 

species (Hesel and Spackman, 1995). The overall impact to TES plants and plant species at 

risk and their habitats will depend upon the fire intensity, which is a function of season and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 7 

the climatic pattern occurring at the time of the fire. The potential for spring burning to meet 

prescribed fire goals can also threaten TES plants. Many plant species are not adapted to 

fires during seasons when they are phonologically active and may be at a greater risk of loss 

with off-season burning (Hesel and Spackman, 1995). Off-season burning may impact even 

those species that require fire for expansion and survival.

 Genetic impurity and Genetic Uniformity: Genetic uniformity can render populations 

more susceptible to epidemics of disease (Gaston, 1994). Disease outbreaks can cause heavy 

mortality in plants with little genetic diversity (Silvertown, 1985). Lack of genetic variation 

can also make such populations less likely to survive moderate to large-scale disturbances 

(Gaston, 1994). Small populations that remain relatively small for long periods of time are 

likely to be genetic less diverse than larger populations. Many of the TES plants and plant 

species at risk within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have limited genetic variation and 

may be more susceptible to disease and disturbance as a result. Potential for hybrid 

speciation or genetic assimilation may be more extreme in spatially isolated or island 

populations (Arnold, 1997). 

 Alterations to the natural hydrologic regime: Alterations to the natural hydrologic regime 

can range from small-scale activities such as livestock congregation to large-scale activities 

such as water diversions or dams. Many TES plants and plant species at risk, i.e. 

Cypripedium calceolus ssp. parviflorum, have specific moisture and microsite requirements 

that could be altered by management activities such as canopy reduction, forest 

fragmentation, livestock use of riparian areas, and stream diversions. Non-native species 

such Tamarix parviflora or Lythum salicaria can alter the hydrologic regime of native 

wetlands and meadows. Such alterations can also impact TES plants and plant species at risk 

native to these habitats. 

 Insects/disease: Seed beetles, snails, rusts, and smuts can directly impact the fecundity and 

survival of plant species. There are identified pathogens or insects currently impacting the 

viability of several TES plants and plant species at risk. Insect herbivory of seeds, leaves, 

and stems can destroy individuals within the population. Additionally, disease outbreaks can 

cause heavy mortality in plants with little genetic variation (Silvertown, 1985). 

 Loss of pollinators: Rare species are often dependent upon native pollinators for sexual 

reproduction and seed set (Tepedino et al., 1997). However, the current evidence is 

overwhelming that both native and domesticated pollinators are declining around the world. 

Many are already extinct and others are at risk from a variety of threats including: habitat 

reduction, pesticides, parasites, and disease. TES plant species cannot be assured viability 

unless both their habitat and that of their ecological interactors are assured. The identity of 

most of the pollinators, seed dispersers and other mutualists of TES plant species is unknown 

at present. Many native bees species have specialized pollen and nesting habitat 

requirements that must be met if their continued existence is to be insured. 

 Non-native species: Competition from invasive non-native species and noxious weeds can 

result in the loss of habitat, pollinators, and decreased TES plants and plant species at risk 

viability. Roads, trails, and canopy reduction can provide ideal pathways for the introduction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 8 

of exotic and non-native species and livestock can serve as vectors of such invasive species. 

According to the Nature Conservancy, alien species are one of the leading threats to U.S. 

species and ecosystems. Indeed, exotics have contributed to the decline of 42 percent of U.S. 

threatened and endangered species. 

 Natural conditions: Naturally occurring events, even in generally suitable environments, 

may cause the loss of populations. Rare species are often at greater risk of extinction than 

are common ones because small populations are more susceptible to stochastic events and 

disease (Gilpin and Soule, 1986). Some populations of TES plants and plant species at risk 

are intrinsically rare or relict species. Changes in ecological regimes due to management 

activities could potentially alter the life-history patterns and requirements for these isolated 

species. 

 Pollution: Pollution of all types can be extremely detrimental to the existing populations of 

TES plants and plant species at risk. Native vegetation can be threatened by ground water 

pollution from decommissioned mines. Chemicals used in gold mining operations can be 

extremely detrimental to forested and non-forested habitats. Dust from the Highway 89 

expansion and realignment project could pollute populations of TES plants and plant species 

at risk and impact pollination success (i.e. Primula maguirei, Viola frank-smithii). 

 Seed bank: Seed bank depletion for TES plants and plant species at risk can occur due to 

reduced fecundity, insect herbivory, loss of genetic variation, and natural catastrophic events. 

Low reproductive output has been documented in many of the TES plants and plant species 

at risk. Factors contributing to this lowered fecundity are often not known. Many orchid 

species require mycorrhizal associations for germination of seeds. Ground disturbing 

activities can often destroy such critical interactions (Sipes and Tepedino, 1995). Inbreeding 

depression can cause a reduction in seed survival and viability. Those TES plants and plant 

species at risk with little genetic diversity may be more susceptible to reductions in seed set 

and seed survival. 

 Succession: Ecosystems develop gradually and change in components, structures, processes, 

and their functions through succession. Successional processes have been altered due to fire 

suppression, timber harvesting, and other land management activities. Several species 

require a particular seral stage for survival. The alteration of successional pathways has 

reduced the habitat needed by several TES plants and plant species at risk. Open-gap species 

need small-scale disturbances and natural ecological process for establishment, while other 

species require conditions found in late-seral habitats. The alteration in successional 

pathways has pushed some ecosystems outside of the historic range of variability, with 

subsequent decreases in species diversity. 

Appendix F, Table F-4 summarizes the alteration of ecological factors and the magnitude 

associated with such changes (low, moderate, high) that are currently or potentially impacting 

the habitat or potential of the TES plant species. 

Habitat Reduction 

The following activities may change the total availability or quality of actual or potential habitat: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 9 

 Agricultural Conversion: The conversion of native grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and 

some forested regions for agricultural purposes has drastically reduced habitat for natural 

plant communities and TES plants and plant species at risk. The rich soils often associated 

with the grassland and shrubland communities have made these habitats extremely desirable 

for agricultural use. 

 Energy development: Exploration activities for gas and oil resources and their removal from 

the landscape can directly and indirectly impact TES plants and plant species at risk and their 

habitats. Seismic activity is sometimes used to explore for such resources. The exploration 

for such resources occurs on the Evanston and Mountain View Ranger Districts. 

 Facilities: Facilities are defined as any structure or area utilized for management activities or 

associated storage areas. These include campgrounds, livestock corrals, communication 

sites, backcountry airstrips, and other structures used for recreation or management. 

Vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and increased erosion are among the major impacts 

associated with facilities. 

 Military exercises: Military exercises and activities can greatly reduce TES populations and 

associated habitats. Activities such as bombing ranges, tank ranges, and staging areas can 

directly impact populations. The amount of military activity within the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest is extremely limited and the plant species at risk are not currently threatened 

by such exercises. 

 Mining: Mining and its associated activities can directly and indirectly impact native plant 

species and their associated habitats. Roads associated with mining activities can also impact 

these species. Historically, mining was an important industry within the boundaries of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Mining currently is very limited within the Forest 

boundaries and poses little to no threats to the TES plants and plant species at risk. 

 Road Construction and Maintenance: Both road construction and road maintenance 

activities can impact TES plants and plant species at risk and their habitats. Roads pose 

threats to such species by increasing access to habitat to ORV’s, livestock, four-wheel drives, 

and other recreationists. Roads also provide ideal corridors for the invasion of non-native 

and exotic species. The placement of roads through rock outcrops or along ridges further 

destroys habitat of those species endemic to these regions (i.e. Lesquerella utahensis, Draba 

maguirei var. burkei). 

 Ski areas: The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is home to some of the largest ski areas in the 

state of Utah. Snowbird, Solitude, Snowbasin, Brighton, and Alta are all within the forest 

boundary. Several species are directly impacted by the activities associated with ski areas 

including Ivesia utahensis, Draba maguirei var. burkei, and Jamesia americana var. 

macrocalyx. Threats from ski areas include direct trampling, mechanical construction, 

increased roads and facility development, increased summer recreation, and habitat 

fragmentation. Additionally, impacts from snowmaking and avalanche control could directly 

and indirectly effect populations of TES plants and plant species at risk. The production of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 10 

snow requires a large support of electrical lines, waterlines, compressor and pump buildings, 

and other support structures, which could directly impact TES plants and plant species at risk 

and their habitats (USDA Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service Draft, 2000). 

Additional impacts to rare plant species could result from increased snow due to packing and 

grooming and avalanche control and could result in extended time needed for snow melt in 

the spring. Those species in the forested habitat and rock outcrop habitat groups could be 

impacted by expansion efforts of existing ski areas as well. 

 Transmission lines: The installation of power lines, digital cable lines, phone lines and 

pipelines can impact essential habitat for a variety of TES plants and plant species at risk. 

They are usually associated with both mechanical construction and roads, as well as 

continued maintenance needs. The Kern pipeline, used for natural gas, is found on the Salt 

Lake Ranger District. Construction of communication sites and associated structures on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest have posed direct threats to TES species and their habitats in 

the past (i.e. Draba maguirei var. burkei). Demand for such sites in the future is likely to 

increase. Measures to prevent further impacts will be taken. 

 Trail construction: Trails are often constructed on ridgelines and through rock outcrops, 

thus many times bisecting populations of TES plants and plant species at risk and disrupting 

the associated habitat. Additionally, seasonal run-off and precipitation can often cause 

extreme erosion in trail areas, thus increasing the impact of the trail construction. Trampling 

of vegetation as associated with trails and hiking is not included in this category. The effects 

of trampling are classified under the impacts to plants category. 

 Timber Harvest: Timber harvest has many different effects to native plant populations and 

TES plants and plant species at risk and their habitat. These effects include: alteration of the 

canopy through removal or thinning, soil disturbance, destruction of mycorrhizal 

associations, associated disturbance caused by road construction, log yarding, and 

maintenance of large equipment. Of primary concern for rare plant viability are those 

activities associated with logging that result in ground disturbance, soil compaction, 

microsite alteration, and increased erosion. 

 Urban Development: Development of lands for urban use is now a major cause of 

landscape-scale variation in ecosystems (Beatley 1994). Human impacts associated with 

urban development include: forest fragmentation, increased non-native species, decreased 

species richness, and soil compaction due to trampling. Urban development can also be 

responsible for alteration of the hydrologic regime through increased demands for water 

resources. Housing developments, facilities, and roads are encroaching on existing habitats 

for many of the TES plants and plant species at risk for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.

Appendix F, Table F-5 summarizes the habitat reducing activities and their magnitude (low, 

moderate, high) that are currently or potentially impacting the habitat or potential of the TES 

plant species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 11 

Aggregating the Wasatch-Cache TES Species and Species at risk by Habitat 

Groups 

A diverse array of habitats, which vary in their distribution across the landscape and range 

widely in population density, support the current or proposed Sensitive species and other species 

at risk. These species are faced with a variable range of threats and differ in the degree to which 

Forest Service management has affected their status. The amount and quality of current 

scientific information available also varies greatly among species. This lack of information often 

limits the depth of interpretation of effects of alternatives on the long-term viability of such 

species. To examine this wide range of species and their associated threats, species were 

aggregated into habitat groups. 

Habitat Groups 

Plant species at risk (SAR) have been combined into habitat groupings or habitat associations. 

These groupings were Alpine, Subalpine, Mountain Forest, Riparian Meadows/Seeps, 

Woodland, Shrubland, High Elevation Grassland, and Rock Cliffs/Crevices and Talus /Scree. 

Habitat 

Species Common Name 

Mountain Forest 

Riparian 

Meadows/ Seeps 

Rock 

Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus/Scree

High elev. Grassland 

Shrubland 

Woodland 

Alpine 

Subalpine/Non Forest 

Abies concolor (Gord. &Glend.) 

Lindl. White Fir X 

Angelica wheeleri Wats. Wheeler's angelica X 

Arabis glabra. var furcatipilis (L.) 

Bernh Hopkins Hopkin's tower-mustard X X 

Arabis lasiocarpa Rollins Wasatch rock-cress, 

Toiyabe rock-cress X X X 

Artemisia norvegica var.

piceetorum Welsh & Goodrich Spruce wormwood X X 

Aster sibericus var. meritus L. Siberian aster X X 

Astragalus flexuosus var. 

flexuosus (Hook.) Rydb. Bent milkvetch X X X 

Astragalus jejunus var. jejunus 

Wats. starvling milkvetch X 

Astragalus robbinsii (Oakes) 

Gray Robbins' milkvetch X X 

Botrychium crenulatum Dainty moonwort, 

crenualte moonwort X X 

Botrychium lineare Slender Moonwort X 

Cirsium eatonii var. murdockii

Welsh Murdock's thistle X 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 12 

Habitat 

Species Common Name 

Mountain Forest 

Riparian 

Meadows/ Seeps 

Rock 

Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus/Scree

High elev. Grassland 

Shrubland 

Woodland 

Alpine 

Subalpine/Non Forest 

Corydalis caseana ssp 

brachycarpa (Rydb.) Ownbey Wasatch fitweed X X X X 

Cymopterus acaulis var. parvus 

Goodrich small spring parsley X 

Cymopterus lapidosus (Jones) 

Jones Echo spring-parsley X 

Cypripedium calceolus ssp 

parviflorum L. Lady’s slipper X 

Cypripedium fasciculatum 

Kellogg ex Wats. 

clustered lady's slipper, 

brownie lady's slipper X 

Dodecatheon dentatum var.

utahense 

Utah shooting star, 

Wasatch shooting star X X 

Draba brachystylis Wasatch draba X X 

Draba globosa (D. densifolia var. 

apiculata) Rockcress draba X X

Draba maguirei sensu lato Maguire's draba X X X X

Draba maguirei var. burkei Burke's draba X X X

Epipactis gigantea Dougl. ex. 

Hook Giant Helleborine X 

Erigeron arenarioides (D.C. 

Eaton) Gray Wasatch daisy X 

Erigeron cronquistii Maguire Cronquist daisy X 

Erigeron garrettii A. Nels Garrett's daisy X X X

Eriogonum brevicaule var.

loganum (A. Nels.) Welsh Logan buckwheat X X X X X X

Ivesia utahensis Wats. Utah Ivesia X X

Jamesia americana var.

macrocalyx (Small) Engler 

Wasatch Jamesia, 

Wasatch cliff-bush X 

Lathyrus lanzwertii var.

lanszwerti Nevada Sweetpea X 

Lepidium montanum var. alpinum 

Wats. 

alpine pepper plant, 

Wasatch pepper-wort X 

Lesquerella garrettii Payson Garrett's bladderpod X X

Lesquerella utahensis Rydb. Utah bladderpod X X X

Musineon lineare Rydberg’s Musineon X 

Papaver radicatum ssp

kluanense Alpine Poppy X X

Pedicularis parryi ssp.

Mogollonica Mogollon Lousewort X X X X 

Penstemon compactus (Keck) 

Crosswhite Cache beardtongue X X

Penstemon platyphyllus Rydb. Broad-leaf Beardtongue, X X 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 13 

Habitat 

Species Common Name 

Mountain Forest 

Riparian 

Meadows/ Seeps 

Rock 

Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus/Scree

High elev. Grassland 

Shrubland 

Woodland 

Alpine 

Subalpine/Non Forest 

Penstemon uintahensis Uinta Beardtongue X X X 

Porterella carnosula Western Porterella X 

Potamogeton foliosus var

fibrillosus (Fern.) Haynes & 

Reveal 

Fibrous-stipuled pondweed X 

Potentilla cottamii N. Holmgren Cottam's cinquefoil, X 

Potentilla pensylvanica var.

paucijuga (Rydb.) Welsh & 

Johnston 

Alpine cinquefoil, fewleaflet cinquefoil X X

Primula maguirei L.O. Williams Maguire's primrose X X 

*Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak Ute ladies'-tresses X 

Thelesperma pubescens Dorn Uinta greenthread X X 

Viola beckwithii T. & G. Beckwith's violet X X X 

Viola frank-smithii N. Holmgren Frank Smith Violet X 

Table B4-2. Distribution of Threatened, Sensitive, Watch, and Species of Concern Plant Species 

by Habitat Groups 

Habitat Group Number of 

Species* 

Alpine 14 

Subalpine Forest/Non-forest 7 

Montane Forest 10 

Woodland 12 

Shrubland 12 

High Elevation Grassland 2 

Riparian Meadows/Seeps 10 

Rock Cliffs/Crevices and Talus/Scree 25 

*Species may occur in more than one habitat group, thus the total numbers within habitat groups are 

cumulatively greater than the total of current or proposed sensitive species. 

Threats, their intensity, and the references used to determine them are presented for each species 

in Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5. Documented threats to habitat groupings and the 

number of species potentially impacted are summarized below in tables for each habitat group. 

All potential threats are not addressed here; only those documented from the current literature, 

professional observation, and botanical expertise are included in the tables below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 14 

Alpine (14 species) 

Alpine habitats are defined as the area above treeline in high mountains. Gravelly and rocky 

terrain is generally prevalent. Grasses and sedges often form thick sod-like mats in meadows. 

Alpine environments are often harsh with intense UV light, extreme temperature fluctuation, and 

short growing season. Most alpine plants have unique adaptations that allow them to persist in 

the extremes of this environment (Billings 1974). Many grow in mats or cushions. Perennials 

predominate in the alpine flora, as the growing season is often too short for annuals to complete 

their life cycles (Strickler 1990). 

Table B4-3. Threats to the Alpine Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected (of 14) 

Wildlife trampling – mountain goats 4 

Hiking – associated trampling 3 

Ski Areas 3 

Rock climbing 1 

Roads 1 

Recreational activities 1 

Transmission lines 1 

Trampling by wildlife (mountain goats), hiking, recreation, and roads appear to be the primary 

threats common to the alpine habitat group (Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5). 

Subalpine Forest/Non-forest (7 species)

The subalpine is often defined as the transitional zone between montane forests and treeless 

alpine regions. Subalpine regions can be sparsely forested, grasslands, shrublands, or rock 

regions. The subalpine flora begins 8,000 to 10,500 feet in elevation in Northern Utah and 

Colorado (Strickler 1990), while much lower (6,000 to 6,500 feet in elevation) in northern Idaho 

and western Montana. Subalpine forest stands often grow in patches interspersed with open 

meadows. 

Table B4-4. Threats to the Subalpine Forest/Non-forest Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected (of 7) 

Wildlife trampling – mountain goats 1 

Hiking – associated trampling 2 

Ski Areas 1 

Grazing – trampling by livestock 1 

Recreational activities 1 

Transmission lines 1 

Trails/hiking (associated trampling), trampling by wildlife, trampling by livestock, and 

recreational activities appear to be the dominant threats to the subalpine habitat group (Appendix 

F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 15 

Montane Forest (10 species)

Species in the montane forest habitat group were divided into 2 subgroups based upon their 

physiognomy and disturbance dependence and/or tolerance. 

Montane Forest Open-gap Species. Montane forest gap species are defined as those 

species that occur in natural and artificial gaps or openings within forested habitats. 

These species are often followers of disturbance and many do not respond well to 

uncharacteristic disturbances, i.e. floods, landslides, and wildfire. Some species are 

found to increase with infrequent, small-scale disturbance, which create small patches 

throughout the landscape. Species in this group thrive with periodic disturbance followed 

by stable conditions. Disturbance events may allow for increased light to penetrate the 

forest gaps and create favorable conditions for new seedling establishment. Once 

established, stable conditions promote the growth of the seedlings to maturity and 

associated reproduction. This habitat group includes forest edge species or open canopy 

species that occur along artificial forest margins (e.g., stabilized roadsides, skid trails).

Table B4-5. Threats to the Montane Forest Open-gap Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected 

Road construction 1 

Urban development 1 

Montane Forest Understory Species. Species in the montane forest understory habitat 

group require protected microclimates with shade, undisturbed substrates, and associated 

moisture. These species are often susceptible to disturbance and are typically poor 

recruiters after disturbance. Forest fragmentation, edge effects, changes in the moisture 

regime, and other microclimate alterations pose the greatest threats to the species within 

this grouping (Sierra Nevada DEIS 2000). 

Table B4-6. Threats to the Montane Forest Understory Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected 

Timber harvest – forest 

fragmentation, microclimate change

1 

Activities associated with logging – 

including road construction, log 

decks 

1 

Threats to the two forest habitat groups include: road construction, urban development, and 

timber harvest activities (Tables 7 and 8, Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5). 

Woodland (12 species)

The woodland habitat group is comprised of several different community types, which include 

juniper communities (Juniperus scopulorum/Juniperus occidentalis), maple woodlands (Acer 

grandidentatum), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities and mountain mahogany 

(Cerocarpus ledifolius) commununities. The species within this habitat group are all found in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 16 

open gaps interspersed within the woodland communities. These habitats range from mid- to 

high-elevations (3900 – 9800 feet). 

Table B4-7. Threats to the Woodland Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected (of 12) 

Grazing- trampling by livestock 1 

Alteration of hydrologic regime 1 

Urban development 1 

Road construction 1 

ORVs – associated activities 1 

The threats common to the woodland habitat group include: trampling by livestock, roads, 

alteration of the hydrologic regime, outdoor recreation vehicles (soil compaction, vegetation 

destruction), and urban development (Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5). 

Shrubland (12 species) 

The shrubland habitat group is defined as those regions with less than 10 percent forest cover and 

greater than 15 percent shrub cover (Redmond, et al. 1997). These regions can be dominated by 

mesic or xeric. This habitat group includes portions of the sagebrush steppe and the Great Basin 

sagebrush desert (Taylor 1992). The shrubland habitat group encompasses a range of elevational 

distribution and may occur on a variety of substrates. 

Table B4-8. Threats to the Shrubland Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected (of 12) 

Grazing- trampling by livestock 2 

Roads 1 

ORV’s 1 

Urban development 1 

The threats common to the shrubland habitat group include: trampling by livestock, road 

construction, outdoor recreation vehicles, and urban development (Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, 

and F-5). 

High-elevation Grassland (2 species) 

The grassland habitat is generally defined as open and continuous area dominated primarily by 

many types of grass species. Grasslands are defined as regions with less than 10 percent forest 

cover and less than 15 percent shrub cover, with herbaceous cover greater than 15 percent 

(Redmond, et al. 1997). In high-elevation grasslands, drainage patterns and moisture regimes 

allow for the establishment of many species not found in lower-elevation grasslands. The 

vegetation can differ greatly from drier, lower sites and include many species of sedges, grasses, 

rushes, and tall forbs. These high elevation areas are often used for grazing livestock later in the 

growing season, which may overlap with plants that are phenologically active later in the year. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 17 

Currently, no visits have been made into this plants habitat to determine threats (Franklin, 2000). 

All known locations, however, are on isolated mountain peaks or ridges, with only occasional 

recreational use (Table 11, Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5). 

Riparian (10 species) 

Riparian habitats are generally defined as those regions connected with or immediately adjacent 

to banks of streams, rivers, or other bodies of water, or having a moisture regime that promotes 

the establishment of species adapted to such environmental conditions. The riparian habitat was 

divided into several subgroups to adequately address the threats unique to each group. The 

riparian species fall into Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA), which are site-specifically 

determined corridors along streams (forested, non-forested, intermittent), and lakeshores, and 

include ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. These RCAs are specially managed to protect aquatic 

and riparian resources. 

Meadows, Seeps, and Vernally and Seasonally Wet Swales. Meadows and seeps are 

wet openings that contain grasses, sedges, rushes, and herbaceous forbs that thrive under 

saturated or moist conditions. These habitats can occur on a variety of substrates and 

may be surrounded by grasslands, forests, woodlands, or shrublands (Skinner and Pavlick 

1994). This habitat group may also include vernally or seasonally wet habitats, which are 

depressions or swales with relatively impermeable soil that accumulate seasonal 

precipitation and run-off. These regions slowly dry up as temperatures increase through 

the season. Vernal pools and depressions in sagebrush scrub communities are included in 

this habitat. Annual herbs and grasses adapted to saturated conditions and early growth 

under water are predominant in these habitats (Skinner and Pavlick, 1994). 

Table B4-8. Threats to the Meadow, Seeps, and Vernally or Seasonally Wet Swales 

Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected (of10) 

Grazing - trampling by livestock 1 

Alteration of hydrology 2 

Roads 2 

Ski areas activities 1 

Hiking – associated trampling 1 

Loss of pollinators 1 

Facilities 1 

Bogs, Fens, and Peatlands. Bogs and fens are wetlands that typically have sub-irrigated 

cold water sources. Peatlands are generally defined as wetlands with waterlogged 

substrates and at least 30 centimeters of peat accumulation (Moseley et al. 1994). The 

vegetation within these habitats is often dense and dominated with low-growing perennial 

herbs (Skinner and Pavlick 1994). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 18 

Table B4-9. Threats to the Bog, Fen, and Peatlands Habitat Group 

Threat Number of Species Affected (of10) 

Grazing - trampling by livestock 1 

Alteration of hydrology 2 

Roads 1 

Trails/hiking 1 

Recreational activities 1 

Non-native species invasion 1 

The threats common to the four riparian habitat types include: trampling by livestock, alteration 

of hydrology, and roads (Tables 12 and 13; Appendix F, Tables F-3, F-4, and F-5).

Rock (25 species) 

The geomorphology varies widely throughout the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Much of the 

WCNF is comprised the very dissimilar Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Range and the Bear River 

Range. The Uinta Range is practically devoid of igneous rock. The Wasatch Range is 

comprised of unusual assembly of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock (Stokes 1988). 

Many of the rare species endemic to the Bear River Range are closely associated with the 

dolomite and limestone geologic formations. The rock habitat group has been divided into two 

main subgroups: 1) cliffs, crevices, and ledges, and 2) talus slopes and outcrops.

Cliffs, Crevices, and Ledges – Cliffs, crevices, and ledge habitats are defined as steep 

rock faces, with fissuring, drainage, and aspect characteristics that support plant 

establishment and growth. Species within this habitat group can be found on a wide 

range of rock types, moisture microclimates, and elevations. Recreational rock climbing 

in this habitat group is extremely popular and can pose major threats to species viability. 

Table B4-10. Threats to the Cliff Habitat Group

Threat Number of Species Affected (of 25) 

Rock climbing 5 

Trails/hiking 3 

Plant collection – rock garden species 2 

Pollution – dust from recreational roads 

and road expansion 

2 

Road construction 2 

Wildlife trampling – mountain goats 1 

Facilities 2 

Ski area activities 1 

Urban development 1 

Talus and Scree Slopes, and Rock Outcrops – Talus slopes are defined as topographic 

irregularities covered with coarse gravel or boulders. These slopes tend to be unstable 

thus favoring the establishment of a particular combination of plants. The moisture 

regime for these rocky habitats is generally dependent upon channeling of precipitation 

and meltwater run-off. Rock outcrop habitats are composed of unweathered or slightly 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 19 

weathered bedrock with plants establishing in small pockets of soil or between rock 

crevices. In this rock habitat subgroup, elevation ranges from 4,200 to upwards of 12,000 

feet. These areas are often adversely affected by recreational activities, high elevation 

livestock use when plants are phenologically active, and natural conditions. 

Table B4-11. Threats to the Talus and Scree Slopes and Rock Outcrop Habitat Groups 

Threat Number of Species Affected (of 25) 

Wildlife trampling – mountain goats 3 

Trails/ hiking - trampling 2 

Urban development 1 

Ski areas 2 

Grazing - trampling by livestock 1 

Recreational activities 1 

Energy development 1 

Transmission lines 1 

The threats common to the rock habitat types include: recreational activities, wildlife trampling, 

urban development, and trampling associated with hiking (Tables 14 and15, Appendix F, Tables 

F-3, F-4, and F-5). 

Rare and Unique Communities 

Plant communities are defined as a repeating assemblage or grouping of plant species on the 

landscape (Winward 2000). Some classification systems refer to a plant community as the 

existing vegetation that currently occupies a site. Others use the potential vegetation that reflects 

the climax community at that site to define a community. Classifications based on existing 

vegetation may describe different seral stages as different communities, whereas those based on 

potential vegetation may include a variety of disturbance-induced or seral plant communities, but 

the climax community remains the same (Steele et al. 1981). The list of rare and unique 

communities within the Wasatch- Cache National Forest includes the Side-Slope Alder 

Communities that occur in Little Cottonwood Canyon, Ponderosa Pine communities that occur 

along the Mirror Lake Highway near the Provo River and Beaver Creek on the Kamas Ranger 

District, Bristlecone Pine communities in the Stansbury Mountains, Single Needle Pinyon in the 

Mollens Hollow Research Natural Area south of the Blacksmith Fork River, and possibly White 

Fir Communities, which are widespread in Utah, but are limited in Wyoming and have been 

noted on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. 

Traditional and Cultural Species of Interest to American Indians 

Native plants have developed cultural significance with many human groups throughout time. 

Plants provide food, fiber, medicine, ceremonial, commercial, and other uses, many of which 

remain important today. The cultural uses of native plants and their associated communities 

often contributed to settlement and land use patterns. The users of these products hold 

considerable natural resource knowledge, including a variety of management techniques to foster 

the production and quality of certain plants. This knowledge continues to gain important 

recognition in managing public lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B4 - 20 

Special Forest Products 

Special forest products are defined as “non-timber, renewable, vegetative natural resources that 

can be utilized either for personal or commercial use.” They include mosses, lichens, ferns, 

pinecones, Christmas boughs, Oregon grape, wildflowers, mushrooms, huckleberries, Osha 

(Ligusticum), St. John’s wort (Hypericum), cacti, parts of woody plants, and many more 

medicinal and ornamental species. The term “miscellaneous forest products” is reserved for 

timber-related products. 

There is increasing recognition of the economic value of special forest products and their 

potential role in supporting diversification of forest-product dependent communities. The longterm strength of the industry depends on the sustainability of the resources being harvested, so 

this issue is closely linked to ecosystem health. Many National Forests across the United States 

have established Forest-wide direction for special forest products in order to ensure sustainable 

harvest, to track demand for these products, and to monitor impacts of harvest. 

Collection of special forest products on a commercial scale in the Wasatch-Cache has been quite 

limited. However, increasing demand nation-wide for a variety of species has led to an 

increasing number of inquiries about commercially desirable species available on all Forest 

Service lands. Increased demand for the seeds of native species, roots and leaves of native and 

exotic species for medicinal purposes, and species used in the floral industry has become 

prevalent across the United States. 

Unregulated or excessive harvest of special forest products could remove plants at a rate that 

exceeds growth and reproductive capabilities, resulting in declining species abundance and 

viability, overall impacts to the ecosystem, and a shift in plant communities and species diversity 

across the landscape. 

The greatest known demand is for bracken fern fiddle heads by members of the local Korean 

community. Other demands are for plants with medicinal uses, including Osha, biscuit root, as 

well as others. There is also an increasing demand for commercial seed collection. 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 5 

Roads Analysis in Forest Planning 

Introduction 

Recognizing the importance of the road system for both its opportunities and costs, the Roads 

Analysis Process (USFS, 1999) was initiated at the forestwide scale as an inherent part of forest 

plan revision. The Forest Service must find an appropriate balance between the benefits of 

access to the National Forest and the costs of road-associated effects to ecosystem values. 

Providing road systems that are safe to the public, responsive to public needs, environmentally 

sound, affordable and efficient to manage is a top agency priority. Completing a roads analysis 

assessment is a key step to this. Roads analysis is an integrated ecological, social, and economic 

approach based on science for transportation planning of both existing and future roads. The 

analysis is scaleable, flexible, and driven by road-related issues important to the public and 

managers. 

The analysis should be based on the best available scientific information about the ecological 

effects of roads, economics, social costs and benefits and contributions of roads to management 

objectives. Roads analysis is not a decision process; it will neither make land management 

decisions nor allocate land for specific purposes, because both require NFMA and NEPA based 

Forest and project planning. However, it will provide relevant information for those decisions. 

The analysis is both technical (effects, changes, consequences, processes) and policy decisions 

(values, priorities, risks, benefits, costs, losses). The public will be involved in decisions to 

reconstruct, decommission, and build new roads. Roads analysis also needs to be coordinated 

with other appropriate agencies. 

Roads analysis is a six-step process: 

1) Setting up the analysis 

2) Describing the situation 

3) Identifying issues 

4) Assessing benefits, problems and risks 

5) Describing opportunities and setting priorities 

6) Reporting 

This appendix provides a summary of the analysis process completed. The complete report is 

available in the planning records. It is also posted on the forest website at 

www.fs.fed.us/wcnf/forestplan/feis. For purposes of the FEIS the information compiled for Step 

2, Describing the Situation, is located in the Affected Environment section in Topic 3, Roads and 

Access Management. 

Objective 

The objective of the Roads Analysis, on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, is to systematically 

review roads, Maintenance Objective levels 3, 4, 5, on the Forest, identify potential 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 2 

environmental threats and management benefits from individual road segments and to 

recommend management actions. Maintenance Objective levels 1 and 2 roads were not 

reviewed as part of this Forest Scale analysis, because of information and time constraints (see 

glossary for definitions of road maintenance levels). 

 

This analysis is intended to provide rangers and the forest supervisor with the framework needed 

to support future road management decisions. It provides interdisciplinary teams and decision 

makers (District Rangers and the Forest Supervisors) the context for site specific analysis; sets 

priorities for more detailed analysis and program planning; and, identifies issues requiring 

further evaluation for both existing roads and roads which may be planned in the future. It also 

provides a threat and benefit rating for each road segment. Mapping these segments also allows 

decision makers to identify prioritized areas where site-specific roads analysis needs to occur. 

Setting up the Analysis 

Analysis Area/Scale 

The analysis area is the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) administrative boundary. The 

analysis focuses on classified arterial and collector roads (Maintenance Objective Levels 3, 4 and 

5) currently shown on the Transportation Atlas and the Forest Service INFRA database. 

Interdisciplinary Team 

The team leader met with individual members of the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to better refine 

the issues and the analysis factors. The interdisciplinary team convened and reviewed each of 

the issues and factors used in the analysis. The team consisted of the following core members: 

Renee Flanagan Civil Engineer / Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

Melissa Blackwell Planning Group Leader 

Charles Condrat Hydrologist 

Paul Cowley Fisheries Biologist 

Oscar Mena Civil Engineer 

Dave Hatch Landscape Architect 

Richard Williams Wildlife Biologist 

Plan for the Analysis 

The IDT described the existing condition; identify issues; determined threats (costs), assess 

benefits, and identified management recommendations. 

The team followed law, policy and direction found in the; Final Rule and Forest System 

Transportation System; Final Administrative Policy as published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2001; 36 CFR Part 212; Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7700; Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 7709; and Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National 

Forest Transportation System.
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 3 

Appropriate for this Forest-scale analysis, the team used existing information and data. Key 

sources of information and data included: 

• The Forest’s transportation management system database (INFRA). (Not all roads that 

have been constructed or decommissioned over the past three years may have been 

identified as being constructed or decommissioned in the INFRA database.) 

• The Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS) layer. (Not all roads that have been 

constructed or decommissioned may have been identified as being constructed or 

decommissioned in the GIS system). 

• Road condition surveys 

• District Transportation Plans 

• Professional knowledge and experience of Forest personnel 

This information and data was utilized to describe the existing condition and develop issues. The 

issues identified were: 

• Watershed health, riparian function, and aquatic species 

• Terrestrial wildlife species 

• Access 

• Road maintenance costs 

For each issue, factors were developed, which included a description of indicator and associated 

measurement parameter(s). Issues with multiple factors were evaluated and given an overall 

rating based on criteria. 

Each road segment was then evaluated and assigned an overall cost/threat rating of low, 

moderate or high and a benefit rating of low, moderate or high. Based on those results specific 

recommendations and priorities were made regarding the road segment. These results and 

analysis, of issues for the transportation system, will provide the framework to develop 

recommendations for road and forest management. 

This analysis is intended to provide direction and consistency in the evaluation of the road 

system at the Forest-scale and road segments at the watershed scale independent of project team 

assigned to analysis. Prior to making specific road management decisions, analysis teams will 

usually need to include ML roads 1 and 2, and validate the individual road segment data and 

opportunities as well as consider additional localized issues. At that time, overall ratings for 

each road segment are placed within a matrix that evaluates threats on one axis and benefit on 

the other. Each box in the matrix has been assigned a primary management opportunities 

(PMO), which include retain, decommission, or further evaluation needed. Additional issues 

with associated factors, as well as, secondary management opportunities (SMO) to consider for a 

finer-scale analysis are also provided. 

The team prepared a report of their findings, that specifically includes the following items: 

• An inventory and map of all classified maintenance levels 3,4 and 5 roads and display 

how these roads are to be managed. 

• Provide guidelines for addressing road management issues and priorities related to 

retaining, decommissioning and maintaining roads. 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 4 

• Identify significant social and environmental issues, concerns, and opportunities to be 

addressed in project level decisions. 

• Document coordination efforts with other government agencies and jurisdictions. 

• Provide guidance and information needs for future analysis at watershed or project scale 

including unclassified roads that may exist on the Forest.

• Any other specific information that may be needed to support/inform the current Forest 

Plan Revision.

Issue Identification 

Process 

Issue identification is based on present and future anticipated access needs, current road 

conditions, impacts on the environment due to existing and planned roads and their associated 

activities, and current and projected funding. 

Public involvement in issue identification was assessed from input to the Forest Plan Revision 

and district level transportation planning. Public scoping in Forest Planning process has shown 

that many of the roads are of interest and value to the public. Some of the public wants existing 

roads improved for travel by standard passenger vehicle. Others want them left as they are. 

While other want old routes reopened and new routes constructed for motorized and mechanized 

recreation opportunities. There is also a portion of the public that want existing roads closed and 

roadless areas to remain closed to protect roadless values and provide for wildlife and watershed 

values. Transportation planning at the district level has provided input for social consideration 

such as historical, existing and desired future uses. Contact with local Counties has shown some 

interest in mutually beneficial partnerships for road maintenance and the need to provide access 

and connectivity of transportation network. 

The extent of issues range in scale from Forest-wide, district, watershed and project level. Issues 

at the project level are not necessarily appropriate to address at the Forest level and vice-versa. 

Since this analysis is to provide specific management opportunities and recommendation for 

standard passenger vehicle travel (ML 3-5), those issues are listed under Forest-scale. The other 

intent is to provide direction for future roads analysis of classified and unclassified roads at 

district, watershed and project level. Issues raised relative to those levels are listed under subforest scale. 

Forest Scale Issues 

Natural Resource Impacts.

To what extent does the road system affect watershed health, riparian habitat, and aquatic 

species? 

• Relationship between watershed health and road segments 

• Risk to riparian habitats based on road location 

• General effects from erosion and sedimentation to water quality and aquatic species 

• Loss of connectivity for aquatic species due to stream crossings 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 5 

To what extent does the road system affect terrestrial wildlife species and habitat? 

• Is road density a factor 

• Habitat fragmentation for critical winter and spring range 

• Presence and relationship to TES/MIS species 

Access.

What is the primary purpose and use of the road system? 

• In terms of access to non-Forest Service lands and agreements 

• To and through National Forest System (NFS) lands for developed and undeveloped 

recreation opportunities. 

• In terms of managing National Forest System lands. 

Does the road system provide needed connectivity? 

• To State and County transportation systems 

• To and through National Forest System (NFS) lands for recreation opportunities, land 

management and private in-holdings 

• In terms of existing and planned road management objectives 

Does the road system provide legal public access to NFS lands? 

• Current needs to acquire legal right-of-way across private, state, and other Federal lands. 

Are FSRs and connected road system under appropriate jurisdiction? 

• Many FSRs cross private land and development of these lands has increased, assess need 

for roads to be conveyed to local public road authority. 

• RS 2477 road assertions of counties. Have these been identified and how will they be 

incorporated into analysis. 

Road Maintenance. 

Road maintenance funding is not adequate to maintain the existing or planned road system. 

• Annual maintenance costs 

• Deferred maintenance costs and status of road system 

What are the potential and available sources of road maintenance funding? 

• Commercial users 

• Shared road maintenance agreements with local Counties 

• Forest Highway designation where appropriate to be eligible for Federal Highway 

Administration funding. 

• Roads designated as potential Public Forest Roads (PFSR). 

Sub-Forest Scale Issues 

Natural Resource Impacts.

What extent does each road segments affect watershed health, riparian habitat, and aquatic 

species? 

• Is road a risk to BCT/CCT habitat 

• Presence and relationship to TES/MIS 

• Placement and location of road crossing structures in terms of aquatic habitat 

connectivity 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 6 

• In terms of unstable soils, slope stability, landslides, mass wasting, fishing and stocking 

ability 

What extent does the road system and road segments affect terrestrial wildlife species and 

habitat? 

• Presence and relationship to TES/MIS 

• Intensity of road use and road kill 

What extent does the road system and road segments affect vegetation? 

• Fragmentation of species 

• Potential spread, invasion or control of exotic species 

• Presence and relationship to TES/MIS 

Access.

Does the road system provide needed and planned access? 

• Relative to other motorized and non-motorized activities including trailheads, developed 

and undeveloped recreation sites. 

• Relative to private inholdings 

• Relative to increased access needs for winter recreation. 

• Relative to seasonal closure. 

Does the road system provide legal public access to NFS lands? 

• Is public access denied or blocked by landowners. 

Funding. 

Road maintenance funding is not adequate to maintain the existing or planned road system. 

• Funding is increasing for decommissioning of roads, but majority of roads to be 

obliterated are unclassified user-created roads. 

• Work has been specific to health and safety and limited annual maintenance activity is 

increasing deferred maintenance costs. 

Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks 

Process 

To evaluate the current road system the IDT evaluated the existing condition and identified 

issues. The primary issues are access; watershed health, riparian habitat, aquatic species; 

terrestrial wildlife; and maintenance cost. Each issue has multiple factors. Each factor 

contributing to the evaluation of the associated issue includes a description of indicator and 

associated measurement parameters. The indicator is a specific description of how the factor 

will be evaluated relative to the road system. The measurement parameter includes a value 

rating for each factor based on range of results available from the developed indicator. Issues 

with multiple factors are evaluated based on weighted values and given an overall rating (low, 

medium or high). 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 7 

Watershed Health, Riparian Habitat and Aquatic Species 

Four factors were identified for evaluation:

(1) Loss of riparian function, including filtering of water, stream shade and recruitment of 

large woody material and detritus into the stream from riparian area; 

(2) Increase sediment loading from the roads; 

(3) Loss of connectivity and accessible habitat as a result of improper installation of road 

culverts; and 

(4) Potential for pollutants to enter stream from hazardous material transport. 

A full description of indicators, their associated measurement parameters, data limitations and 

analysis results are available in the complete report. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Three factors were identified for evaluation: 

(1) Road location relative to road density; 

(2) Types of habitats traversed by roads; 

(3) Intensity of road use. 

A full description of indicators, their associated measurement parameters, data limitations and 

analysis results are available in the complete report. 

Access 

Five factors were identified for evaluation: 

(1) Private Access; 

(2) Public Access; 

(3) Administrative Access; 

(4) Connectivity; and 

(5) Outstanding Rights 

A full description of indicators, their associated measurement parameters, data limitations and 

analysis results are available in the complete report. 

Maintenance Costs 

Six factors were identified for evaluation: 

(1) Commercial use and contributing funds; 

(2) Shared road maintenance agreements; 

(3) Forest Highway designation; 

(4) Public Forest Service Roads (PFSR); 

(5) Annual maintenance costs; and 

(6) Deferred maintenance costs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 8 

A full description of indicators, their associated measurement parameters, data limitations and 

analysis results are available in the complete report. 

Management Opportunities and Priorities 

Evaluation Process 

To provide management opportunities and set priorities the IDT assessed issues and determined 

which were costs and benefits associated to the road system. The ratings of each issue were 

combined to provide an overall cost and benefit rating of low, moderate or high for each road. 

Based on those results priorities are made regarding each road segment. These results lay the 

framework to develop goals, objectives, standards and guidelines that will be incorporated into 

the Forest Plan regarding the Transportation System. 

After review by line officers, incorporation of local factors, and any subsequent evaluation, the 

combined cost/risk and benefit ratings are placed within a Road Cost-Benefit Matrix. A primary 

management opportunity is then assessed to each road segment based on where it is located in 

the matrix. In addition, secondary management opportunities (SMO) are assigned to each road 

segment based on PMO assigned. 

Road Related Costs and Benefits 

Costs. The cost of a road segment was viewed as the threats associated with issues identified 

under watershed health, riparian function, aquatic species (WRA) and terrestrial wildlife (TW). 

Threats to WRA rating is considered equal with the threats associated with TW. The following 

is criteria for the overall cost rating assigned to each road segment. Overall cost rating for each 

road segment is available in the Management Opportunity in the complete report. 

High: WRA = High or TW = High 

Moderate: WRA=Moderate and TW=Moderate; or WRA=Moderate and TW=Low; or 

WRA=Low and TW=Moderate; 

Low: WRA= Low AND TW = Low 

Benefits. The overall benefit of a road segment includes issues identified under access 

(ACCESS) and maintenance costs (RM). In general, overall access rating is considered 

equivalent to maintenance costs. The following is criteria for the overall benefit rating assigned 

to each road segment. Overall benefit rating for each road segment is available in the 

Management Opportunity in the complete report. 

High: ACCESS = High or RM = High 

Moderate: Access=Moderate and RM=Moderate; Access=Moderater and RM=low; or 

Access=Low and RM=Moderate 

Low: ACCESS = Low and AND RM= Low 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 9 

Priorities. A priority for evaluation of primary and secondary management opportunities is 

assigned to each road segment based on overall cost and benefit rating. The complete report 

provides a priority rating for each road segment evaluated. Priority criteria is as follows: 

A: Costs/threats = High OR Benefit = Low 

B: Costs/threats = Moderate AND Benefit = Moderate OR High 

C: Costs/threats = Low AND Benefit = Moderate 

D: Costs/threats = Low AND Benefit = High 

Road Cost-Benefit Matrix. This matrix places the results from analysis in one of nine boxes that 

shows the relationship between overall cost and benefit associated with each road segment 

evaluated. 

 Cost 

 Low Moderate High 

 High PMO 

 Benefit 

Moderate

 Low 

Primary Management Opportunities (PMO) 

Primary Management Opportunities (PMO) are based on comparing cost and benefit rating for a 

road segment. PMOs give each road a preliminary rating of retain, decommission and further 

evaluation needed. This allows for the identifying and prioritizing detailed analysis areas based 

on the PMO’s identified. Site specific analysis will be required to validate the costs and benefits 

prior to identifying a road for retention or decommissioning. An analysis of the ML 1 and 2 

roads would also need to be completed at the site specific scale prior to decommissioning a road 

to verify that a ML 1 or 2 road is not isolated because of a decision on a ML 3-5 road. The 

following are the definitions of primary management opportunities (PMO) and their associated 

criteria for each road segment based on location within the Road Cost-Benefit Matrix. Each 

PMO is visually displayed on the matrix above. Typically these will be identified at the subForest scale, but if it is determined that enough analysis at the Forest scale was completed, PMOs 

may be assigned. 

Decommission (D) – Road is currently closed or evaluate for closure, conversion to another 

use or obliteration and current assessment deems road may not be essential for Forest 

H,L H,M H,H 

M,L M,M M,H 

L,L L,M L,H 

Retain 

Decommission 

 Further Evaluation 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 10 

access and management. Prior to treatment a site-specific scale analysis would need to 

take place. 

Retain (R) – Road is deemed essential for Forest access and management at the forest-scale. 

Site-specific scale information would need to be validated to justify the PMO rating. 

Further Evaluation Required (FE) – There is not enough information or data available to 

adequately evaluate and make an informed recommendation. Information at the Site 

specific scale needs to be collected and may warrant further action. 

 

Secondary Management Opportunities 

In addition to PMO, the following secondary management opportunities (SMO) may be assigned 

to each road segment. SMO’s are most appropriately assigned at the site specific analysis scale. 

SMO’s associated with road decommission may include evaluation for closure, conversion, and 

obliteration. SMOs associated with retain may include improve, maintain, realign, reconstruct 

and private road. Additional SMOs that can be associated with retaining the road are listed 

below. 

Close (CL) – Evaluate road for closure. 

Convert (CV) – Evaluate road for conversion. 

Drainage Structures, Add (DA) – Add additional drainage structures to alleviate 

concentrated flows. Structure shall be placed in areas that support adequate filter and 

dissipation capabilities. 

Drainage Structures, Replace (DR) – Replace existing drainage structures with structures 

that will adequately dissipate flows and facilitate minimum maintenance. 

Harden Surface (H) – Harden surface of entire road segment with crushed aggregate base or 

asphalt. 

Harden Surface Next to Creek (HC) – Harden portions of road segments that are within 300 

feet of drainages including crossings. 

Reconstruct Road (RR) – Reconstruct road segment on existing alignment to change the 

road’s functional class, maintenance level, traffic service level, capacity, or its original 

design function. 

Maintain (M) – Continue to maintain road segment at the current functional class, 

maintenance level, traffic service level, capacity and design function. 

Obliterate (O) – Evaluate road segment for obliteration. 

Private (P) – Road access private land or is privately owned. If additional recommendations 

are present consult landowners or special-use permit holders. 

Realign Road (RR) – Reconstruct road segment or portions of road segment in a new 

location and treat old roadway. Typically, this is to increase the road’s functional class, 

maintenance level, traffic service level, capacity, change its original design function or 

reduce environmental damage. 

Seasonal Road Closure (SC) – Evaluate road closure from late fall through early spring to 

winter range, road surface, and/or prevent resource damage. 

Tables within the report provide a location to assign PMO and SMO(s) once evaluated at the 

sub-Forest scale. SMOs are associated with specific issue and/or factor ratings and are at the 
Final Environmental Impact Statements -Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B5 - 11 

discretion of the IDT. The IDT should list the issue or factor for selection of SMO(s) in the 

comment column of the management opportunity table if they differ from selection criteria. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 6 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Winter 

Recreation Mapping 

Introduction 

The identification and delineation of experience, activities, and settings of outdoor recreation on 

the Forest used the framework of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for summer use. 

The process that was used in defining the existing condition and development of the alternative 

is described below. 

Six mapping criteria from the ROS framework inventory were used to develop Existing 

Condition maps. They are: 

Physical setting 

1. Remoteness 

2. Size 

3. Evidence of humans 

Social and Managerial Setting 

4. User Density 

5. Managerial regimentation and noticeability 

6. Setting Inconsistencies 

Resource Specialists and District Personnel were used throughout the mapping process to assist 

in mapping consistencies and determine where inconsistencies occurred and help in the 

resolution conflicts and final mapping. 

Alternatives used the existing condition map as a baseline and changed in response to 

management prescription and other factors identified by the public and Forest personnel. Maps 

of the Alternatives and Existing Condition are found in the FEIS. The following sections 

describe the process in more detail. 

Summer ROS Mapping 

Criteria 1. Remoteness 

Using GIS, travel ways consisting of roads and trails were divided into categories of motorized 

and non-motorized. For roads, more detailed parameters were identified using the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) Transportation Management descriptions of maintenance levels (see table B6-

A). A maintenance level of 0 was created for roads that were managed by other agencies or the 

private sector. Road maintenance levels were than segregated into primitive and better than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 2 

primitive. Maintenance level 1 is closed to public use and was considered as a non-motorized 

travel way. Maintenance level 2 was categorized as primitive and Maintenance levels 0, 3, 4, 

and 5 were categorized as better than primitive. After the classification of travel ways occurred 

the following criteria was applied to the motorized segments to map the inventoried Remoteness 

area into ROS categories. 

Table B6-A Transportation Maintenance Levels 

MAINTENANCE LEVEL 

Parameters 0 1 2 (Primitive) 3 4 5 

Service life Other agency or 

private road 

Intermittent 

Service-Closed 

Status 

Constant Service or Intermittent Service-Open Status 

(Some uses may be restricted under 36 CFR 261.50) 

Traffic Type Varies Open for nonmotorized uses. 

Closed to 

motorized uses. 

Administrative, 

permitted, 

undeveloped 

recreation, 

specialized, 

commercial haul 

All National Forest Traffic – General Use, 

Commercial Haul 

Vehicle Type All types Closed-N/A High clearance, 

pick-up, 4X4, log 

trucks, ATV, etc. 

All types – passenger cars to large commercial 

vehicles 

Traffic Volume Varies w/surface 

as maintained by 

other agency or 

private 

Closed-N/A Traffic volume increases with maintenance level 

Typical surface Varies w/surface 

as maintained by 

other agency or 

private 

All types None, Native, or Aggregate-may be 

dust abated 

Aggregate – usually dust 

abated; paved 

User comfort 

and convenience 

Varies Closed-N/A Not a consideration Low priority Moderate 

priority 

High Priority 

Functional 

Classification 

All types All types Local Collector Local 

Collector 

Arterial 

Local Collector 

Arterial 

Local 

Collector 

Arterial 

Traffic Service All types All types D A,B,C – Traffic service level increases with 

maintenance level 

Traffic 

Management 

All types Prohibit or 

Eliminate 

Discourage or 

prohibit cars. 

Accept or 

discourage high 

clearance vehicles 

Encourage, 

Accept 

Encourage Encourage 

Note: 

1. Maintenance level 0 represents all non-Forest Service roads that are maintained by other agencies or public with public 

access. 

2. For maintenance level 1-5 the descriptions are taken from table 12.3 exhibit 1, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58 – 

Transportation System Maintenance Handbook, WO Amendment 7709.58-92-1 effective 9/4/92 

Wilderness was categorized into two ROS classifications: Wilderness/Primitive (W/P) and 

Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (W/SPNM). 

W/P areas were mapped as areas 3 miles and greater from all roads, railroads, and 

motorized trails. 

W/SPNM areas were mapped as areas less than 3 miles and more than 1⁄2 mile from all 

roads, railroads, and motorized trails. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 3 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) were mapped by delineating General Forest Areas 

(GFA) less than 3 miles and more than 1⁄2 mile from all roads, railroads, and motorized trails. 

Defining a 1⁄2 mile buffer on each side of all motorized trails and primitive roads created a ROS 

category of Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). 

Roaded Natural (RN) areas were distinguished by shaping a 1⁄2 mile buffer on all better than 

primitive roads. 

Rural (R) has no distance criteria. Boundaries were delineated by defining lands whose setting 

characteristics are Rural were the” natural environment has been substantially modified, i.e., 

structures are readily apparent, pastoral, or agricultural or intensively managed wildland 

landscapes as viewed from visually sensitive roads and trails.” (FS-710) Includes such 

characteristics as pastoral, agricultural, intensively managed wildlands. No buffers are used. 

Urban (U) has no distance criteria. Boundaries were delineated by defining lands whose setting 

characteristics are Urban were the environment is Urbanized “ with dominant structures, traffic 

lights, large parking lots, and paved streets. Access is highly intense, motorized, and often with 

mass transit supplements.” (FS-710) Includes such characteristics as major resorts, marinas, 

residential subdivisions, industrial sites, and urbanized amenities that are associated with these 

characteristics. No buffers are used. 

 

The Table B6-B matrix was used to determine the ROS category when conflicts between ROS 

categories occurred. 

Table B6-B ROS Category Conflict Adjustment Matrix 

W/P W/SPNM SPNM SPM RN R U 

W/P W/P W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM 

W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM 

SPNM W/SPNM W/SPNM SPNM SPM RN R U 

SPM W/SPNM W/SPNM SPM SPM RN R U 

RN W/SPNM W/SPNM RN RN RN R U 

R W/SPNM W/SPNM R R R R U 

U W/SPNM W/SPNM U U U U U 

Wilderness/Primitive = W/P 

Wilderness/ Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized 

= W/SPNM 

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized = SPNM 

Semi-Primitive Motorized = SPM 

Roaded Natural = RN 

Rural = R 

Urban = U 

Criteria 2. Size 

ROS categories created polygons of an area that were measured in acres and analyzed to see if 

they met the following criteria. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 4 

Wilderness/Primitive (W/P)- Areas 5,000 acres or greater. (May be smaller if contiguous to 

W/SPNM). 

Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (W/SPNM) – No size criteria. Remaining 

Wilderness not in Primitive. 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) – Non-Motorized areas less than 5,000 acres and greater 

than 2,500 acres or GFA. (May be smaller if contiguous to W/P or W/SPNM). 

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) – Motorized high clearance vehicle areas greater than 2,500 

acres of GFA. (May be smaller if contiguous to W/SPNM and SPNM). 

Roaded Natural (RN) – No size criteria. 

Rural (R) – No size criteria. 

Urban (U) – No size criteria. 

After the area adjustments were completed in GIS, the ROS category polygons were labeled with 

the appropriate categories and readied for the next step of the process. 

Criteria 3. Evidence of Humans 

To determine whether the impact of human modification on the landscape was appropriate for 

each ROS category an analysis was made by overlaying areas of development and activities. If 

the evidence of humans was dominant, an adjustment was made to the appropriate ROS 

category. See Table B6-C for Evidence of Human Criteria. Management Prescription 

Categories (MPC) were used to show Wilderness opportunity classes I, II, and III, and categorize 

ROS categories W/P and W/SPNM. 

 

Table B6-C Evidence of Human Criteria 

ROS Class Setting Travel ways Structures 

Wilderness/Primitive Setting is essentially an unmodified 

natural environment. Evidence of 

Humans would be unnoticed by an 

observer wandering through the area. 

MPC 1.1 - Opportunity Class I 

Local adjustment: May have the 

sites and sounds of commercial and 

non-commercial flight corridors. 

Some evidence of trails, but should 

not exceed standard to carry 

expected use. 

Structures are rustic and extremely 

rare. 

Wilderness/ SemiPrimitive NonMotorized 

Setting is essentially an unmodified 

natural environment. Evidence of 

Humans would be unnoticed by an 

observer wandering through the area. 

MPC 1.1 - Opportunity Class I, 

MPC 1.2 - Opportunity Class II, 

MPC 1.3 – Opportunity Class III. 

Local adjustment: May have the 

sites and sounds of adjacent urban 

and rural communities. 

Evidence of trails, but should not 

exceed standard to carry expected 

use. 

Structures are rustic and extremely 

rare. 

Semi-Primitive Non- Natural setting may have subtle Evidence of trails, little or no Structure are rare and isolated. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 5 

ROS Class Setting Travel ways Structures 

Motorized modifications that would be noticed, 

but not draw the attention of an 

observer wandering through the area. 

Local adjustment: May have the 

sites and sounds of adjacent urban 

and rural communities. 

evidence of primitive roads and the 

motorized use of trails and primitive 

roads. 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Natural setting may have moderately 

dominant alterations, but would not 

draw the attention of motorized 

observers on trails or primitive roads 

within the area. 

Local adjustment: May have the 

sites and sounds of adjacent urban 

and rural communities. 

Strong evidence of primitive roads 

and the motorized use of trails and 

primitive roads 

Structures are rare and isolated. 

Roaded Natural Natural setting may have 

modifications, which range from 

being easily noticed to strongly 

dominant to observers within the 

area. However from concern level 1 

and 2 of the Scenery Management 

System (Scenic Byways, Backways) 

and use areas these alterations 

would remain unnoticed or visually 

subordinate. 

Local adjustment: May have the 

sites and sounds of adjacent urban 

and rural communities. 

There is strong evidence of designed 

roads and/or highways. 

Structures are generally scattered, 

remaining visually subordinate or 

unnoticed to sensitivity level 1 and 2 

VMS identified travel route observer. 

Structures may include power lines, 

microwave installations and so on. 

Rural Natural setting culturally modified to 

the point that it is dominant to the 

concern level 1 and 2 of the Scenery 

Management System (Scenic 

Byways, Backways) travel route 

observers. May include pastoral, 

agricultural, intensively managed 

wildland resource landscapes, or 

utility corridors. Pedestrian or other 

slow moving observers are constantly 

within view of culturally changed 

landscape. 

There is strong evidence of designed 

roads and/or highways. 

Structures are readily apparent and 

may range from scattered to small 

dominant clusters including power 

lines, microwave installations, local 

ski areas, minor resorts and 

recreation sites. 

Urban Setting is strongly structure 

dominated. Natural or naturalappearing elements my play an 

important role, but visually 

subordinate. Pedestrian and other 

slow moving observers are constantly 

within view of artificial enclosure 

spaces. 

There is strong evidence of designed 

roads and/or highways and streets. 

Structures and structure complexes 

are dominant, and may include major 

resorts and marinas, national and 

regional ski areas, towns, industrial 

sites, condominiums or second home 

developments. 

Criteria 4. User Density/Social Contact and Criteria 5. Managerial 

Regimentation and Noticeability

After mapping with criteria 1 through 3 described above, meetings were schedule with District 

personnel to review how the criteria were applied and get their feedback. Some modifications 

were made to the maps based on the District personnel’s individual knowledge. 

In these meetings District personnel were also asked to determine: 

A. how many people visited an area from their experience to establish user density? This 

information was based ocular data and not further developed in the mapping process. 

See Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study, Human 

Carrying Capacity Determinations and User Densities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 6 

B. consider the amount of signs and visitor contacts by Forest Service rangers to frame 

regimentation and noticeability (See Table B6-D Managerial Setting Criteria). 

From this professional knowledge areas were mapped and compared with other criteria. 

Table B6-D Managerial Setting Criteria 

(Managerial regimentation and noticeability) 

ROS Category Criteria description 

Wilderness/Primitive MPC 1.1 Opportunity Class I – On-site regimentation is low with controls* primarily off site. 

Wilderness/ SemiPrimitive NonMotorized 

MPC 1.2 and 1.3 Opportunity Class II and III – On-site regimentation is low to moderate* primarily off site. 

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized On-site regimentation and controls* present but subtle. 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

On-site regimentation and controls* present but subtle. 

Roaded Natural On-site regimentation and controls* are noticeable, but harmonize with the natural environment. 

Rural Regimentation and controls* obvious and numerous, largely in harmony with the man made environment. 

Urban Regimentation and controls* obvious and numerous. 

*Controls can be physical (such as barriers) or regulatory (such as permits). 

Criteria 6. Setting Inconsistencies 

Based on review and adjustment from local knowledge, an existing condition map was produced. 

When the physical, social and/or managerial setting were not the same for the same piece of 

ground in the GIS maps the ROS category was selected that best represented current 

management direction. 

Inconsistencies and adjustments: 

1. Maintenance level 0 roads represented a wide range of road widths and surface types. 

District personnel knowledge was sought to classify the primitive roads so that they could 

be mapped in GIS correctly for the Remoteness Criteria of SPM. 

2. The influence of adjacent urban and rural communities to the boundary of the Forest 

created a ring of urban and rural polygons in their interface with the Forest. After some 

review it became evident that management direction did not reflect urban or rural setting 

on these lands so the ROS category was moved to a maximum of Roaded Natural, but for 

the most part they became SPM or SPNM areas. 

3. Because of the location of Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, Deseret Peak and 

Mount Naomi Wildernesses to urban and rural communities and better than primitive 

roasd (less than 3 miles) the designation of W/SPNM was applied to MPC 1.1, 1.2 and 

1.3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 7 

Alternatives and ROS 

Applies to all Alternatives 

Management Prescription Categories (MPC’s) 1.1-1.5 will have only the non-motorized ROS 

application applied to them. Most 2.6 MPC designations will be non-motorized and semiprimitive (motorized or non-motorized) in nature. 

MPC 1.5, Recommended Wilderness is delineated as SPNM, the MPC direction will provide the 

specific management for this portion of the ROS category. 

MPC’s 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.2, 6.2 will generally have a motorized access classification applied to 

them (SPM, RN, R, U). 

Alternative 1 

Management objective is to maximize SPNM and Wilderness. Generally, the 

Wilderness/Primitive class will not be increased beyond High Uintas Wilderness region, because 

most areas will not meet Wilderness/Primitive criteria in any alternative due to the remoteness 

and social setting. 

Buffered existing motorized routes (summer) within MPC 1.5 to 66 feet. (66 feet buffer was 

adopted from the roadless criteria). This buffer narrowed cherry-stemmed corridors while 

increasing MPC 1.5 acreage in SPNM. There is no SPM or greater developed designations in 

MPC 1.5 or 2.6. 

Increase SPNM area outside of 1.5 and 2.6 MPC’s if possible. Use a 1⁄4 mile buffer for those 

areas outside of MPC 1.5 designations. No new recreation facility development. 

Alternative 2 

Similar to Alternative 1. Use a 1⁄4 mile buffer for motorized routes. Incorporate as much SPM 

designation as possible for MPC’s 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.2, 6.2. Facility development may be allowed if 

consistent with ROS designation and management prescription. 

Alternative 3 

ROS map should be similar to the current condition map. Facility development may be allowed 

if consistent with ROS designation and management prescription. 

Alternative 4 - 1985 Forest Plan ROS

Only one ROS map was developed for the Forest in the 1985 Forest Plan that combined both 

summer and winter use. This map is provided to show the change in ROS management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 8 

Generally, the management philosophy was to increase recreational development and access, and 

add some developed recreation sites. In the initial round of planning ROS was applied in a more 

general nature and reflected a higher development scale. 

Alternative 5 

More development is allowed. This does not necessarily translate into fewer SPNM acres, but 

since there is more acreage allocated to MPC’s with development potential such as 4.5, 5.2, 6.2, 

8.0, it is likely there would be less SPNM in this alternative. 

Alternative 6 

The ROS map is similar to the current condition map. Allows additional facility development, 

especially in MPC 4.+ (recreation) classes. 

Alternative 7 

ROS map is same as existing condition with the exception of changes from Road Natural to 

Rural in the ski areas because of the increased use of mountain bike trail development and day 

hikes from Resort base areas. 

Table B6-E Social Setting Criteria were developed and used in the creation of Table 11 WCNF 

Revised Forest, and Table D2-1 Appendix D settings and opportunity descriptions for identified 

ROS classes. The social setting criteria were shaped from District personnel professional 

knowledge, field observations, visitor counts, High Uinta Wilderness Management Plan, and 

Special Orders of the WCNF Forest Supervisor as a baseline to establish social encounter 

thresholds for Primitive and Semi-Primitive ROS classes. 

There are three reasons to establish social encounters thresholds: 

a. For a communication tool to help people understand more about their desired 

recreation experience. 

b. To establish a baseline for management and the public for the collection of social 

data. 

c. To provide a beginning point to initiate public involvement during the monitoring 

process. 

It is recognized that further data collection will need to be collected during the monitoring 

process, such as date, time of contact, duration of contact, speed of hiking, etc. so that a better 

understanding of peoples recreational trends and desire experience can be created. The 

description (Very Low – High) of encounters is ROS category specific and changes meaning 

when moving from one class to another. See Table B6-E criteria description for definition of the 

percent a person time is spent in encounters with other parties. A party is defined as 1 person to 

14 people. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 9 

Table B6-E Social Setting Criteria 

ROS Class Criteria description 

Wilderness/Primitive High Uintas 

MPC 1.1, Wilderness Opportunity Class I. Social: Off Trail -Very Low encounters (less than 10% of a person time is 

spent in encounters with other parties in an 8- hour day) on Trail-Low encounters (11%-15% of a person time is spent 

in encounters with other parties in an 8- hour day) Campsites should not be closer than 1 mile apart. 

Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, Deseret Peak, Mount Naomi and Wellsville Mountain Wildernesses 

MPC 1.1. Wilderness Opportunity Class I. Social: Off and On Trails Low encounters (11%-15% of a person time is 

spent in encounters with other parties in an 8- hour day). Campsites should be no closer than 100 feet apart. 

High Uintas 

MPC 1.2 & 1.3, Wilderness Opportunity Class II and I. Social: On Trail-Low encounters (11%-15% of a person time is 

spent in encounters with other parties in an 8- hour day) High Uintas - Campsites should be no closer than 1⁄4 mile 

apart. Mount Naomi and Deseret Peak, Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak Wildernesses- Campsites should 

be no closer than 100 feet apart. 

Local adjustment for weekends and holidays: High Uintas, Wellsville Mountain, Mount Naomi and Deseret Peak 

Wildernesses 

MPC 1.2. Social: On Trail- Moderately Low encounters (16%-20% of a person time is spent in encounters with other 

parties in an 8- hour day) 

*Local adjustment for weekends and holidays: Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak Wildernesses 

MPC 1.2. Social: On Trails-Moderate encounters (21%-25% of a person time is spent in encounters with other parties 

in an 8- hour day) 

Local adjustment for weekends and holidays: High Uintas, Wellsville Mountain, Mount Naomi and Deseret Peak 

Wildernesses 

MPC 1.3. Social: On Trails-Moderate encounters (21%-25% of a person time is spent in encounters with other parties 

in an 8- hour day) 

Local adjustment for weekends and holidays: Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak Wildernesses 

Wilderness/ SemiPrimitive NonMotorized 

MPC 1.3. Social: On Trails-High encounters (31%45% of a person time is spent in encounters with other parties in an 

8- hour day) Campsites should be no closer than 100 feet apart. Reason for high encounters is because access to a 

desired destination is on a cherry stem trail. 

Social: On Trails-Low to Moderate (14%-33% of a person time is spent in encounters with other parties in an 8- hour 

day). Camp Spacing-6 parties visible from campsites. 

Local adjustment for weekends and holidays

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized 

Check with local Ranger Districts for information on trails with High encounters with other parties. 

Social: Low to moderate contact frequency on Loop trails, moderate contact frequency on cherry stem trails (21%-

40% of a person time is spent in encounters with other parties in an 8-hour day) 

Local adjustment for weekends and holidays

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Check with local Ranger Districts for information on trails with High encounters with other parties. 

Roaded Natural Frequency of contact is moderate to high on roads; Low to moderate on trails and away from roads; low to moderate 

in developed sites during the week and moderate to high on weekends and holidays. 

Rural Frequency of contact is moderate to high in developed sites on roads and trails and water surfaces during the week 

and high to very high on weekends and holidays and moderate away from developed sites. 

Urban Large numbers of users onsite and in nearby areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 10 

Winter Recreation Mapping 

Mapping Process 

The following paragraphs describe the process used to develop winter recreation existing 

condition and alternative maps. The delineation and identification of winter motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities on the Forest used questions to frame the process for building the 

existing condition map. A interdisciplinary team develop the following questions that needed to 

be answered: 

• Where can I snowmobile? 

• Where is helicopter skiing allowed? 

• Where is winter motorized use not allowed? 

Question 1 -Where can I snowmobile? 

Existing District summer and winter recreation travel plans were separated into the two 

categories and put into GIS. Through public interaction and Forest personnel review, 

motorized areas were identified and mapped. 

Question 2 -Where is helicopter skiing allowed? 

Existing permit boundaries were put into GIS. 

Question 3 - Where is winter motorized use not allowed? 

Wilderness and areas closed during the winter on travel plans were later defined along 

with areas of trespass where motorized use was occurring in non-motorized areas. 

Fundamental to beginning this process is determining when during the season the winter 

recreation maps would apply. Their application should be tied to on the ground conditions in 

any given year rather than a static calendar date. The team decided that the winter recreation 

map apply when there is an adequate depth of snow is present on the ground to protect vegetative 

resources. When there is an inadequate depth of snow present, summer ROS maps as well as 

travel management plans apply and snowmobile use would not be permitted off of designated 

routes. 

 

Mapping Existing Condition 

After compiling and mapping baseline information, District personnel reviewed the existing 

condition maps for correctness and consistency. After district review, Four Winter Recreation 

Classes were created and mapped as follows: 

1) Wilderness—Areas designated as wilderness. Snowmobiling, Heli-skiing, or other 

motorized use is not allowed all year round. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 11 

2) Non-Motorized – These areas emphasize non-motorized winter recreation such as 

cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, tubing, etc. No snowmobiles or other motorized 

uses are allowed. 

3) Motorized – Snowmobiling or other motorized travel is permitted in these areas 

and/or on designated routes. Non-motorized uses are also permitted here. 

4) Heliski – These areas are designated for heli-skiing (helicopter supported 

backcountry skiing). Generally, there is no snowmobiling allowed in these areas 

unless otherwise noted. Other non-motorized uses are permitted. 

Mapping of Alternatives

Using the Existing Condition map as a starting point, winter recreation maps for each alternative 

were developed. Each represented the general direction or theme of an alternative and are 

described as follows: 

Alternative 1 

No snowmobiles are allowed in inventoried roadless, wilderness, or recommended wilderness 

areas. No Heli-skiing allowed. No new ski areas or ski area expansion. 

Alternative 2 

Snowmobiling allowed in inventoried roadless areas only on designated routes. Open area 

snowmobiling is limited. No snowmobiling in Wilderness (1.1-1.4), proposed Wilderness (1.5), 

or in roadless areas adjacent to MPC 1.0’s. No Heli-skiing allowed. No new ski areas or ski 

area expansion. 

Alternative 3 

Increase winter motorized access where at all possible. No new ski areas will be developed and 

no ski area expansion allowed. No snowmobiling in Wilderness (1.1-1.4) and recommended 

Wilderness (1.5). Heli-skiing permit boundary is altered—Gobbler’s Knob closed to heliskiing. 

Some of Big Cottonwood Canyon opened to heli-skiing. 

Alternative 4 - 1985 Forest Plan ROS

 

From Map 5 of the 1985 Forest Plan, a winter recreation map was created that displayed winter 

motorized and nonmotorized areas. Outside of wilderness, winter motorized was allowed across 

the forest except in the areas specifically mapped as semiprimitive nonmotorized. Since this 

map had not been updated to include lands acquired since 1985, these newly acquired lands were 

designated according to the existing condition map. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B6 - 12 

Alternative 5 

Expands winter motorized access and use. Heli-skiing allowed as in existing special use permit. 

Alternative 6 

Expands winter motorized access and use in Cache/Box Elder Management area, reduces 

motorized access in the Lakes area of the Western Uintas and also in the Eastern Uintas. All 

other Management Areas are roughly the same as the existing condition. 

Alternative 7 

Addresses the winter recreation use conflicts and access management by providing for winter 

motorized use consistent with growing demand, while identifying selected areas for separation of 

non-motorized winter opportunities. Existing condition motorized areas remain motorized in 

MPC 1.5. Wilderness MPC 1.1-3 remains non-motorized. Acknowledges key big game winter 

range and implements some closures but primarily puts in place future monitoring. 

From public comment, an analysis was conducted to determine criteria for deciding what was 

suitable for motorized and non-motorized use based on slope, aspect and vegetation type or 

condition. The conclusion of the analysis found that both motorized and non-motorized users 

were looking for the same terrain, aspect and vegetation types. Basically all areas on the Forest 

were being used at sometime during the snow-on season. 

Information and understanding of snow and weather conditions for safety was of importance for 

both non-motorized and motorized groups. 

• Limitations for motorized group: none. 

• Limitations for non-motorized group: 

o Distance from drop point for a safe day trip is 6 miles or less. 

o Snow consistency (from powder to compacted). Compaction is considered a 

hazard because of high potential to cause a fall. 

o Noise 

o Air Pollution 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B7 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 7 

Scenery Management System Application 

Introduction 

This document describes how the framework of the Scenery Management System (SMS)(USDA 

Forest Service. 1995b) was applied in the development of alternatives in the Revised Forest Plan 

process for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The purpose of scenery management is to 

provide a tool to integrate the benefits, values, desires, and preferences regarding aesthetics and 

scenery into all levels of land management planning. The Scenery Management System is 

composed of 4 basic steps: 1- Inventory, 2 – Design, Analysis & Planning, 3 – Implementation 

and 4 – Monitoring. Each step becomes more detailed as you move through the various scales of 

planning from regional to project level. The Forest Plan scale provides broad program level 

direction for management. It is at this scale that the Scenery Management System framework 

was applied on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Inventory of Existing Condition 

A broad scale inventory was conducted of the Forest that consisted of existing use and 

management on the Forest to create a baseline from which to measure scenic integrity. The 

Forest was divided into five Landscape Character Themes (LCTs) that gave a broad image of the 

valued landscapes found on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The descriptions of those five 

themes are as follows: 

1. Natural Evolving LCT

The existing landscape 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. 

2. Natural Appearing LCT 

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, undeveloped campsites 

etc. these alterations are subordinate and are valued amenities within the landscape. 

3. Developed Natural Appearing LCT 

This landscape character theme is characteristic of National, National Forest and State 

scenic byways with minor summer residential development, and developed recreation 

facilities and concentrated use areas within the foreground of the viewshed (1/2 mile). In 

these areas, the roadway, recreation amenities, and development harmonize and are 

subordinate with the landscape. For users, this built environment is part of the valued 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B7 - 2 

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. 

4. Resort Natural Setting LCT

This landscape character theme is characteristic of developed recreation facilities such as 

ski resorts, and recreation resort communities. In these areas recreation amenities that 

harmonize with the natural landscape are one of the attractions for people. Facilities are 

designed and constructed to harmonize with the natural setting. While the facilities in the 

base areas are dominant in scale or form, that dominance declines as it transitions onto 

the mountainsides up to the ridgelines. Likewise, recreational opportunities provided in 

base areas rely more heavily on architecturally thematic constructed facilities, while those 

higher on the mountain become increasingly oriented toward the natural setting. 

5. Water Recreation Rural Appearing 

This theme is characteristic of Pineview Reservoir recreation complex. The scenic 

qualities of Ogden Valley attract visitors and maintaining rural character is important to 

many landowners in this area. In this area, recreation amenities such as boat ramps, 

beaches, campgrounds, and boat docks are the main attraction for people. The 

surrounding cultural setting of farms, fields, and pastures influence development on the 

private lands for housing, businesses, roads and other developments. 

The Forest was divided into seven Management Areas that were defined by sociological and 

biological criteria. Existing landscape character descriptions were created for each of the 

Management Areas that described the physical, biological and cultural/social character of the 

area. These descriptions paint a general picture of the Management Area (See Management Area 

descriptions chapter 3 introduction). 

Mapping Alternatives 

The SMS process was applied to all alternatives except for Alternative 4 with some adjustments 

made for local application of the system. Alternative 4 is the 1985 Plan as amended and was 

interpreted using SMS terms. The process used for mapping Alternative 4 is described in 

Appendix D. 

The management prescriptions describe general management or use of the land. Mapping 

management prescriptions was one of the primary tools used to display the difference between 

alternatives. Based on management prescriptions and consistent with themes used in the baseline 

inventory, the following Landscape Character Themes (LCT) were used: 

• Natural Evolving 

• Natural Appearing 

• Develop Natural Appearing 

• Resort Natural Setting 

• Water Recreation Rural Appearing. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B7 - 3 

The general application is as follows: “Wilderness” or “Recommended Wilderness” defined 

“Natural Evolving” recognizes the direction given for the lands managed as Wilderness. Other 

considerations used were the amount of cultural modification within a landscape. Landscapes 

such as Ski Resorts “Resort Natural Setting” water recreation areas like Pineview Reservoir and, 

“Water Recreation Rural Setting” are landscapes that have been modified to provide amenities 

for people to use. Scenic Byways fall under “Developed Natural Appearing” because of the high 

development densities along the byway. The LCT used for the remaining National Forest 

System Lands is “Natural Appearing”. A tabular presentation of the conversion of MPCs to 

LCTs is provided in Appendix D. 

From the management described in the management prescription, a Scenic Integrity Objective 

(SIO) was assigned based on the following: 

1. Duration of effect a specific management would have on the landscape character within a 

specific LCT description. Five years plus duration where the image of the landscape appears 

changed. 

2. Dominance of effect a specific management would have on the landscape character with a 

specific LCT description. (geometry, size, shape, pattern, form etc.). 

3. What would be accepted as part of the apparent landscape character of a LCT. Considered 

cultural and biological elements. 

The SIO was applied to each MPC. A table for converting MPC to LCT to SIOs is presented in 

Appendix D along with detailed descriptions of LCT and SIO and accepted cultural 

modifications. 

From the above criteria, Forest “Landscape Character Themes” (LCT) and “Scenic Integrity 

Objectives” (SIO) were mapped. See “FEIS for Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Revision Alternative 

- SMS” maps, map packet. 

Alternative 4 SMS Process application 

This Alternative represents the 1985 Forest Plan direction, which used Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQO) as developed under the Visual Management System. In 1995 the Forest Service replaced 

the Visual Management System (VMS) with the Scenery Management System. A cross walk for 

terminology and component changes from the Visual Management System to SMS is provided in 

Appendix D, under the heading Landscape Character Definition Table for “Natural” 1985 Forest 

Plan Theme. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B8 - 1 

APPENDIX B – 8 

Vegetation Cover Type Map 

Introduction 

GIS personnel from the Intermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service, Regional Office 

(RO) developed the original map of the plant communities of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

in 1995. The Forest was divided into 11 zones, based on geologic features, vegetation, and 

elevation ranges. These zones closely match the ecological subsections that were later developed 

for this portion of the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service. These included: 

1. Cache Front 

2. Ant Flats 

3. Monte Cristo/Curtis Creek/Sinks 

4. Causey Conglomerates 

5. North Wasatch Front 

6. South Wasatch Front 

7. Wasatch Hinterlands 

8. Chalk/Weber 

9. West Flank (Uinta Mountains) 

10. North Slope Outwash (Uinta Mountains) 

11. North Slope Glaciation (Uinta Mountains) 

Originally there were 75 spectral classes, derived from satellite data using the Terra Mar Image 

Analysis System. These types were then grouped into similar vegetation classes using satellite 

imagery and knowledge of existing vegegetation by RO personnel, by ocular comparisons. The 

RO ten step process for the vegetation classification process is described below (see RO 

PROCESS: DESCRIPTION OF WASATCH-CACHE VEGETATION ATTRIBUTES). The 

classification included both forest and non-forest vegetation types. The forested type size class 

information was determined by overlaying stand examination data over the forested vegetation 

types provided from the satellite classification. The size class was then added to these polygons 

with the use of GIS technology, to produce maps of the existing vegetation on the forest. 

A classification of the plant communities was done using satellite imagery and knowledge of 

Regional Office personnel of the existing conditions on the ground. Forest Inventory maps from 

1974 of available/capable timberlands were used to populate data associated with timber stands 

(size class and canopy closure). Very little other site data was used in this classification. District 

personnel involved with forest or rangeland vegetation as part of their job began evaluating and 

making modifications to this map. The forest ecologists then began an evaluation of these 

vegetation maps in 1999 and using, field observations, knowledge of the forest, and digital 

orthophotos, made some additional adjustments to the vegetation map. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B8 - 2 

Along the Wasatch Mountains, it was found that the original vegetation cover type map often 

failed to distinguish Gambel oak communities from aspen communities. In the Stansbury 

Mountains it did a poor job of delineating mahogany stands, over estimated the occurrence of tall 

shrub communities, and under estimated the occurrence of spruce-fir and limber pine stands. In 

the Uinta Mountains, riparian communities (including willow, wet meadow, and bottomland 

hardwood communities) were under estimated, and all conifer-dominated communities were 

originally delineated as lodgepole or spruce-fir. No mixed conifer communities were classified. 

Forest-wide, no differences were noted in sagebrush dominance. The forest has significant acres 

of mountain big sagebrush, spiked big sagebrush, low sagebrush, with moderate amounts of 

Vasey big sagebrush (primarily occurring in the Bear River Range near the Idaho border), silver 

sagebrush (uncommon except in some portions of the Uinta Moutains adjacent to and in riparian 

areas and as a minor component in the North Sinks area in the Bear River Range). Sagebrush as 

well as grassland communities were originally mapped, but these were later combined into as 

single sagebrush cover type because there were no real similarities between the mapped 

distribution and actual occurrences of these types on the ground. Originally, tall forb 

communities were not classified. This type was later mapped using knowledge of where these 

communities are known to occur. 

Some problems still occur with the existing vegetation map of the forest. Additional work needs 

to be done on all the noted deficiencies with the existing vegetation map. 

RO Process - Description of Wasatch-Cache Vegetation Attributes 

This document describes the vegetation classification attribute process of Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest vegetation data done by the Intermountain Region Forest Service, Regional 

Office. 

Processing Steps from Terra Mar to ARC/Info: 

Step One: GEO-Reference Landsat image using ERDAS image processor 

 and create ARC/Info GRID (rastar model) format. 

Step Two: Reclassify original 75 class GRID into the new classes 

Identified by District Forester during work on Terra Mar 

Step Three: Use GRID processing capabilities to take data from 30 meter 

 resolution to 5 acres (a combination of regiongroup, select 

 and nibble commands from the GRID module). 

Step Four: Produce polygons from the GRID data. 

Step Five: Produce hard copy maps at 1:24,000 of Conifer stands with 

unique identifiers for reclassification to specific conifer type 

based on Wasatch-Cache timber RAM maps. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B8 - 3 

Step Six: Data files with the unique identifier and the new type for the 

conifer files was then transfered to the TYPE attribute in the 

ARC/Info polygon file via an AML written in the Region 4 GIS Lab. 

Tracking procedures were written into the AML to allow checking 

of the data submitted for correctness. Errors were 

identified during the data transfer process and corrected by 

GIS personnel and District Forester. 

Step Seven: Ponderosa Pine stands and regeneration cuts were identified 

through a union with stand polygons obtained by the Regional 

GIS personnel from the W-C supervisors office GIS personnel. 

Step Eight: Quad size 1:24,000 hard copy maps were produced with all 

types for review by forest personnel 

Step Nine: Areas of confusion of Oak/maple types and Aspen types along the 

Wasatch front were identified and a simple rule base applied to 

correct oak/maple types to Aspen and Conifer/Shrub types to Aspen 

The following steps were used in ARC/Info to identify oak/maple 

and conifer/shrub types to be changed to Aspen type: 

1. General Aspect and Elevation rules were identified by District 

Forester. 

2. Aspect and elevation polygons were created in ARC/Info's 

GRID module and vectorized. 

3. Aspect and elevation polygons were unioned together and then 

unioned with the vegetation layer. 

4. Arc/Info queries were performed in INFO for the rulesand 

selected polygons were retyped to ASPEN. 

GENERAL RULES USED: 

In TYPES originally designated OAK/MAPLE

Northeastern Slopes above 8,000 feet changed to ASPEN 

All other slopes above 8,500 feet changed to ASPEN 

In TYPES originally designated CONIFER/ASPEN

Northereastern Slopes above 7,500 changed to ASPEN. 

All other slopes above 8,500 changed to ASPEN. 

Step Ten: Supervisors office GIS Personnel split coverages into quads. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 9 

RANGE CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY

Using the Intermountain Region Protocol, Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations 

for Forest Plan Revisions (USDA Forest Service, 1998b), capability and suitability analyses were 

completed. The capability analysis focuses on the ability of the land to support livestock 

grazing, while the suitability focuses on the appropriateness of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Criteria Used in Determination of Capable Rangeland Acres 

The capability analysis identified areas with the physical characteristics conducive to livestock 

grazing. Capable Forest rangelands were considered to have the following characteristics: 

• Capable of producing at least 200 pounds of forage per acre on an annual basis. 

• Having a dominant land slope gradient of less than 30 percent (sheep or cattle). 

• Having a dominant land slope gradient of less than 45 percent (sheep only). 

• Being within 1 mile of a surface water source. 

The methodology employed involved manipulation of various data layers within the Forest 

corporate GIS database. Data from the following GIS layers were used in this analysis: 

• Digital Elevation Model (DEM) layer 

• Cartographic Features File (CFF) for surface water features 

• Forest vegetation layer 

The DEM layer was used to determine slope breaks on the landscapes (0-30 percent for sheep 

and cattle, 31-45 percent for sheep only, and greater than 45 percent, which is generally not used 

by any class of livestock). The CFF file was used to determine distance to surface water. During 

the analysis, it became clear that the CFF layer did not contain all surface water sources known 

to exist on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains (many potholes), which resulted in the model 

understating capable range for that area. We therefore elected to drop the surface water source 

proximity criteria for modeling capable range in this area. Because the CFF was more accurate 

for all other areas, that criteria was retained for modeling capable range on the remainder of the 

forest. The vegetation layer was used as a surrogate for minimum forage production. In general, 

coniferous-forested vegetation types (spruce, fir, pine, Douglas-fir), oak, and barren areas were 

said to not produce the minimum 200 lbs/acre of forage. All other types were included as 

potential forage-producing types. While it is possible that some areas included in those types 

identified as not being able to produce 200 lbs/acre do produce that much, other acres noted as 

being able to produce that amount, do not (for example, low sagebrush rarely produces 200 

lbs/acre). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 2 

Criteria Used in Determination of Suitable Rangeland Acres 

Using the Intermountain Region Protocol, Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations 

for Forest Plan Revisions (USDA Forest Service, 1998b), criteria were reviewed and tailored to 

local conditions for a suitability assessment. This section discusses the criteria used in the 

determination of rangeland suitable acres for each of the seven alternatives. 

A review of the definitions and suggested considerations contained in the Regional Protocol was 

completed. Each Ranger District was assessed for how suitability might vary by alternative, 

given the intent of each alternative. Criteria suggested in the protocol were evaluated in 

conjunction with a review of local knowledge, data from monitoring, previous analyses of 

rangeland management such as Allotment Management planning, and discussions with each 

District Range Conservationist about potential suitability considerations that might be varied by 

alternative. In some cases, while a criterion seemed relevant, it was determined that there was 

not sufficient data to apply to analysis needed to support suitability differences by alternative. 

An example of this was the protocol criterion “noxious weed infestations where forage is not 

used by livestock or use would contribute to increase of the infestation.” A review of each 

District’s information regarding noxious weed infestations did not yield a direct relationship to 

livestock grazing in particular and thus it was agreed that this criterion would not be useful in our 

analysis. 

After considerable discussion and review of available data, analyses, and approaches to 

suitability, it was agreed that all capable rangelands within existing open allotments would be 

considered to be suitable except where the following conditions exist and these would be applied 

based on the nature of the alternative to blend with other aspects of the management direction 

there. Table B9-1 shows the outcome of applying the following factors in the determination of 

rangeland suitability by alternative. 

• Incompatible Uses: Presence of developed recreation sites and research natural areas 

(RNA’s). No proposed or existing RNA’s (including Red Butte, Mollens Hollow, and 

Morris Creek) have acres within any allotments. 

• Upland Range Conditions: Presence of upland rangelands in unsatisfactory condition 

(those not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives). The EIS interdisciplinary team 

determined that for Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 these areas should not be part of the suitable 

rangeland base for the forest. For Alternative 7, these acres remain suitable, but are grazed at 

30-40 percent, rather than 50 percent. 

• Riparian Range Conditions: Presence of riparian rangelands in unsatisfactory condition 

(those not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives). The EIS interdisciplinary team 

determined that for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 these areas should not be a part of the suitable 

rangeland base for the forest. As with the upland areas in unsatisfactory condition, for 

Alternative 7, these acres remain suitable, but are grazed at 30-40 percent, rather than 50 

percent. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 3 

• Vacant Allotments- There are 12 allotments within the Forest that are currently vacant (i.e. 

there are no current Term Grazing Permits for these allotments). The EIS interdisciplinary 

team determined that for Alternatives 1 and 2 all vacant allotments would be closed and 

capable acres within them removed from the suitable rangeland base for the forest. The team 

determined that for Alternatives 6 only the three vacant sheep allotments in the Uinta 

Mountains (Burro, Thompson, and West Beaver) would be closed for bighorn sheep habitat 

and their capable acres removed from the suitable base. Alternative 7 closes these three 

vacant allotments as well as five allotments (Clegg, Hardscrabble, Mill Canyon, Shingle Mill 

and Wright) in the Davis and Salt Lake County watersheds. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 close no 

vacant allotments. 

• Cutthroat Trout Habitat Needs- For Alternative 2 only, portions of 6th order HUCs 

(watersheds) within allotments that have known populations of Bonneville or Colorado 

cutthroat trout, and that have 20 acres or more of riparian areas reported in the INFRA 

database as not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives (unsatisfactory condition), 

were removed from the suitable acres. These acres are within the following Allotments: 

Logan Canyon, Middle Fork, Black Fork Cattle, North Rich, Gilbert Creek, Black Fork Stock 

Driveway, East Fork Smiths Fork, Poison Mountain, Walker, West Fork Smiths Fork, 

Woodruff, and Three Mile. 

One of the documented conflicts with livestock use on the Forest is from backcountry recreation 

users, often in designated Wilderness Areas. This has lead to suggestions that Wilderness areas 

be considered as not suitable for livestock grazing. Section 303 of the Utah Wilderness Act of 

1984 noted that recreation conflicts alone would not be the determining factor in the removal of 

livestock from those newly established Wilderness Areas, however, resource conditions could be 

cause for reductions in livestock numbers. Wilderness status was therefore not deemed 

appropriate as a criterion for rangeland suitability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 4 

Table B9-1. Analysis used for determining rangeland suitability by alternative. 

Criteria Alt1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Total Forest Capable Acres 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900

Capable Acres Within Currently 

Open (Active and Vacant) 

Allotments 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700

Developed Rec. Sites Within 

Currently Open Allotments 1

 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700

Capable Acres Within Currently 

Open Allotments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000

Capable Acres Removed within 

Vacant Allotments Closed for 

Maintaining Resource Conditions 2

 -10,392 -10,392 0 0 0 0 -2,453

Capable Acres Removed within 

Vacant Allotments Closed For 

Bighorn Sheep 3

 -7,760 -7,760 0 0 0 -7,760 -7,760

Uplands Acres Removed- Not 

Meeting FP Objectives 4

 -16,200 -16,200 0 0 0 -16,200 0

Riparian Acres Removed- Not 

Meeting FP Objectives 4

 -2,100 -2,100 -2,100 0 0 -2,100 0

Acres Removed for Cutthroat Trout 

Management 5

 0 -26,000 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suitable Acres 263,548 237,548 297,900 300,000 300,000 273,940 289,787

Percent of Capable Within 

Currently Open Allotments 

(302,700 acres) 87.8% 79.2% 99.3% 100.0% 100.0% 91.3% 96.6%

1 Information from Forest Corporate GIS database. 2

 Alternatives 1 and 2 close all vacant allotments and Alternative 7 closes those vacant allotments (Clegg, Hardscrabble, Mill 

Canyon, Shingle Mill and Wright) within the Salt Lake and Davis County watersheds for watershed condition maintenance. 3

 Vacant allotments (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) closed for bighorn sheep health purposes. This would 

reduce suitable acres by 7,800 acres. 4

 Information extrapolated from monitored areas (INFRA database) and applied forest-wide. 5

 Entire watershed acres removed within allotments with both known cutthroat trout populations and reported riparian acres in 

unsatisfactory condition.

Potential Future Changes in Suitable Acres - In addition to the closure of vacant allotments in 

the Eastern Uintas Management Area (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) for 

bighorn sheep habitat, Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 allow for the future closure of Gilbert Peak, 

Henry's Fork-Hessie Lake, & Red Castle Allotments should those permits be voluntarily waived 

without preference. This would reduce suitable acres by 9,500 acres. Alternative 7 allows for 

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

Stillwater allotments to be closed if permits are voluntarily waived without preference. This 

would reduce suitable acres by 9,800 acres (for a total of 19,300 acres) with the associated 

benefit being reduced risk for disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep as well 

as watershed protection and establishment of ungrazed benchmarks. Given that these Allotment 

closures would be based strictly on voluntary actions by permit holders, net effects on permittee 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 5 

operations would be expected to be positive. (Otherwise permittees could choose not to take this 

action). These wildlife and ungrazed resource condition values are foregone in Alternatives 3, 4, 

and 5. 

 

Calculations of Projected AUMs

Projected outputs in Animal Unit Months were calculated using factors that would yield the most 

realistic possible results. Data on actual use for the 10-year period 1991 to 1999 (Table B9-3) 

shows that there can be quite a range of outputs from grazing in the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Permitted numbers have been consistently higher than actual use but also have varied 

significantly over the same time period. 

Table B9-3. Average AUMs for the period of 1990 to 1999, based on actual use 

Sheep AUMs Cattle AUM's Total AUMs Difference 

Percent 

Authorized 

vs. Permitted

Year Permitted Authorized Permitted Authorized Permitted Authorized Sheep Cattle Sheep Cattle

1990 32,965 29,139 44,785 39,165 77,750 68,304 3,826 5,620 88% 87% 

1991 34,118 30,754 46,357 34,366 80,475 65,120 3,364 11,991 90% 74% 

1992 31,277 24,341 45,136 37,254 76,413 61,595 6,936 7,882 78% 83% 

1993 36,762 24,501 42,759 36,989 79,521 61,490 12,261 5,770 67% 87% 

1994 34,389 26,828 44,013 32,874 78,402 59,702 7,561 11,139 78% 75% 

1995 31,615 21,579 39,798 33,393 71,413 54,972 10,036 6,405 68% 84% 

1996 17,321 14,348 27,146 15,850 44,467 30,198 2,973 11,296 83% 58% 

1997 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

1998 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

1999 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

10 year 

maximum 36,762 30,754 46,357 39,165 83,119 69,919 12,261 11,991 90% 91% 

10 year 

minimum 17,321 14,348 27,146 15,850 44,467 30,198 2,973 3,918 67% 58% 

10 year 

average 30,711 24,613 41,507 34,321 72,218 58,934 6,098 7,186 80% 82% 

Given this, we decided to use the 10-year average of AUMs along with the suitable acres 

actually grazed during that period as a baseline. To identify suitable acres for these calculations 

we started with total capable acres within open allotments and subtracted developed recreation 

site acres and vacant allotment acres because neither of these produced grazing outputs. This left 

a total of 281,848 suitable acres. The 281,848 suitable acres divided by the 10-year average of 

58,934 AUMs provided an average “suitable acres per AUM” of 4.78. If each AUM produced 

requires an average of 4.78 acres, then the number of suitable acres that would be grazed in each 

alternative divided by this number would yield projected outputs by alternative. The forage 

utilization allowance assumption was 50% as adopted from the 1998 Rangeland Health 

Amendment. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 6 

Table B9-2 shows suitable acre calculations used to determine projected outputs (AUMs) by 

alternative. Vacant allotments have not been stocked and are not expected to be stocked within 

the planning period, so they have had no effect on actual outputs. 

Table B9-2. Suitable rangeland acres used for determination of AUMs by alternative 

Criteria Alt1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Total Forest Capable Acres1 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900

Capable Acres Within Currently 

Open (Active and Vacant) 

Allotments1

 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700

Developed Rec. Sites within 

Currently Open Allotments1 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700

Remaining Capable Acres Within 

Currently Open Allotments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000

Vacant Allotments1 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152

Upland Acres Removed for Not 

Meeting Forest Plan Direction2 -16,200 -16,200 0 0 0 -16,200 0

Riparian Acres Removed for Not 

Meeting FP Objectives2 -2,100 -2,100 -2,100 0 0 -2,100 0

Acres Removed for Cutthroat Trout 

Management3 0 -26,000 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suitable Acres 263,548 237,548 279,748 281,848 281,848 263,548 281,848

1

Information from Forest Corporate GIS database 

2

Information from monitored areas (INFRA database) and extrapolated forest wide 3

Entire watershed acres removed within existing allotments that have both known cutthroat trout 

populations and reported acres of riparian areas (estimated or verified) as not meeting forest plan 

objectives (desired conditions) 

.For Alternatives 1-6, the determination of projected AUMs (Table B9-4) was based on 

dividing the suitable acres for each alternative by 4.78 acres/AUM. 

For Alternative 7, acres of riparian and upland rangelands in unsatisfactory condition were 

given a lower output projection (i.e. more acres necessary to produce 1 AUM) because these 

areas have a lower forage utilization allowance in this Alternative. In all other Alternatives, the 

utilization allowance is 50% on suitable lands. In Alternative 7 the forage utilization allowance 

is 30-40% for those areas in unsatisfactory condition (16,200 acres of upland and 2,100 acres of 

riparian) and 50% for areas in satisfactory condition (263,548 acres). The average acres per 

AUM is 6.72 . Outputs for this alternative were based on dividing each of the acreages (263,548 

acres of satisfactory and 16,200 acres of unsatisfactory) by the appropriate acres per AUM (4.78 

for satisfactory and 6.72 for unsatisfactory). Given these acres, a total of 57,867 AUMs are 

estimated under this alternative (263,548 acres divided by 4.78 acres/AUM, plus 18,300 acres 

divided by 6.70 acres/AUM on unsatisfactory rangelands). Forest-wide, cattle are 58 percent of 

total AUMs, and sheep are 42 percent of total AUMs 

It is recognized that vacant allotments have forage that could potentially increase projected 

AUMs. However, recent budget trends do not allow the Forest Service to administer and plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 7 

for proper grazing use of currently active allotments. Therefore the probability of conducting the 

site-specific environmental analysis necessary to reintroduce livestock grazing to vacant 

allotments within the planning period is so low that we felt it would be misleading to include 

increases in AUMs based on the stocking of vacant allotments. 

Table B9-4. Projected outputs (AUMs) by alternative. Alternatives 1-6 are based on 50 percent 

use on suitable rangelands. Alternative 7 is based on 30 percent use on unsatisfactory condition 

rangelands and 50 percent use on satisfactory condition rangelands. 

Livestock 

10-Year 

Average 

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

Suitable acres 281,848 263,548 237,548 279,748 281,848 281,848 263,548 281,848

Satisfactory Condition 263,548

Unsatisfactory Condition 3 18,300

Total Average AUMs 55,136 49,696 58,525 58,934 58,934 55,136 57,859

Cattle AUMs 34,300 31,979 28,824 33,944 34,182 34,182 31,979 33,563

Sheep AUMs 24,600 23,157 20,872 24,580 24,752 24,752 23,157 24,304

Total AUMs 58,900 55,136 49,696 58,525 58,934 58,934 55,136 57,867

1

Average Authorized AUMS

2

For Alternative 7, 4.78 acres/AUM on satisfactory range, 6.70 acres/AUM on unsatisfactory range 3

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands extrapolated from areas of the forest where those data have been estimated or 

verified and applied forest wide 

For Alternatives that provide for closure of sheep allotments currently actively grazed (as 

opposed to the Three vacant Allotments with bighorn sheep habitat-Burro Peaks, Thompson 

Peak, and West Beaver) on the North Slope Uinta Mountains (in the event of voluntary waiver of 

permits without preference), the capable acres within those allotments (Gilbert Peak, Henry’s 

Fork-Hessie Lake, and Red Castle for Alternative 6 and these plus East Fork Blacks Fork, West 

Fork Blacks Fork, Stillwater, and East Fork Bear River for alternative 7) were assumed to 

continue to provide outputs given the uncertainty of future voluntary waivers. 

Source of Data: 

Capable acres were determined from the Forest corporate GIS database and included percent 

slope determined by the digital elevation model, as well as the vegetation and hydrology GIS 

layers. Ten years of data (1990 – 1999) from the RAMIS database were used to determine the 

10-year maximum, 10-year minimum, and 10-year mean AUMs permitted and authorized. From 

these, the AUMs by alternative were determined.

Ten years of permitted and authorized AUM data (1990–1999) is from the RAMIS database, 

which were used to determine the 10-year maximum, 10-year minimum, and 10-year averages. 

From these, the AUMs by alternative were determined. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 8 

Economic Suitability Analysis 

The following analysis meets the requirements for an economic suitability analysis for livestock 

grazing on the Forest. It gives additional information to the deciding official regarding 

allocation of lands to livestock grazing management. The AUMs and suitable acres used in the 

economic analysis are from those determined for each alternative in Table B9-4 above. 

Table B9-5 shows the Forest Service component of the economic efficiency information for each 

alternative. Revenues to the Forest Service in 2002 were $1.43 per head-month of cattle and 

$0.29 per head-month of sheep. The revenues per acre, therefore, are the revenues/AUM 

multiplied by the number of AUMs, divided by the number of suitable acres by alternative. 

These revenues are between $0.28 and $0.30 per acre. The Forest Service budget expenditures 

were determined for each alternative using the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool 

(FEAST) and from this, the costs to the Forest Service per suitable acre by alternative were 

determined. These values ranged from $1.27 to $1.43. Range revenues to the Forest Service, 

based on revenues per head-month, ranged from $51,396 to $60,953 and net benefits per acre 

range from –$ 1.06 to –$1.21. 

Table B9-6 shows the Permittee component of the economic efficiency information for each 

alternative. In this portion of the analysis, example costs to permittee (sheep and cattle) are 

estimated based on an example provided by the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado. While 

these costs will vary from area to area, and from permittee to permittee, they are used as a means 

to assess potential total costs per AUM (Forest Service costs plus permittee costs). Because 

these costs are fixed they do not vary by alternative. Costs to manage sheep are greater than for 

cattle because of the costs associated with hiring herders. In addition to wages, these include 

workman’s compensation, health insurance, food and supplies, dog food, etc. In the examples 

provided below, total costs per AUM were $16.81 for sheep and $11.49 cattle. 

Note: Appeal decision for the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado (USDA Forest Service 

2001e). In this Decision on the topic of Livestock Grazing Capability And Suitability 

Determination, the Forest Service Chief stated “I do not... agree with appellant’s contention that 

if the suitability determination reveals that non-grazing values outweigh grazing values, the area 

should in all instances be deemed unsuitable for livestock grazing.” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 9 

Table B9-5. Summary of the FS Component of the Economic Analysis for Livestock Grazing 

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

AUMs-Cattle 31,980 28,820 33,940 34,180 34,180 31,980 33,560 

AUMs-Sheep 23,160 20,870 24,580 24,750 24,750 23,160 24,300 

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

Head-Months – Cattle 24,227 21,833 25,712 25,894 25,894 24,227 25,424 

Head-Months – Sheep 77,200 69,567 81,933 82,500 82,500 77,200 81,000 

Head-Months – Total 101,427 91,400 107,645 108,394 108,394 101,427 106,424

Suitable Acres in Active Cattle 

Allotments (55% of total) 144,951 130,651 153,861 155,016 155,016 144,951 155,016

Suitable Acres in Active Sheep 

Allotments (45% of total) 118,597 106,897 125,887 126,832 126,832 118,597 126,832

Total Suitable Acres 

in Active Allotments 263,548 237,548 279,748 281,848 281,848 273,900 281,848

Acres/Head-Month – Cattle 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.99 5.99 5.98 6.10 

Acres/Head-Month – Sheep 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.57 

Acres/Head-Month – Total 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.65 

Head-Months/Suitable Acre 

Cattle 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 

Head-Months/Suitable Acre 

Sheep 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 

Total Head-Months/ 

Total Suitable Acre 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 

Acres per Total AUM 

(Sheep + Cattle) 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 (sat) 

6.7(unsat)

AUMs/Suitable Acre 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 

Forest Service Revenues and Costs

Revenue/Head-Month - Cattle 

(2002 fees/Head-Month) $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 

Revenues/Head-Month - Sheep $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 

Revenues/Acre - Cattle $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.129 

Revenues/Acre - Sheep $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.083 

Cattle + Sheep 

Head-Month Revenues/Acre $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.212 

FS Budget Expenditures (dollars) by 

the Range Program: 4 $340,000 $340,000 $391,000 $378,000 $391,000 $359,000 $359,000

Forest Service Costs/Acre 5 $1.29 $1.43 $1.40 $1.34 $1.39 $1.36 $1.27 

Range Revenues – Cattle $34,645 $31,222 $36,768 $37,028 $37,028 $34,645 $36,357

Range Revenues – Sheep $22,388 $20,174 $23,761 $23,925 $23,925 $22,388 $23,490

Total Range Revenues 4 $57,033 $51,396 $60,529 $60,953 $60,953 $57,033 $59,847

Net Revenues per Acre 6 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.21 

Net Benefits per Acre 7 - $1.07 - $1.21 - $1.18 - $1.12 - $1.17 - $1.15 - $1.06 

1

 In Alternatives 1-6, which apply a 50 percent utilization rate on all rangelands, it was calculated that 4.8 acres are 

required to support an AUM. Alternative 7 applies this 50 percent utilization rate on satisfactory condition rangelands 

and a 30-40 % utilization rate on unsatisfactory condition rangelands. This results in 6.7 acres/AUM on 

unsatisfactory rangelands. 2 Revenues/AUM = Fees collected in 2002 per head-month (sheep = $0.29; cattle = $1.43) converted to fees per AUM

3

 Revenues/Acre = Revenues/AUM multiplied by AUMs/Suitable Acres

4

 From FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool) used in economic analysis for forest plan (on file) 

5 Cost/Acre = FS Budget Expenditures by the Range Program divided by Acres Capable and Suitable 

6 Net Revenues/Acre = Range Revenues divided by Acres Capable and Suitable 

7 Net Benefits/Acre = Net Revenues/Acre minus Cost/Acre 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 10 

Table B9-6. Summary of the Permittee Component of the Economic Analysis for Livestock 

Grazing8

Sheep: for 1000 head, example head-months = 3,000 

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

Herder wages $700/ month $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 

Workman’s comp $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 

Health insurance $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 

Food and supplies for camp $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 

Two horses $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 

Camp $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 

Horseshoeing $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 

Tack $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 

Dog food $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 

Camp Tender $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 

4 pack mules 

(divided by four herds) $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 

Pond maintenance $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 

Predator loss 

(3% of 1150 lambs @ $85) $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 

Stray loss 

(3% of 1150 @ $85) $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 

Ewe stray loss 

(2% of 1000 ewes @ $120/ewe) $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 

Vehicles $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 

Total $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 

Per Head-Month in this example $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 

Cattle: for 1250 head, example AUMs = 4,377 

Permittees plus pool rider = 

3 @ $2000/ month x 4 months $24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000

Workman’s comp (15%) $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600

6 horses x $2,500/10yr. $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500

Salt/ mineral supplement 

(2 ton/month x $600/ton) $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800

Vehicle/ATV $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Range Improvement Maintenance 

Materials $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 

Labor (3 weeks = $ 1,500) 

In pool rider salary $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 

Vet Bills $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 

2% death loss @ 

$500/head (25 head) $12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $12,500 

Total $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 

Per Head-Month in this example $11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $11.49 

8 Because AUMs are adjusted in direct proportion to suitable acres, the summary by alternative does not vary by 

alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 11 

Table B9-8 shows, by alternative, the costs per acre for permittees to graze cattle and sheep on 

the Forest. This illustrates a range from $2.12 to $2.16 for cattle and $3.44 to $3.51 for sheep. 

Table B9-8 illustrates that the total costs per acre (permittee plus Forest Service) to graze 

livestock on National Forest lands. These costs range from $8.10/acre in Alternative 7 to 

$8.52/acre in Alternative 2. 

Table B9-7 Permittee Cost Per Acre for Grazing Cattle and Sheep by Alternative

Summary by Alternative – Cattle 

Permit $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.23 

Non-Permit $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.88 

Total $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.12 

Summary by Alternative – Sheep 

Permit $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 

Non-Permit $ 3.32 $ 3.31 $ 3.32 $ 3.31 $ 3.31 $ 3.32 $ 3.35 

Total $ 3.50 $ 3.50 $ 3.51 $ 3.50 $ 3.50 $ 3.51 $ 3.44 

Table B9-8. Total Cost (Forest Service & Permittee) Per Acre for Grazing Livestock by Alternative

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

Total Cost/Acre – Cattle $3.45 $3.59 $3.56 $3.50 $3.55 $3.52 $3.39 

Total Cost/Acre – Sheep $4.79 $4.93 $4.90 $4.84 $4.89 $4.87 $4.71 

Total Costs/Acre $8.24 $8.52 $8.46 $8.34 $8.44 $8.39 $8.10 

Note: Permit Administration costs per allotment increase as numbers decrease because Congress 

fixes dollars allocated to administer permits and, in general, there are insufficient funds to 

manage all allotments to standard. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B10 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 10 

Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Assumption 

Introduction 

The Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario prepared in 1990 (USFS, 1994) is 

still a current representation of what level of activity could be reasonably anticipated based on 

the geology of the area. The one significant change since the completion of that report is the 

shift in demand and increased market for natural gas. The north slope is primarily an oil target 

with any gas being from production associated with oil so the increased demand for natural gas 

has not resulted in a need to change the RFD. New technology that allows for deeper wells to be 

drilled may expand the potential reserve models used to evaluate this area, but currently there is 

not enough known about the applicability of that technology to factor it into the RFD (Burkhardt, 

2000.) 

The RFD is an analytical tool not a ceiling or limit on activities. It provides the reasonably 

foreseeable projection that enables impacts analysis to occur. The number of wells projected 

could be exceeded or never realized but if monitoring indicates the level of impacts analyzed is 

being reached or exceeded, further evaluation would be conducted to determine if additional 

mitigation measures are necessary. 

The 1990 Oil and Gas Potential Report (Kaldenbach, 1990) analysis concluded that during the 

15-year period from 1991 through 2005 period, 11 exploration wells would be drilled in the 

Moxa Arch area with one or two exploration wells drilled in each of the other two areas. Because 

there are few, if any, roadless acres outside the wilderness along the Moxa Arch, it is reasonable 

to redefine the RFD for the roadless portion being addressed in the forest plan revision analysis. 

It is more likely to assume 7 exploration wells. Applying the unit’s historical discovery ratio of 

one field discovery per 5.6 exploration wells drilled indicates that the seven projected 

exploration wells could discover one new field (Burkhardt, 2000.) 

Exploration Activities 

The North Slope Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 

1994) estimated the number of acres of ground disturbance resulting from projected oil and gas 

exploration activities by extrapolating from past activities. This was shown in Appendix E of that 

document. Estimates were reviewed and still considered valid except for road reconstruction 

amounts. Because the area being analyzed is within the inventoried roadless area greater 

amounts of new road construction were estimated. 

• Each exploratory well pad would require an average of four acres. 

• Each exploratory well pad would require 1.7 mile of road construction. 

• Each mile of road reconstruction would have a net disturbance of 2.4 acres per mile after 

cut-and-fill slope reclamation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B10 - 2 

• Each mile of new road construction (relocation or new construction) would have a net 

disturbance of 3.6 acres per mile after cut-and-fill slope rehabilitation. 

The total area of ground disturbance would average about 10 acres for each exploratory well. 

Development Activities 

The discovery of a single field as a result of an exploration well discovery would result in the 

following activities: 

• “shooting” ten miles of seismic lines, which are composed of two lines laid out in a cross 

pattern 

• one or two wildcat wells to discover a field or “condemn” an exploration target 

The geologic, development, and production characteristics of a newly discovered filed would be 

similar to characteristics of fields in the Bridger Lake-Luckey Ditch producing trend. Fields in 

that area produce both oil and gas from mainly Dakota sandstone. Important characteristics of 

these fields are listed below. 

• Fields are spaces less than one to two miles apart. 

• Fields range from 640 acres to 6,400 acres. 

• Each field, at maximum development, contains between one and three exploration wells, 

between one and nine development wells, a maximum of one CO2 injection well for 

pressure maintenance or secondary recovery, and a maximum of one water disposal well. 

• Wells produce by gas lift. 

• Initial daily production potentials of wells range from 0 to 2,800 barrels of oil, 0 to 3,500 

mcf of gas, and 0 to 150 barrels of water. 

• Well depths range from 14,000 to 17,000 feet. 

• Ultimate recoverable reserves for fields range from less than 100,000 barrels of oil to 30 

million barrels of oil. 

• The lives of producing wells range from 12 to 35 years. 

• Wells are spaced from 0.5 to 1.0 mile apart (320- to 640-acre spacing). 

• Each well’s, lease equipment is configured on a site covering one to two acres. 

• Equipment for a single well includes: a wellhead valve assembly (Christmas tree), flow 

tubing (2- to 3-inch diameter), which connects the wellhead to a central tank battery, and 

a line heater unit which is located along the flow tubing. 

• A central tank battery serves each field. A tank battery is comprised of separation 

equipment, dehydration equipment, and storage tanks. Each tank battery generally 

requires between 0.5 and 1.0 acres per producing well. 

• A 2- to 3-inch diameter gas pipeline links the central tank battery to a refrigerated process 

gas processing plant. 

• The gas plant covers an average of five acres and processes gas for the entire field. 

• A 6- to 8- inch diameter gas pipeline transports gas from the plant to a regional pipeline 

off the forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B10 - 3 

• Flow tubing and gas pipelines on the forest are buried along access roads; otherwise, they 

are constructed within a 30-foot-wide zone. 

• An average of 0.3 mile per well of buried flow tubing or gas pipelines are presumed 

outside road rights-of-way. 

• Development wells require 0.4 mile of reconstruction of roads and 0.4 mile of road 

reconstruction or new construction. 

• The land surface disturbance (after cut-and-fill reclamation) is 2.4 acres per mile for light 

reconstruction of raids and 3.6 acres per mile for heavy reconstruction or new 

construction of roads. 

• Most field development occurs within five years after discovery. 

The total land area that could be disturbed by development for each of the first two fields would 

be about 35 acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 11 

Social and Economic 

 

Economic Resource Output Assumptions 

Recreation Analysis Assumptions 

Two factors were considered in projecting changing demand for recreation, potential demand 

and future population growth. To develop estimates, past change in recreation demand was 

compared to population change over the same period for the area. It was thought that calculating 

a similar change in recreation demand based on projected overall population growth for the area 

would be reasonable. 

Change in recreation demand was from 1984-1997 based on 1997 RIM was based on 5,810,956 

to 6,658,491. 847,535/5,810,856 = .15 or 15%. During the same period population increased 

29%. (See attached pencil calculations, 2/19/01). So for a 29% increase in population, recreation 

increased 15%, or a ratio of 15/29. 

 

From 2000 to 2010 population is projected to increase 22% for the analysis area. Given a ratio 

from 1) above all recreation could be expected to increase 11%. 

15 is to 29 as X is to 22 15/29 = X/22 

 29X = 22x15 

 29X = 330 

 X = 11% = Base change rate for recreation 

This factor was used for determining base increase over the 10 years from 2000-2010 for all 

categories below (except as otherwise noted) as it represents overall growth in demand. Growth 

projections for any individual category could have been estimated from trends in that particular 

category, but it was thought that rise in any particular category might be subject to more 

sampling error, other bias, or other uncertainties than for an overall factor, so the overall factor 

was considered a more reliable growth projection. 

1) Camping, Picnicking, Swimming – Almost no new FS recreation facilities will be 

developed under any alternative. Shoulder seasons at developed will see more use as 

capacity at other times forces larger population to schedule developed activities at times 

when [previously no one used the areas. Project 5.5% or 1⁄2 of Base change rate for 

recreation as rate of recreation increase across all alternatives above current. 1,721,000 

X 1.055 = 1,815,655 

2) Mechanized Travel and Viewing Scenery – Projected gain at 11% or Base change rate 

for recreation as rate of recreation increase across all alternatives above current. 

2,283,000 X 1.11 = 2,534,130 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 2 

3) Hiking, Horseback Riding & Viewing Scenery - Projected gain at 11% or Base change 

rate for recreation as rate of recreation increase across all alternatives above current. 

423,000 X 1.11 = 469,530 

4) Winter Sports – Current projections include winter-dispersed activities, excluding 

Developed Ski Areas. Project 11% base change rate for this recreation category as a rate 

of recreation increase across all alternatives except above current. 161,000 X 1.11= 

179,000. 

5) Resorts, Cabins, & Organization Camps – No new facilities of this type projected. Keep 

same as current across all alternatives. 295,000 

6) Other Recreation Activities – These activities include a lot of categories where 

interpretation is offered. Increases are largely dependent on budget. While demand for 

these kinds of programs is desirable, it is unlikely that we will have much funding to 

increase in these areas, under most alternatives. Some possibility of increase particularly 

in Alternative 2 (general education on Ecosystems) , Alternative 3 (education related to 

travel opportunities and visitor responsibility) and Alternative 6 (Preferred) – What 

should be done with some funding to increase user awareness and responsibility. Project 

5.5% or 1⁄2 of Base change rate for recreation for Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 above current 

level. Keep Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 at current level. 229,000 or 229,000 X 1.055 = 

242,000 

7) Snowmobiles – Decrease in use Alternative 1 by 11% and Alternative 2 by 5.5%. It is 

thought that decrease in available acreage for snowmobiles will not greatly effect 

demand, but would slightly and used a reduction equal to the general growth estimator 

used previously. It is likely many people would continue to use snowmobiles, and simply 

crowd more into available areas. Some use is displaced to other public lands, forests or 

states. Use the same factors as were used for increases in other categories above. Increase 

values in Alternatives 3-6 at Base change rate for recreation. 34,000 X .89 = 30,000, 

34,000 X .945 = 32,000, or 34,000

8) Developed Ski Areas – a projected rate of growth of 4% is used to 2010 for all 

alternatives except Alternative 5. (The projected growth by ski areas of 3.4% to 2007 in 

Affected Environment was increased slightly for the additional 3 years.) For Alternative 

5 increase above current by 6%, given possible expansions and, perhaps more heliski, 

that is allowable. (Growth of use at Snowbasin due to recent expansion is included.) 

1,367,000 or 1,367,000 X 1.04, or 1.06 = 1,422,000 or 1,450,000.

Assumptions for Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing Economic Analysis 

Assume Fishing will increase 22% (level of population increase) by 2010 across all alternatives. 

This is thought to be a conservative growth estimate, based historic 26% increase. (For detailed 

rationale and data, see Cowley and Williams, 2001, paper on file.) 

 

Assume big game hunting will stay same across all alternatives based on current Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources control of permits. 

Assume small game hunting and wildlife viewing to increase at half the rate of human 

population increase, the general assumption used for most recreation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 3 

Fishing 

Assumptions: 

1. Statewide it is estimated that 25 percent of all fishing which occurs in Utah on the 

National Forest lands occurs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

2. Most people will travel less then 1 hour away from their homes to go fishing 

3. The major population centers in Utah are along the Wasatch Front adjacent to the 

Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests. 

4. Fishing on an acre of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah will generate 

comparable economic impacts as an acre on the Forest in Wyoming. Values for the 

Wyoming portion of the Forest were derived from generating an impact per acre (USDA 

1998) for Utah and then multiplying this by the total acres in both states. Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest acres in Utah are 848,183, Wyoming are 37,762, total 885,845. This 

does not include the Snow Basin Land Exchange increase in acres. 

Values used in analysis - RVDs = 395,341 for Current 

Hunting 

Continues to increase or remain level through this next planning period. The economic impact 

of hunting on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in 1996 was approximately $14,000,000 with a 

total economic effect of $29,000,000. A total of 459 jobs rely on this activity on the forest to 

support them. Big game hunting on the Wasatch-Cache provides and economic impact of 

$7,900,000 while small game provides an economic impact of $2,400,000. 

Assumptions: 

1. Statewide it is estimated that 1/6 or 17 percent of all big game hunting which occurs in 

Utah on the National Forest lands occurs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

2. Statewide it is estimated that 1/6 or 17 percent of all small game hunting which occurs in 

Utah on the National Forest lands occurs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

3. No migratory bird hunting occurs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

4. The major population centers in Utah are along the Wasatch Front adjacent to the 

Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests. 

5. Hunting on an acre of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah will generate 

comparable economic impacts as an acre on the Forest in Wyoming. Values for the 

Wyoming portion of the Forest were derived from generating an impact per acre (USDA 

1998) for Utah and then multiplying this by the total acres in both states. Total WasatchCache National Forest acres in Utah 848,183, Wyoming 37,762, total 885,845. This 

does not include the Snow Basin Land Exchange increase in acres. 

6. Big game hunting has remained constant in the State of Utah since 1996. Big game 

hunting in Wyoming has continued to increase proportionate to the rest of the nation 

since 1996. 

Values used in analysis - Big Game - RVDs = 77,677 for Current 

Values used in analysis - Small Game - RVDs = 45,478 for Current 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 4 

Wildlife Viewing 

Economic impacts of wildlife viewing on National Forest lands totaled $2.1 billion in 1996. 

Wildlife viewing participation and expenditures declined nation wide by 16% and 12%, 

respectively over a five-year period from 1991 to 1996. It is believed that the mild recession of 

the mid 1990’s is to blame for this. The economic impact of wildlife viewing on the WasatchCache National Forest in 1996 was approximately $7,000,000 with a total economic effect of 

$15,000,000. A total of 261 jobs rely on this activity on the forest to support them. 

Assumptions: 

1. Statewide it is estimated that 25 percent of all wildlife viewing in Utah on the National 

Forest lands occurs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

2. Most people will travel less then 1 hour away from their homes to do wildlife viewing 

fishing 

3. The major population centers in Utah are along the Wasatch Front adjacent to the 

Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests. 

4. Wildlife viewing on an acre of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah will generate 

comparable economic impacts as an acre on the Forest in Wyoming. Values for the 

Wyoming portion of the Forest were derived from generating an impact per acre (USDA 

1998) for Utah and then multiplying this by the total acres in both states. Total WasatchCache National Forest acres in Utah 848,183, Wyoming 37,762, total 885,845. This does 

not include the Snow Basin Land Exchange increase in acres. 

Values used in analysis - $118.36 per user day and RVDs = 125,887 for Current 

Assumptions for Oil and Gas Economic Analysis 

The number of wells to be drilled could vary based on the reasonably foreseeable development 

scenarios of each alternative. Deliverable oil from each well at an average level is in excess of 

one million barrels of oil per well over a twenty-year period. In this high cost, high risk area, 

exploration ventures are justified only by the potential of a high return on investment which 

results from finding a field like Bridger Lake where average reserves per well exceed onemillion barrels of oil (Kaldenbach, 1990). 

The North Slope of the Uinta Mountains is predominately an oil production effort; natural gas is 

produced as a by-product only (Burkhardt, Intermountain Region Leasable Minerals Specialist, 

personal communication, 2001). Therefore no prediction for production of cubic meters of gas is 

made. 

Conversion factor 1 cubic meter = 6.34 barrels 

Current and No Action Alternatives cubic meters of oil produced = 52000 (Calculated from data 

of average of 1997, 1999, and 2000 production, no 1998 data available. Mary Ann Spindler, 

USFS Intermountain Region.) 

Alternative 1: 2 wells = 2-millon barrels = 315,000/20 years = cubic meters + Current. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 5 

Or 16,000 + 52,000 = 68,000 

Alternative 2: 2 wells = 2-millon barrels = 315,000/20 = cubic meters + Current. 

Or 16,000 + 52,000 = 68,000 

Alternative 3: 9 wells = 9-millon barrels = 1,420,000/20 cubic meters + Current. 

Or 71,000 + 52,000 = 123,000 

Alternative 4: suspension continues; no decision made. Current production assumed. 

Or 52,000 

Alternative 5: 12 wells = 12-millon barrels = 1,893,000/20 cubic meters + Current. 

Or 95,000 + 52,000 = 147,000 

Alternative 6: 9 wells = 9-millon barrels = 1,420,000/20 + Current. 

Or 71,000 + 52,000 = 123,000 

Alternative 7: 10 wells = 10-millon barrels = 1,577,000/20 + Current. 

Or 81,000 + 52,000 = 133,000 

Therefore, for each of the above alternative values, 52,000 is added to develop total value in 

CUBIC METERS for an alternative. Cubic meter estimates for each alternative have a factor of 

20 in the calculation, which is used to annualize the estimated 1,000,000-barrel production per 

well. 

Assumptions for Grazing 

For the current levels of use an average of AUMs for 10 years (1990 to 1999) authorized (actual 

use, not permitted use) was used, rounded to the nearest 1,000. This value was based on the 

historic use table and provided in the affected environment section. AUM projections were 

based on changes in the amount of suitable range1 by alternative. These changes are based on 

capable acres within allotments minus: 

1. Developed recreation sites within those allotments; 

2. Uplands and/or riparian acres not meeting forest plan objectives; 

3. Vacant allotments closed; and 

4. Allotments voluntarily closed. 

Each alternative has a different combination of these criteria. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would close existing vacant allotments and, therefore, outputs would be 

similar to the current situation. In addition, in Alternative 2 the acres of watersheds within 

allotments that have at least 210 acres of riparian areas either verified or estimated as not 

meeting forest plan objectives that also had TES fish populations (aquatic habitat for TES fish) 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 6 

were removed from suitable acres. This included portions of the Woodruff, Logan Canyon, 

North Rich, West Fork, Smiths Fork, Gilbert Creek, Blacks Fork, Middle Fork, and Walker 

Allotments. All other alternatives would allow for the restocking of one or more of the vacant 

allotments, allowing for the potential to increase grazing levels on the forest. This potential 

increase would require additional site-specific analysis priori to stocking and is unlikely in the 

planning period because the forest would likely devote its limited range planning resources to 

allotments currently open and stocked. Therefore, AUM projects do not include an increase for 

stocking these allotments, but indicate a lowest possible level. The values used in IMPLAN 

modeling are shown in Table B11-1 below. 

For modeling purposes, it was assumed that changes to Forest Service revenues for each 

alternative are proportional to changes of AUMs by alternative. 

 

Table B11 - 1. Estimated livestock outputs based on the forest-wide 10-year average, maximum, 

and minimum actual authorized AUMs (rounded to the nearest 1,000). 

Alternative Multiplier x 

Current Year Sheep AUMs 

Cattle 

AUMs 

Total 

AUMs 

 10 year maximum 31,000 39,000 70,000 

Current 10 year minimum 14,000 16,000 30,000 

10 year average 25,000 34,000 59,000 

1.00 Maximum 31,000 39,000 70,000 

Alternative 1 1.00 Minimum 14,000 16,000 30,000 

1.00 Average 25,000 34,000 59,000 

0.91 Maximum 28,000 35,000 63,000 

Alternative 2 0.90 Minimum 13,000 14,000 27,000 

0.90 Average 23,000 31,000 54,000 

1.08 Maximum 33,000 42,000 75,000 

Alternatives 3, 4 & 5 1.12 Minimum 16,000 18,000 34,000 

1.10 Average 28,000 37,000 65,000 

1.04 Maximum 26,000 35,000 61,000 

Alternative 6 1.04 Minimum 29,000 37,000 66,000 

1.04 Average 13,000 15,000 28,000 

1.00 Maximum 25,000 34,000 59,000 

Alternative 7 1.04 Minimum 26,000 35,000 61,000 

1.02 Average 26,000 35,000 61,000 1

 Table RN-4 in the FEIS shows the relationship among all alternatives and factors used in determining suitable 

range. 

Social and Economic Analysis Assumptions and Information 

The Economic Setting 

Information related to economics is readily available from many sources. State governments for 

Wyoming and Utah provide websites with information on state, county and local income, 

employment, and agricultural statistics. These websites and published information were 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 7 

investigated to develop information on the economic setting. (See References.) As with the 

social setting, the intent for economics was to provide a focused description of the economic 

context that was relevant to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and this forest planning effort 

and its needs. Noting the contribution which national forest related activities make to the overall 

economy was important. 

The Model 

Economic effects to local counties were estimated using an economic input-output model 

developed with IMPLAN Professional 2.0 (IMPLAN). IMPLAN is a software package for 

personal computers that uses the latest national input-output tables from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, secondary economic data at the county level from a variety of public sources, and 

proprietary procedures to develop an input-output model for the analysis area. The process and 

software were originally developed by the USDA-Forest Service and are now the property of the 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG, Inc.). The IMPLAN model was developed using 1999 data, 

the most recent data available at the time of model development. 

IMPLAN is the accepted software that the Forest Service employs for forest plan economic 

analysis. Input to the IMPLAN program is organized in standardized Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheets, which have been prepared for agency-wide use by a team of Forest Service 

economists (FEAST Spreadsheets, Niccolucci, 12/14/2000). The Quicksilver TMprogram was 

used for the required present net value analysis. Technical assistance and advice in using these 

programs and in the development of models and the scope of the analysis was provided by 

personnel from Forest Service Regional Offices in Ogden and Denver, and by the Forest 

Service’s Inventory and Monitoring Institute in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Forest Service economists determined that the urban and suburban areas along the Wasatch Front 

and adjacent to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest had a large economy not necessarily related 

to Forest outputs, so economic impacts generated by forest planning alternatives would be small 

when shown within the context of that large economy. Also, large western areas of Tooele and 

Box Elder Counties that are far from the Wasatch-Cache Forest were considered generally 

beyond the influence of decisions made on the Forest. Consequently, these areas could be 

eliminated from impact analysis. Using Zip Code boundaries a model was created to separate 

urban/suburban areas from rural areas. By excluding areas beyond influence of the Forest and 

urban areas, the potential impacts of Forest management could be highlighted in rural areas 

surrounding the Forest. 

The Wasatch Cache National Forest model represents the areas most likely to be economically 

impacted by changes in Forest management. The area is not a functioning economy as many of 

the goods and services residents require are not available inside the model area, but the smaller 

model allows direct impacts to the area to be analyzed without the larger metro areas along the 

Wasatch Front from ‘washing-out’ results. The U.S. Postal Service’s website (www.usps.gov) 

was queried to get Zip Codes for the town listed below which are included in the analysis. 

Counties included in Wasatch Cache National Forest IMPLAN model are displayed in the 

following table (B11 – 1). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 8 

Table B11 - 1. Counties included in the Wasatch Cache IMPLAN models 

Model Area 

County State 

Box Elder Utah 

Cache Utah 

Salt Lake Utah 

Summit Utah 

Tooele Utah 

Weber Utah 

Morgan Utah 

Rich Utah 

Uinta Wyoming 

In general, urban and suburban areas along the Wasatch Front from the south Salt Lake County 

line north to the north Weber County line are excluded from the analysis. The unique Zip Code 

areas of Alta and Snowbird were an exception and included for analysis. Zip Code areas were 

chosen to approximate urban and suburban areas for Logan, Tooele, and Brigham City, which 

are excluded from economic impact analysis. 

Evanston was included in the analysis. While this city met criteria for urban for which cities of 

similar size were excluded from impact analysis, Evanston’s local economy was thought to be 

somewhat different with heavier dependence on resource extraction and National Forest related 

industries: oil and gas, grazing, timber, agriculture, and as a staging area or portal for recreation 

to the Uintas. 

List of Zip Codes included in impact analysis. 

1. Remaining Box Elder County Zip Codes (Bear River City (84301), Collinston (84306), 

Corinne (84307), Fielding (84311), Garland (84312), Tremonton (84337), Willard 

(84340) 

2. Much of remaining Cache County – including Cache Junction (84304), Clarkston 

(84305), Cornish (84308), Hyrum (84319), Lewiston (84320), Mendon (84325), Newton 

(84327), Paradise (84328), Richmond (84333), Smithfield (84335), Trenton (84338), and 

Wellsville (84339) 

3. All Morgan County is considered rural. 

4. All Rich County is considered rural. 

5. Remaining Tooele County Zip Codes – including Dugway (84022), Grantsville (84029), 

Rush Valley (84069), Stockton (84071) 

6. Salt Lake County (Snowbird and Alta (84092) Brighton and Solitude (84121) 

7. Remaining Summit County Zip Codes – including Coalville (84017), Henefer (84033), 

Kamas (84036), Oakley (84055), Peoa (84061) 

8. All Uinta County, WY Zip Codes. 

9. East side Weber County Zip Codes (Eden (84310), Huntsville (84317) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 9 

All dollar values reported in the economic section were converted to real 2000 dollars using 

Gross Domestic Product inflation adjustment factors prepared and released on 02/19/1999 by the 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Washington Office Program Development and Budget staff and posted 

on the Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute intranet web site. This allows 

consistent comparison of current values with past and future values. 

Economic Environment 

The description of the economic environment examines the contribution that forest related 

industries make to industry output and employment within the analysis area. Specific IMPLAN 

sectors were selected as a proxy, or representation of the forest resource-related industries of 

interest in Forest planning. The following table (B11 – 2) illustrates the sectors selected are 

displayed in the following table, grouped by the forest resource-related industries they represent. 

Table B11 - 2. Sector Aggregation Used Separate Forest Related Industries 

Sector Forest Resource-Related Industry 

Recreation and Tourism Support 

454 Eating And Drinking 

463 Hotel And Lodging 

488 Amusement and Recreation Services 

Wood Products 

133 Logging Camps And Logging Operations 

134 Sawmills And Planning Mills 

Mining 

38 Crude Oil 

Grazing 

004 Ranch feed cattle 

005 Range feed cattle 

006 Sheep and goat grazing 

As explained above, the Recreation-Tourism Support industry information is not a separate 

sector, but a combination of businesses that play a part in recreation and tourism activity around 

the Forest. Because these businesses also serve individuals not engaging in recreation and 

tourism, it is important to note that a portion of each business serves other local or business 

needs not directly related to recreation and tourism. The split between local and tourism related 

activity was not estimated, this should be considered when reviewing the analysis. 

The results of the contribution analysis are only a proxy of employment related to Wasatch 

Cache National Forest resources. Results would differ if other sectors were included as forest 

resource-related. In the analysis presented, a consistent and conservative approach was taken to 

illustrate the relative importance of the Wasatch Cache National Forest activity within the 

analysis area. 

Economic impact analysis describes what happens when a change in final sales (e.g. exports and 

consumer purchases) occurs for goods and services in the model area. Changes in final sales are 

the result of multiplying units of production (e.g., hundred cubic feet of timber harvest or 

recreation visitor days (RVDs) of recreation use) multiplied by sales per unit. Economic impacts 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 10 

were estimated using the best available production and sales data. The source of each are listed 

below. 

Economic Impact Analysis 

Impacts to local economies are measured in two ways: employment and labor income. 

Employment is expressed in jobs. A job can be seasonal or year-round, full-time or part-time. 

The number of jobs is computed by averaging monthly employment data from state sources over 

one year. The income measure used was labor income expressed in 2000 dollars. Labor income 

includes both employee compensation (pay plus benefits) and proprietors’ income (e.g. profits by 

self-employed). 

The analysis area model was used to determine the employment and income consequences 

throughout the economy of one-million-dollar changes for each kind of impact. The results are 

called response coefficients. Because input-output models are linear, multipliers or response 

coefficients need only be calculated once per model and then applied to the direct change in 

output. Spreadsheets were used to calculate total effects by multiplying the response coefficients 

by estimated levels of dollar activity. A customized Excel workbook called FEAST (Forest 

Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool) was developed and used for this purpose. Details of 

FEAST may be examined in the project record. Specifications for developing response 

coefficients and levels of dollar activity are stated below. 

Recreation and Tourism 

Expenditure Data 

Visitors to the National Forests in Idaho often engage in a variety of activities during a trip. Six 

recreation categories were considered for the FEIS to compare between alternatives. 

Expenditure data was obtained from Public Area Recreation Visitor Surveys (PARVS) 

conducted from 1985 through 1987 and combined with data from approximately 5,100 customer 

surveys conducted on 55 Forest Service Ranger Districts from 1988 to 1996. These recreation 

expenditure profiles were incorporated into the models for the categories. 

Recreation use numbers were based on 1997 RIM numbers and adjusted through discussions and 

consensus among the Recreation Specialists from the Ranger Districts and Supervisor's office. 

The Forest recreation specialists estimated the percentage of use from outside the model area, 

non-resident use, for the six categories of recreation use. 

The PARVS expenditure profiles were adjusted to use Regional Purchase Coefficients (RPCs) to 

estimate the amount of local spending in both rural and urban models. PARVS resident data 

reflects expenditures by persons within a 50-mile radius of the analysis area. Non-resident data 

reflects expenditures by persons traveling to the analysis area from more than 50 miles away. 

All PARVS expenditure profiles were normalized to allow for response coefficients calculations. 

For specific expenditure information, please refer to the FEAST and IMPLAN outputs available 

in the planning record. 

The unit of measure used to estimate recreation use was Recreation Visitor Days (RVD). One 

RVD is equal to 12 hours of a given activity for one person. However, most people do not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 11 

participate in one recreation activity for a full twelve-hour day. Since the PARVS expenditure 

data is expressed in dollars per person per day/visit, it was necessary to convert the RVD data 

into the equivalent number of visits in order to more accurately estimate visitor expenditures. 

The assumptions used for the conversion of RVDs to visits are detailed in the following table 

(B11 – 3): 

Table B11 – 3. RVD Conversion Factors—Recreation 

Activity Category Average Duration of 

Activity per Visit 

RVD Conversion 

Factor 

Camping, picnicking, swimming 3.63 hours 2.7 

Mechanized travel and viewing 2.63 hours 3.4 

Hiking, horseback riding and water sports 4.17 hours 3.2 

Winter sports 4.40 hours 3.0 

Resorts, cabins, organization camps 10.07 hours 1.2 

Other recreation 3.00 hours 3.0 

Source: USDA Forest Service, 1981.

The ‘Camping, Picnicking, & Swimming’ category includes all camping and picnicking 

activities. ‘Mechanized Travel & Viewing’ includes all biking, snow machines, OHV use, 

driving for pleasure and scenic viewing activity. ‘Hiking, Horseback Riding & Water Travel’ 

includes all hiking, water sports, motor boating, mountain climbing, and horseback riding 

occurring on the Forest. The ‘Winter Sports’ category includes cross-country and downhill 

skiing and snow play. ‘Resorts, cabins, and organization camps’ includes all special use permits 

for lodges and large group overnight use. Snowmobiling information was based on a survey of 

expenditures and visits completed by Utah State Department of Recreation and Tourism 

(McCoy, et. al., 2000). Downhill skiing information for expenditures and trips are based on the 

1999-2000 Utah Skier Survey, (Wikstrom, 2000), as well as professional knowledge about 

downhill ski use. All other types of recreation are included in the ‘Other recreation’ category. 

Use of the Model 

One million dollars of expenditures for the categories of recreation discussed above were input 

into the IMPLAN models. The results were then incorporated into the FEAST workbook where 

they were multiplied by total expenditures for each category. Only non-local recreation 

expenditures (tourism export) use was considered in the impact analysis. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Expenditure Data 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) periodically conducts a national survey to obtain, 

among other information, data on recreation expenditures for hunting, fishing, and other wildliferelated recreation. This information is available by state. The Forest Service Inventory and 

Monitoring Institute organized these expenditures profiles for use in IMPLAN. Expenditures 

were collected on a “per trip” basis, but converted to a person-day basis for use in IMPLAN. 

Expenditure profiles for resident expenditures in Idaho were used for estimating impacts from 

wildlife-related recreation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 12 

The USFWS expenditure profiles were adjusted to use RPCs to reflect local spending in both the 

rural and comprehensive models. As with the recreation expenditure profiles, resident data 

reflects expenditures by persons within a 50-mile radius of the analysis area and non-residents 

are from outside the 50-mile radius. All USFWS expenditure profiles were normalized to allow 

for response coefficients calculations. 

Use data for general hunting, general fishing and non-consumptive wildlife use are based on 

1997 RIM numbers and adjusted through discussion and consensus among the Recreation 

Specialists from the Ranger Districts and Supervisor's office, as well as calculations based on 

1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, (USDI-USDC, 

1996). The Forest recreation specialists estimated the percentage of use from outside the model 

area, non-resident use, for the six categories of recreation use. 

To use the USFWS per visit expenditure profiles, the use units had to be converted into visits. 

The conversion factors used are highlighted in table B11 - 4. 

Table B11 - 4. RVD Conversion Factors—Wildlife and Fish 

Activity Category Average Duration of 

Activity per Day 

RVD Conversion 

Factor 

General hunting 7.1 hours 1.69 

General fishing 4.3 hours 2.79 

Non consumptive wildlife 3.0 hours 4.00 

Source: U.S.D.A Forest Service, 1981. 

Use of the Model 

One million dollars of expenditures for the three categories of fish and wildlife discussed above 

were input into the IMPLAN models. The results were then incorporated into the FEAST 

workbook where they were multiplied by total expenditures for each category. Only non-local 

recreation expenditures (tourism export) use is considered in the impact analysis. 

Grazing 

Expenditure Data 

Marketing and inventory data was obtained from 1999 Utah Agricultural Statistics and Utah 

Department of Agriculture and Food Annual Report (Gneiting, et, al., 1999) and USDA’s 

website for agricultural statistics (www.nass.usda.gov/wy/internet/cnty data). The State’s total 

marketing income for cattle and sheep was divided by the total inventories for the same in order 

to develop an estimated value per animal and then a value per Animal Unit Month (AUM). An 

AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow or approximately three sheep for one 

month. Forest grazing use was estimated based on the number of AUMs currently permitted. 

Through the FEAST workbook, this data was multiplied by the value determined above to 

calculate the value of the grazing that occurs on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 13 

Use of the Model 

One million dollars of exports were input into the IMPLAN models through the range fed cattle 

and sheep, lambs, and goat sectors to determine “response coefficients.” These response 

coefficients were then applied to the value of the livestock grazed on the National Forest to 

estimate the total economic impact. Details of distribution estimates are available in FEAST, 

which is located in the project record. 

Timber 

Expenditure Data 

Logging, sawmills and fuel wood where identified as the majority of uses for Wasatch Cache 

National Forest System stumpage. Employment in the lumber and wood products industry was 

estimated through the IMPLAN model. Details of distribution estimates are available in FEAST, 

which is located in the project record. 

Timber volumes and revenues for the current situation were based on the average harvest 

volumes and stumpage revenues for 1998, 1999 and 2000. Volume estimates for each of the 

alternatives were developed based on vegetation modeling and historic management levels on the 

forest during the last planning period. 

Use of the Model 

One million dollars of stumpage exports were modeled through each timber-processing sector to 

determine a “response coefficient.” Timber volume from the National Forests was multiplied by 

historical stumpage prices and multiplied by the response coefficient for to obtain the total 

economic impact for presentation in the FEIS. This process was repeated for each alternative. 

Oil and Gas 

Expenditure Data 

Oil and gas production where identified as of uses of the Wasatch Cache National Forest System. 

Employment in the oil and gas industry was estimated through the IMPLAN model. Details of 

distribution estimates are available in FEAST, which is located in the project record. Volumes in 

cubic meters and revenues for the current situation and each alternative were based on continued 

and future drilling as outlined earlier in this appendix. 

Use of the Model 

One million dollars of crude oil exports were modeled through the processing sector to determine 

a “response coefficient.” The oil and gas out value for each alternative was then multiplied by 

the response coefficient to determine total economic impact for each related sector. All results 

were then summed for presentation in the FEIS. This process was repeated for each alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 14 

Federal Expenditures & Employment 

Expenditure Data 

The Forest applied budget constraints to every alternative. This budget constraint was used to 

estimate total Forest expenditures, some of which had local economic effects. Total Forest 

obligations by budget object code were obtained for actual expenditures in 1999 from the 

National Finance Center. All dollars were adjusted to 2000. This data was used to estimate how 

the budget would be spent between programs. Details regarding the expenditures may be found 

in the project record. Forest Service employment was estimated by Forest staff based on current 

organizational charts and projections of future staffing levels based on expected workloads and 

budgets. 

Use of the Model 

To obtain an estimate of total impacts from Forest Service spending, salary and non-salary 

portions of the impact were handled separately. Non-salary expenditures were determined by 

using the budget object code information noted above. This profile was input into the IMPLAN 

models for non-salary expenditures for one million dollar expenditure, and the results multiplied 

by total Forest non-salary expenditures. Sales to the Federal Government are treated in the same 

manner as exports, money coming from outside the model area. 

Salary impacts result from Forest employees spending a portion of their salaries locally. 

IMPLAN includes a profile of personal consumption expenditures for several income categories; 

the average compensation for an employee on the Uinta National Forests fell in the category of 

$40,000-$49,999. Across the U.S., Americans typically spend about 67% of their total salary 

plus benefits. Therefore, total Forest Service salaries were multiplied by 0.67 before being 

multiplied by the one million dollar response coefficient. 

Revenue Sharing -- 25% Fund Payments 

Expenditure Data 

Historically, Federal law has required that 25 percent of current or historical revenues be 

returned to the States and Counties within which the revenues were received. These payments 

may be used for a variety of purposes, including schools and roads. The Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 provides a new formula for computing annual 

payments is based on averaging a state’s three highest payments between 1986 through 1999 to 

arrive at a compensation allotment or “full payment amount.” All counties except Rich County 

choose stable payments, for the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that these revenues 

would be returned to the local impact area, and that a split of 50 percent for schools and 50 

percent for roads would represent how local governments spend these revenues. A profile of 

expenditures for each of these purposes was derived from the model itself. Details regarding the 

expenditures may be found in the project record. 

Use of the Model 

The national expenditure profile for state/local government education (schools) and local model 

estimates for road construction (roads) are provided within IMPLAN. One million dollars of 

each profile was used to obtain an estimate a response coefficient for these Forest Service 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 15 

payments to impact area counties. The results were then incorporated into the FEAST where they 

were multiplied by total expenditures. Sales to local government are treated in the same manner 

as exports. 

Output Levels 

Output levels are specified in the FEAST Excel workbook, located in the project record and are 

highlighted in each resource section of this FEIS. 

Financial and Economic Efficiency Analysis 

Net Public Benefits 

Net public benefits are the "overall long-term value, to the nation, of all outputs and positive 

effects (benefits) less all associated Forest inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be 

quantitatively valued or not" (36 CFR 219.3). Net public benefits represent the sum of the net 

value of priced outputs plus the net value of non-priced outputs. 

Financial efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested in each alternative produce 

revenues to the agency. Economic efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested in each 

alternative produce benefits to society. Present Net Value (PNV) is used as an indicator of 

financial and economic efficiency. 

The table B11 – 5 below highlights each activity included in the analysis, the unit of measure, 

and the economic and financial benefit of each. The economic benefit is an estimated market 

clearing price (what the resource would be priced at if available in the private sector) and 

consumer surplus (the estimated value a person has for a resource above the price actually paid). 

In this way, the PNV economic analysis attempts to account for the values people hold for forest 

resources, even though they may not have to pay for them. The financial value is a measure of 

the revenues actually received by the Forest Service for resource extraction, access, or use. As 

displayed in the following table, recreation activities tend to have low, or no revenues collected 

by the Forest Service while both grazing and wood products have associated fees. Although with 

the recreation fee program and increasing management of recreation sites by concessionaries, the 

revenues collected by the recreation program is likely to increase in the future. Costs associated 

with the PNV analysis are taken from the budget estimates for full implementation of each 

alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 16 

Table B11 - 5. Economic Benefits And Financial Revenue Values In 2000 Dollars 

Activity Unit Economic Benefit Financial Value 

Camping, picnicking, swimming RVD 13.60 0.03

Mechanized travel and viewing RVD 16.85 0

Hiking, horseback riding & water sports RVD 25.44 0

Winter sports RVD 101.32 0

Other recreation RVD 77.74 0.01

Mt. Biking RVD 77.74 0

Snowmobile use RVD 77.74 0

Off highway vehicles RVD 77.74 0

General hunting RVD 94.90 0

General fishing RVD 126.53 0

Non consumptive wildlife RVD 129.21 0

Grazing sheep AUM 10.09 1.10

Grazing cattle AUM 10.09 1.35

Sawtimber CCF 1,631.00 147.01

Aspen CCF 194.00 50.00

Fuelwood CCF 24.00 0.50

Source: RPA, Uinta National Forest, Quick Silver, 2001. 

Information on Social Setting 

Several methods were investigated for developing information for this section of the FEIS. 

Much of the information was developed in April and May 2000, through data gathering in 

meetings with county planners and ranger district personnel meeting with Forest Plan 

interdisciplinary team members. Questions were used to stimulate discussions for the 

development of information on pertinent trends and characteristics of the communities and 

economy that surround the Wasatch-Cache. These questions were taken from “Methods for 

Development of Human Geographic Boundaries” (Kent and Preister, 1999), and from the 

principles and procedures outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.17, Social Impact Analysis

(7/88). In addition to information gathered in these interactive sessions, a variety of state and 

county websites, census data, and published information were used to develop the affected 

environment for social setting. (See References.) 

 

The intent of the information gathering was to provide a focused description of social context 

within which decisions for the forest plan would be made. 

The Wasatch-Cache appreciates the attention and input provided from the following individuals: 

Box Elder County – Garth Day; Cache County – Mark Teuscher; Davis County – Barry Burton; 

Morgan County – Amanda Bowen and Kent Smith; Rich County – Al Harrison, Norm Weston, 

and Kim Wilson; Salt Lake County – Cal Schneller and Tom Roach; Summit County – Senta 

Beyer; Tooele County – Nicole Cline and Tom Cluff; Weber County – Kevin Hamilton; Uinta 

County, Wyoming – Ken Klinker, and members of the Uinta County Resource Planning 

Committee. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B11 - 17 

Social Effects Analysis 

Three Criteria were selected for considering social effects of the alternatives. 

Potential effects related Issue 4 

This issue was developed to deal economic and social values. The effects of alternatives on 

several kinds of uses (livestock grazing, timber harvest, oil and gas leasing, and ski areas, and 

recreation), as portions of the economy, and use interactions have been described previously. 

Aspects of those these uses which have a social effect lifestyles people involved in livestock 

grazing, timber harvest, oil and gas work and recreation will be addresses in this section. A 

narrative discussion of the affects of alternatives is provided for these user groups. We recognize 

that the public has a broad range of values and interests in how national forest lands are 

managed, and that this section is difficult to write to meet each individual’s or group’s 

expectations or concerns. What are provided are a few general observations on the probable 

effects of the alternatives to relatively intangible social values described in Issue 4. 

Potential effects related concerns of individual counties 

A narrative is provided which describes effects to concerns raised by individual counties that 

were voiced during information gathering for this analysis. Affects to American Indians in the 

vicinity are also discussed. 

Cumulative Effects 

A discussion of cumulative effects is provided that gives an interpretation of the longer-term 

general effects of population changes, demographic shifts, increasing diversity, and social issues 

related to this forest plan decisions. 

Qualitative narrative descriptions of effects are inferred, in part, based on knowledge of the array 

of management prescription categories across alternatives and considered opinions of the public, 

Forest Service contacts and personnel from other agencies, and county and state officials 

consulted during information gathering. Other key data that were available for examination and 

interpretation included 1) acreages available in ROS by category, 2) proposed Wilderness acres, 

3) acres of suitable range, 4) projected timber outputs, 5) projected oil and gas outputs, and the 

data and trends suggested in the affected environment section as well as professional knowledge. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 1 

APPENDIX C - 1 

Roadless Area Planning Processes and Evaluation of 

Roadless Areas for Wilderness 

Roadless Area Planning Processes 

Introduction 

This appendix describes the some of the history and the process used to inventory and evaluate

areas on the Wasatch–Cache National Forest for their potential as designated wilderness. Each of 

the roadless areas is summarized individually describing an area’s wilderness characteristics, 

current resource uses, and the need for the area to be included in the wilderness preservation 

system. 

This appendix is followed by an evaluation of roadless areas based on values identified in the 

Final Roadless Area Conservation Rule and by the Wasatch-Cache forest plan interdisciplinary 

team (Appendix C-2). In the Forest Plan DEIS of May 2001 evaluation of roadless areas for 

Wilderness was combined with their consideration as roadless (undeveloped) areas. In this FEIS 

the analysis of Wilderness characteristics for roadless areas (Appendix C-1) and the analysis of 

roadless area values (Appendix C-2) have been separated. 

In this analysis roadless areas are grouped within their management areas, and then in sequence 

generally from north to south starting at the Idaho state line and moving to the southern boundary 

of the Wasatch-Cache along the Wasatch Front, and then moving from west to east across the 

Uintas Mountains. 

Inventory of Potential Wilderness 

Updating the 1983 Roadless Inventory 

Past roadless inventories, such as the 1983 Forest Plan roadless inventory were used as a starting 

point to identify roadless resources on the Wasatch–Cache National Forest. These areas were 

updated and new areas identified based upon criteria in: 

• FSH 1909.12 Inventory and Evaluation of Roadless Areas 

• Intermountain draft Roadless Inventory and Evaluation Guide (USFS, 1998) 

• 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

A significant change since 1983 roadless inventory was completed as portions of Mount Naomi, 

Wellsville Mountains, Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak and Deseret Peak (Stansbury 

Mountains) roadless areas were designated as wilderness in 1984 by the Utah Wilderness Act. 

Lone Peak had become a wilderness area earlier with the 1978 Endangered Wilderness Act and 

no further acreage was added in 1984. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 2 

Additional Areas Identified as Roadless 

Because different criteria were used for the 1999 inventory than those used in 1983, additional 

areas were identified as roadless since the 1983 Roadless Inventory: (Those in italics below have 

been added since the DEIS of May 2001 based on their identification in public comments on the 

DEIS.) 

• Temple Peak (Logan Ranger District) 

• Right Hand Fork (Logan Ranger District) 

• Boulder Mountain (Logan Ranger District) 

• Elk Valley (Logan Ranger District)

• Mahogany Range (Logan Ranger District) 

• Sugar Pine (Ogden Ranger District) 

• Rock Creek – Green Fork (Ogden Ranger District) 

• Hogsback (Salt Lake Ranger District) 

• Mueller Park (Salt Lake Ranger District) 

• Red Butte (Salt Lake Ranger District) 

• Lone Peak Additions (Salt Lake Ranger District)

Further, the Mount Logan 1983 roadless area was split into three separate roadless areas, because 

of constructed roads that were identified. 

Areas Eliminated from Wilderness and Roadless Evaluation in the FEIS 

A roadless area must have at least 5,000 acres or be contiguous to an existing wilderness area to 

be included in the roadless area inventory. Some areas were included in an early version of the 

revised inventory, but have now been eliminated from the inventory due to more recent 

information that resulted in insufficient roadless acreage for those areas. These areas will not be 

evaluated as potential wilderness and their values associated with the Roadless Areas 

Conservation Rule were not considered in comparing alternatives in the FEIS. 

• Public Grove Hollow (Ogden Ranger District) – this was a new area identified in an earlier 

draft of the new roadless inventory, but a constructed road identified later in the process, 

split the area into two separate areas, both less than 5,000 acres (3,178 and 3,158 acres). 

• Lamb Canyon (Ogden Ranger District) – this was a new area identified in an earlier draft of 

the new roadless inventory, but additional constructed roads were identified, the narrowness 

of the area and adjacency to substantial private land caused the area to be less than 5,000 

acres (4,293 acres). 

• Little West Fork Blacks (Evanston/Mountain View Ranger District) – area was identified in 

the 1983 roadless inventory, but a constructed road identified split the area into two separate 

areas, both less than 5,000 acres (4,634 and 3,845 acres). 

These three areas were shown on alternative management prescription maps in the DEIS, but 

have been removed from prescription mapping and acreage calculations for roadless for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 3 

consideration as Wilderness and RACR values in the FEIS. Individual page-size maps of these 

three areas are provided with the maps of other roadless areas at the end of Appendix C. 

Between the Draft and Final EIS, it was decided to combine the North, Middle and South Francis 

Roadless areas for the purposes of consideration for Wilderness. Upon examination the 

interdisciplinary team determined that the cultural barriers (minor power lines and blocks of 

private lands of similar roadless character) which had been considered area separators during 

preparation of the DEIS did not significantly interrupt the predominantly undeveloped nature of 

this landscape. 

Consideration of the final Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) 

There is a difference between the inventory considered in the National Roadless Area 

Conservation FEIS and Rule (RACR) (Federal Register January 12, 2001) and the updated 

Wasatch–Cache Forest inventory used for analysis in this FEIS. Changes to the RACR inventory 

can only be made by changes to the rule, which is currently involved in several court cases and 

beyond the scope and control of this forest planning process. 

At the time the RACR inventory was published, an inventory of roadless areas had been 

completed on the Wasatch-Cache (1999). By 2001, locally developed information and public 

comments on the DEIS clearly showed that some of the areas in the RACR inventory did not 

meet minimum roadless area size criteria. Additionally, it was learned that some other areas 

could be added to roadless inventory. 

The three areas above that were eliminated in the inventory considered for forest plan revision 

analysis in this FEIS are still included in the inventory covered by RACR. Therefore, the RACR 

inventory contains Public Grove, Lamb Canyon, and Little West Fork Blacks, and also all three 

Francis areas (North, Middle and South) as separate roadless areas. The RACR inventory does 

not contain Elk Valley, Mueller Park, and Red Butte, as these were added after submissions for 

RACR inventories were completed. 

Acreage values for these areas have changed over time due to a number of factors, including 

changed mapping criteria and the advent of GIS mapping. Rounded acreage figures are used in 

this FEIS to try take the focus off minor differences in acreage numbers and place it more 

appropriately on area characteristics and public needs and sentiments. Table C-1 itemizes 

changes that have occurred since 1983 to the roadless area inventory on the Wasatch-Cache. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 4 

Table C1-1. Wasatch-Cache Roadless Areas: Changes in Numbers and 

 Acreages since 1983 

Name Inventory 

# in 1983

Inventor

y # in 

1999

1983 

Inventory

Acres

1983 

Invento

ry 

GIS

Acres

1984 

Utah 

Wldrness 

Act 

Acres

1999 

Inventory 

Acres* 

*rounded 

acres to the 

nearest 

hundred 

Gibson 19181 0419002 1836 2695 53002,3

Mount Naomi6 19758 0419012 65268 67871 44523 451008

Temple Peak13 NA 0419023 0 0 23,400 

Right Hand Fork Logan13 NA 0419028 0 0 15000 

Mount Logan (North) 19759 0419013 33161 37961 19200 

Mount Logan (South) 19759 0419029 above above 17000 

Mount Logan (West) 19759 0419030 above above 5300 

Boulder Mountain13 NA 0419024 0 0 8800 

Elk Valley17 NA 0419039 0 0 8800 

Mahogany Range13 NA 0419025 0 0 11400 

Mollens Hollow 19761 0419015 15670 16462 17700 

Wellsville Mountains 19760 0419014 23847 24252 22986 1800 

Swan Creek 19180 0419001 9569 9501 94001

Rock Creek – Green 

Fork13

NA 0419034 0 0 5700 

Sugar Pine13 NA 0419031 0 0 5600 

Upper South Fork 19764 0419018 11828 13104 17300 

Willard 19762 0419016 18306 19561 20000 

Lewis Peak 19763 0419017 10878 11489 12100 

Burch Creek 19765 0419019 6650 8166 7500 

Francis 19756 0419010 15047 15314 1520016

Farmington 19755 0419009 9016 10412 10900 

Hogsback13 NA 0419026 0 0 7900 

Mueller Park17 NA 0419038 0 0 8400 

Red Butte17 NA 0419037 0 0 6200 

Mount Aire 19754 0419008 9089 9313 9700 

Mount Olympus6 19753 0419007 24606 24652 15300 10100 

Twin Peaks6 19752 0419006 12905 18417 11495 6500 

White Pine 19730 0419004 2356 1884 21005

Lone Peak Addition 6, 13 NA 0419027 0 0 974714 900 

Stansbury Mountains6 19757 0419011 57536 58726 25215 397007

Nobletts 19701 0419003 1671 1876 31004

Lakes 19751 0419005 104109 107415 122000 

High Uintas6 19901 0419022 15317110 272876 1798131

1

10310012

Widdop Mountain 19766 0419020 7268 5937 80009
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 5 

Little West Fork 

Blacks13,15

19767 0419021 8834 8547 4600 

Public Grove Hollow13,15 NA 0419032 0 0 3600 

Lamb Canyon13,15 NA 0419033 0 0 4300 

TOTAL ACREAGE: 602,26112

 746,431 309,079 620,80018

1983 acres from Appendix C of 1983 DEIS 

1983 GIS acres show original roadless areas calculated with newer GIS technology. 

Wilderness acres reflect those roadless acres in 1983 inventory that became wilderness. 

1999/2000 acres reflect current status of new roadless inventory. 

Footnotes: 

1 – Contiguous with Caribou National Forest roadless area, which identified 7,300 acres in their 1996 inventory. 

2 – Split into two polygons of 7,185 and 2,198 acres by road corridor, but adjacent to Caribou NF roadless. 

3 – Contiguous with Caribou National Forest roadless area, which identified 8,320 acres in their 1996 inventory. 

4 – Contiguous with Uinta National Forest roadless area, which identified 4,983 acres in their 1998 inventory. 

5 – Contiguous with Uinta National Forest roadless area, which identified 1,297 acres in their 1998 inventory. It was 

not in their 1983 inventory. 

6 – Part of roadless area was designated by wilderness in 1984 Utah Wilderness Act or 1978 Endangered Wilderness 

Act (Lone Peak) 

7 – Contiguous with BLM WSA North Stansbury (6,800 acres and an additional 8,040 acres identified in their 1998 

reinventory) and BLM WSA Big Hollow (4,300 acres). 

8 – Contiguous with Caribou National Forest roadless area, which identified 28,077 acres in their 1996 inventory. 

9 – Contiguous with Ashley National Forest roadless area, which identified 1,551 acres in their 1999 inventory. It 

was not in their 1983 inventory. 

10 – Acreage count in 1983 excluded 73,859 acres (High Uintas Primitive Area) and 33,859 acres from 1967 

Addition. It is presumed these acres were not counted in roadless inventory because it was assumed these acres were 

a “given” to become wilderness. 

11 – Rest of High Uintas Wilderness acreage is on the Ashley National Forest. 

12 – Contiguous with Ashley National Forest roadless area, which identified 342,513 acres in their 1999 inventory. 

13 – Area not identified in the 1983 roadless inventory. 

14 – Lone Peak Wilderness designated in 1978. Rest of Lone Peak Wilderness acreage is on the Uinta National 

Forest. 

15 – Little West Fork Blacks, Public Grove Hollow, and Lamb Canyon are in the inventory maps shown in Volume 

2, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS (November, 2000, pg. 189.) Since then we have determined 

these areas are less than 5,000 acres in size. They are not evaluated for wilderness or considered in alternatives 

regarding values identified by RACR (see Appendix C-2). Both Little West Fork Blacks and Public Grove Hollow 

are also divided into two separate polygon areas, because of roads that have been identified. 

16 – North, Middle (0419035) and South Francis (0419036) combined into one unit between Draft and Final. 

17 – Mueller Park and Red Butte identified by public, verified by Forest Service and added between Draft and Final 

(11/2001). Elk Valley identified by Forest Service (02/2002). 

18 – 600,651 acres if LWF Blacks, Public Grove and Lamb Canyon are excluded. This total is slightly different 

than the total of 606,400 presented in Topic 5 in the FEIS. 

Public Participation for Roadless Inventory 

In the fall of 1998, three open houses were held at district offices in the communities of Logan, 

Evanston and Salt Lake. Maps of each roadless area and the process used to identify them were 

discussed with the public. Comments helped refine the inventory. Additions of new roadless 

areas, and suggested deletions from the roadless inventory based on inadequate size have come 

from further assessment by the interdisciplinary team and acknowledgement of public comments 

received on the DEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 6 

Evaluation of Potential Wilderness 

The inventory of roadless areas was evaluated in terms of three primary criteria: 

• Capability – the degree to which it contains the basic characteristics that makes it suitable for 

wilderness designation without regard to its availability or need as wilderness. 

Characteristics such as naturalness of the environment, the presence of challenging and 

primitive recreation opportunities and feelings of solitude are determined to be important. 

Another important aspect is the ability to manage the area as wilderness. Factors such as 

size, shape, its relationship to external influences and boundary location are considered. 

• Availability –other resource demands and uses of an area. Consideration of current 

constraints or encumbrances is important. 

• Need – the degree to which it contributes to the local and national distribution of wilderness. 

This analysis considers the demand for additional wilderness recreation opportunities, as 

well as the need to give certain ecosystems and landforms protection that wilderness 

designation would afford. 

Forest Service Manual 1909.12 was used as a tool to aid the evaluation process. The Forest 

planning interdisciplinary team and District resource staffs then analyzed the roadless areas 

based on that evaluation criteria, internal comments and public comments received at public 

meetings or in written formats. 

Public Participation for Roadless Evaluation 

The public was informed about the public participation opportunities through a newsletter and 

the forest website. Four public meetings were held in June of 1999. 

Recommendation for Wilderness 

The Record of Decision signed by the Regional Forester will document the areas recommended 

as wilderness with the rationale for the decision. The Regional Forester then submits a statewide 

wilderness proposal to the Chief when all the Forest Plans within a state are finalized. After 

Department and interagency review, the Secretary of Agriculture submits the proposal to 

Congress. Congress then makes the final decision on wilderness designation. Areas 

recommended for wilderness will be protected until Congress decides whether to officially 

designate them as wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 7 

Changes to Tables on Effects to Wilderness Character 

Between the DEIS and FEIS it was determined that additional information on the nature of 

roadless area values as defined in the FEIS on Roadless Area Conservation should be presented 

(See Appendix C-2). It was also determined that the consideration of effects on roadless values 

should be separated from the consideration of the same roadless areas for Wilderness 

recommendation. Four rows were changed or deleted from the tables entitled Alternatives and 

Potential Environmental Effects which appeared in the DEIS for each Appendix C roadless area 

write-up. These rows were entitled: 

• Roadless/Wilderness Character Protected (acres) - changed to Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres) in this consideration of effects on Wilderness character, or information 

on maintaining roadless values may be found in for each roadless area in tables under the 

columns Maintains Roadless Character or Mostly Maintains Roadless Character 

• Available for Development (acres) – deleted, may be found in tables for each roadless 

area under the column Allows Development 

• Winter Motorized Use Allowed (Snowmobile-acres) – deleted, may be found for each 

roadless area in Winter Recreation tables 

• Winter Motorized Use Allowed (Heliski-acres) – deleted, may be found for each roadless 

area in Winter Recreation tables. 

Information on the effects that was provided in these four rows is now provided in Appendix C-2 

that considers effects on individual roadless areas. It was not considered necessary to provide 

the same information in two places in the analysis, and that the information in these items was 

properly displayed in Appendix C-2. 

Rounding of Acreages for Roadless Areas 

Acreage figures for each roadless area are rounded off to the nearest 100 acres. In the DEIS 

acreage figures were shown to the nearest acre, however, the GIS mapping accuracy for these 

areas was not accurate to that degree. It is thought that rounding provides a more realistic 

approximation of the acreage for these roadless areas. Areas may be said to be within 100 acres 

of the area presented in the tables. 

 

Rationale for applying Management Prescriptions other than recommended 

Wilderness 

Across the range of alternatives presented in the FEIS the application of management 

prescriptions to roadless areas other than for recommended Wilderness is based on the inherent 

value of the characteristics of the area (availability, capability and need are described for each 

area), public values and demands expressed during the planning process, alternative themes, and 

legal sideboards. 

Effects of Alternatives on Potential Wilderness Characteristics 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 8 

Considerations and disclosures of the effects of alternatives on all roadless areas taken 

collectively are provided in Chapter 3, Topic 5 of the FEIS. 

For each alternative the effects on potential Wilderness for a roadless area are shown in the table 

entitled Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character that provides: 

• Wilderness Recommendations (acres) 

• Wilderness Character Protected (acres) 

• Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open (miles) 

• Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open (miles) 

These several data items give a good indication of the intent of management for each area as they 

are conceived in the alternative, and the potential for affecting its possible Wilderness character. 

The intent of the analysis is to show how different the allocations are to Wilderness for the 

roadless areas across the alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 9 

Table C1 - 2. Acres recommended as wilderness by alternative

Roadless Area Acres Recommended as Wilderness 

Name 

Roadless 

Acres Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 

CACHE-BOX ELDER 

Gibson 5,300 

Mount Naomi 45,100 40,000 20,300 8,200 8,200 500

Temple Peak 23,400 

Right Hand Fork 

Logan 

15,000 

Mount Logan North 19,200 

Mount Logan South 17,000 

Mount Logan West 5,300 

Boulder Mountain 8,800 

Elk Valley 8,200 

Mahogany Range 11,400 

Mollens Hollow 17,700 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

1,800 1,700 40 40 40 40

BEAR 

Swan Creek 9,400 

Rock Creek Green 

Fork 

5,600 

Sugar Pine 5,600 

NORTH WASATCH – OGDEN VALLEY 

Upper South Fork 17,300 17,200 17,200 14,400 14,200

Willard 19,100 8,300

Lewis Peak 12,100 12,100

Burch Creek 6,900 6,900

Francis 14,800 8,100

Farmington 10,900 

Hogsback 7,900 

Mueller Park 7,700 

CENTRAL WASATCH 

Red Butte 6,200 

Mount Aire 9,700 9,400

Mount Olympus 10,000 9,300 2,200 2,000

Twin Peaks 6,200 5,700 2,300 500

White Pine 1,900 1,900 1,900

Lone Peak 

Additions 

900 900 500 

STANSBURY 

Stansbury 

Mountains 

39,700 37,300 17,100 5,000 

WESTERN UINTAS 

Nobletts 3,100 2,700

Lakes 122,000 119,200 71,900 26,300 38,000

EASTERN UINTAS 

High Uintas 103,100 98,200 29,300 18,200 20,100 20,600

Widdop Mountain 8,000 8,000
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 10 

Table C1 – 3. Percentage of Existing and Recommended Wilderness by Alternative 

Roadless Area Acres Recommended as Wilderness 

Name 

Roadless 

Acres Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 

Total Acres 606,400 386,900 145,540 51,140 0 0 69,040 73,300

% of Roadless 

Recommended for 

Wilderness 

 64% 24% 8% 0% 0% 11% 12%

% of Roadless and 

Existing 

Wilderness that is 

Recommended 

Wilderness or 

Existing 

Wilderness 

(606,400 

+309,100 = 

 915,500)

 

 (Roadless 

and 

Wilderness) 

76% 50% 39% 34% 34% 41% 42%

% of forest land 

that is 

recommended or 

existing Wilderness 

1,239,300 

(WCNF Forest 

Land) 

56% 37% 29% 25% 25% 31% 31%

Inventoried Roadless Areas evaluated for Wilderness 

Descriptions and Maps 

The following descriptions of each inventoried roadless area were written using data available, 

such as special use permits, oil and gas potential information and information about the current 

condition of the resource from forest employees. Also included with each roadless area 

description are maps. BEFORE you look at the maps, please note the following: 

• Maps are not at specific scale. The scale used is whatever was needed to fit on the 8.5 x 11 

inch page. This means maps of different roadless areas are not at the same scale, because 

they are of different acreage size. 

• Background data shown on the maps is from USGS digital raster graph data; it is for general 

location background only and has not been updated. 

• At this scale, please note that many roads that are excluded from the roadless inventory areas 

by small “cherrystems” (33 to 66 feet each side of road) cannot be seen. 

• To view more detailed maps of roadless areas, please stop by the Wasatch – Cache 

Supervisor Office or the appropriate Ranger District Office for that roadless area. 

• Some roadless areas are adjacent to roadless areas on other Forests (Caribou, Ashley and 

Uinta) or BLM Wilderness Study Areas (Stansbury unit only). Please contact those agencies 

to view their roadless area maps. 

Another consideration for the reader is the description of an area’s boundary and size and shape 

as potential wilderness. This is referred to as “Manageability”. It is written to describe the 

boundaries of each roadless area as they were defined by the inventory protocol. In almost all 

situations an improved boundary could be mapped that would improve the shape of and the 

boundary location for a wilderness area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 11 

Evaluation of Roadless Areas for Wilderness 

Cache-Box Elder Management Area 

Name: Gibson #0419002 

Acres: Gross: 5,300 

Location and Access: The Gibson area straddles the Utah/Idaho border about 8 miles west of 

Bear Lake. This report will summarize the portion on the Wasatch-Cache. The western 

boundary is the Franklin Basin Road 006 going north to Idaho, the northern boundary is the 

Idaho State line, and the eastern boundary is Utah State land by Beaver Mountain and Logan 

Canyon Highway 89. Franklin Basin Road, Sink Hollow Road, Logan Canyon Highway and 

Beaver Mountain Ski Area can access the area. 

Setting: The average elevation is about 8,500 feet. The topography is quite gentle with a few 

steep and rocky slopes. Vegetation cover types include mountain brush, maple, aspen, sagebrush 

and grass at lower elevations and lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, subalpine fir and spruce at higher 

elevations.

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: The area has had no recent timber sales on the WasatchCache side, although there is past evidence of earlier logging. There are 2,469 acres of 

tentatively suited timber within the area. Recreation: The area is used for snowmobiling, 

cross-country skiing, summer ATV use, horseback riding, hiking, mountain biking, hunting, and 

dispersed camping. Franklin Basin and Sinks Hollow are major winter snow play areas. 

Minerals: Minerals are federally owned. There are no oil and gas leases in the area. Range: 

Sheep are permitted to graze throughout the area. Water: The area is within the Logan City 

municipal watershed. Land Uses: A snowmobile rental and guide service under permit utilizes 

the area. Roads and Trails: There are no routes designated as open for motorized use within 

the area; however, there are many user-created roads and ATV routes in the area. Further 

surveying of the road system in recently acquired land needs to be completed. The only system 

trails are Sink Hollow, part of the Great Western Trail (motorized), and a small portion of the 

Peterson Hollow Trail (non-motorized). 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is low to moderate because of past 

management activities such as logging. User-created trails detract from the area’s naturalness. 

Ecological and biological values are high. Remoteness and solitude are moderate to low because 

of the nearness to roads and ski area development, the small size of the area, and limited 

screening by vegetation and topography. There are moderate opportunities for primitive 

recreation though opportunities for challenging experiences are limited. Special Features or 

Attractions: Deer, elk and moose utilize this important habitat area. A wolverine sighting has 

been reported. Area is lynx linkage habitat. The Logan River headwaters and Beaver Creek 

have Bonneville Cutthroat trout present. A rare plant, Hopkins tower mustard, is present. There 

are no known heritage resource sites and the area has low potential for future discovery of 

historic and American Indian sites. The scenery values are average. The manageability of the 

area would be poor because of its proximity to the Beaver Mountain Ski Area and the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 12 

narrowness of the area between private land in section 3 and the ski area (about 3⁄4 mile). The 

area is also narrow (about 1 mile wide) near Beaver Mountain Ski Area north to the Idaho State 

line. It borders about 1.5 miles of private land in the northwest corner. 

Need: The area is low for unique landforms and non-motorized recreation needs. It has 

moderate values for wildlife needs and research purposes. The nearest wilderness is Mount 

Naomi about 4 miles to the west. The area is 20 to 25 miles from Logan and about 100 miles 

from Salt Lake. The area received limited public interest in recommending the area for 

wilderness. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character

Roadless Area: Gibson

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 4,700 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Mount Naomi #0419012 

Acres: Gross: 45,100 

Location and Access: The area is located in Cache County, northeast of Logan and is part of 

the Bear River Range. Access is via Logan Canyon Highway 89 and can also be accessed via 

Forest roads in High Creek, Smithfield Canyon, Green Canyon, Tony Grove, and Franklin Basin. 

The roadless area is composed of several different units all of which are contiguous with the Mt. 

Naomi Wilderness. 

Setting: Elevations range from 4,800 feet to 9,979 feet at Naomi Peak. The western slope (of 

which most is already wilderness) is very steep. Moderate to gentle slopes are more common on 

the eastern flank. Sinkholes and caves are found in some locations in the underlying limestone 

formation. Vegetation on the north and east exposures consist of tall forbs, shrubs, aspen and 

mixed conifer. The south and west exposures consists of grasses, forbs, shrubs, aspen, 

mahogany, and scattered conifer. Valley bottoms consist of sagebrush, chokecherry, mountain 

ash, aspen and mixed conifers. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 13 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are 19, 212 acres of tentatively suited timber 

within the area. The area has potential for prescribed burns to benefit habitat improvement. 

Recreation: The area receives heavy recreation use consisting of hiking, backpacking, biking, 

horseback riding, dispersed camping, rock climbing and hunting, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing and snowmobiling. Most of the mountain biking opportunities are in the northeast 

quarter and Franklin Basin areas. Some are considered the premier mountain bike trails in the 

Cache area. Mountain bikes use trails from the Wood Camp Hollow to Jardine Juniper, in Green 

Canyon, Twin Creek, Bunchgrass Creek, White Pine Creek, White Pine Lake, Blind Hollow, and 

Hansen Pond. White Pine Lake is a popular summer dispersed recreation site and offers an 

opportunity for a non-wilderness backcountry experience. Snowmobilers consider this area as 

one of the top area in the nation to snowmobile. The area provides good winter accessibility and 

a long season. Tony Grove area is viewed as valuable for late season snowmobile opportunities. 

Minerals: The majority of minerals are federally owned. There is low potential for oil and gas. 

Range: Cattle and sheep are permitted to graze the area. The area has several range 

improvements especially in the north. Water: The area provides water for Logan, Cache 

Valley, and southern Idaho for irrigation and municipal purposes. Water developments have 

been proposed periodically in the Green Canyon area. Land Uses: There are snow-monitoring 

sites operated by the Natural Resource Conservation Service near Mount Naomi and in Steep 

Hollow. An outfitter guide operates two yurts for cross-country skiers. Roads and Trails: 

There are no roads or motorized trails designated as open included in the roadless area. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is outstanding with limited influence by 

developments. Geological, biological, ecological, educational and historical values are high. The 

geologic and elevation changes contribute to the area’s biodiversity and wildlife habitat. When 

considered with the existing wilderness and the adjacent roadless area on the Caribou, the area is 

a part of a very large undeveloped ecosystem. The area is part of a critical wildlife corridor and 

link between the Yellowstone and Uinta Mountain ecosystems. Steep terrain and topography 

contribute to feelings of solitude and offer challenging experiences. Primitive recreation 

opportunities are abundant. These recreation related values are higher in the southern end and 

more moderate in Green Canyon and Franklin Basin areas. Special Features or Attractions: 

The area is known for its scenic qualities of unique rock formations, steep bowls, and park like 

lands. The Mount Naomi Trail from Tony Grove to High Creek Trailhead has been designated as 

a National Recreational Trail. Logan and Wind Caves and other limestone caverns are special 

geological features. Jardine Juniper is the oldest known tree of this species. Portions of several 

streams such as Bunchgrass Creek, White Pine Creek, and the Logan River have been found 

eligible in the wild and scenic river inventory. Deer, elk, moose, bobcat, cougar, goshawk, 

golden eagle and grouse inhabit the area. There is habitat for numerous species at risk including 

boreal owl, Peregrine falcon, and bald eagle. There has been a reported siting of a wolverine, and 

the area is lynx linkage habitat, and is potential habitat for pine marten. Townsend big-eared bats 

inhabit Logan Cave. Some streams support native fish such as Bonneville Cutthroat. There are 

numerous populations of unique plants, such as threatened plant Maguires primrose, FS sensitive 

plants Maguires draba, Frank Smith violet, Cache beardtongue, Logan buckwheat, Cronquist 

daisy, brownie ladyslipper and rare plants Rydberg musineon and Wasatch rockcress. Several of 

the unique plant species are found in habitats such as on China Wall. Mount Naomi also has rare 

Whitebark Pine habitat. There are some historical and cultural resources related to the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 14 

development of Cache Valley with moderate to high potential for discovery of American Indian 

sites. The manageability of the boundary of the south unit is aided by terrain and few conflicts 

with outside uses. Boundaries of the northern half are not as easily recognized on the landscape. 

A private inholding in the north half of the roadless area creates potential for future development. 

Need: Mount Naomi roadless area is 10 to 30 miles from Logan, 95 miles from Salt Lake and 

60 miles from Pocatello, Idaho. It is adjacent to the existing Mount Naomi Wilderness. The 

Wellsville Mountain Wilderness is located about 15 miles to the southwest. Opinion on 

wilderness designation for the area is polarized. The area has been a focal point for public 

comment, especially from Logan and the Cache Valley during the roadless inventory and 

analysis process. It has received some of the highest numbers of public comments and is one of 

the most controversial roadless areas in the region. Some felt the existing wilderness area was 

sufficient and that previously excluded westside canyons should remain excluded. Others felt 

these areas should be included to reduce fragmentation of the area. Some felt the south area was 

a valuable wilderness addition, but did not want the northern portion to become wilderness, 

because of snowmobile and mountain bike opportunities. Snowmobiling especially in the 

Franklin Basin and Tony Grove areas is viewed as an important contribution to the local 

economy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 15 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character

 

Roadless Area: Mount Naomi

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended 

Wilderness (acres) 40,000 20,300 8,200 0 0 8,200 500

Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1

 40,600 29,400 8,200 0 0 33,900 33,900

Trails Closed to 

Motorized Use From 

Wilderness 

Recommendation 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan 

Trails Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan 

Roads Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Temple Peak #0419023

Acres: Gross: 23,400 

Location and Access: Area is located east of Logan Canyon Highway 89 about 20 miles 

northeast of Logan and 3 miles south of the Idaho State line. It can also be accessed by Temple 

Fork FS road 007, Sinks FS road 055 and Peter Sinks FS road 173. 

Setting: Elevations range from 5,500 to over 9,000 feet. Terrain varies from moderate to steep 

with vegetation consisting of sagebrush, grass, mahogany and maple at lower elevations with 

aspen and fir at higher elevations. 

Availability: Vegetation: There are an estimated 10,000 acres of tentatively suited timber 

within the area. The area is also used for fuel wood gathering. Recreation: Uses include hiking, 

mountain biking, hunting, fishing, dispersed camping, cross-country skiing, motorized recreation 

trail use and snowmobiling. Most trails are open to mountain bike use. Both motorized and 

mechanized recreation use is heavy in the area. Mountain bikers use the Spawn Creek, Little 

Bear, Turkey, Stump Hollow and Burnt Fork and Great Western trails. Sinks Road is a state 

groomed snowmobile route. Snowmobile opportunities in the area are considered ideal for 

families and beginners. The area offers good flyfishing opportunities. Minerals: Minerals are 

federally owned. Range: Sheep and cattle graze on portions of six allotments. Water: The area 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 16 

is part of the Logan municipal watershed. Land uses: Section 21 is part of a special use permit 

for the T.W. Daniel Experimental Forest for Utah State University used extensively for teaching, 

demonstration, and research in natural resources and ecosystem management. It is impacted by 

old cuttings and roads in the area and includes the already approved Bear Hodges Timber Sale. 

This section has been removed from the Temple Peak roadless area. Roads and Trails: 

Boundary locations have eliminated most roads from the area. The area includes several trails, 

some which allow motorized use such as Turkey, Little Bear ATV, and Worm Fence, a segment 

of the great Western Trail. 

Capability: The area is rated moderate in naturalness of the environment. Biological and 

ecological systems are intact though not unique. Motorized use in Stump Hollow and Peters Sink 

has resulted in resource damage and has detracted from the area’s naturalness. Challenging 

experiences can be found but not to the degree they are present in Mount Naomi. Solitude is 

generally low because of heavy recreation use. Opportunities for primitive recreation are 

somewhat limited. Special Features or Attractions: Segments of Beaver Creek, Little Bear 

Creek, Spawn Creek, Temple Fork and Logan River have been found eligible in the wild and 

scenic river inventory. The area has pleasing scenery but nothing unique. The area has a 

diversity of wildlife species. The area is part of a critical wildlife corridor and link between the 

Yellowstone and Uinta Mountain ecosystems. It is important early winter range. Elk utilize the 

area. Most of the area is lynx linkage habitat. Species at risk that are present include boreal owl, 

wolverine, goshawk, Bonneville cutthroat trout, three toed woodpecker, spotted bat, big-eared 

bat, flammulated owl, boreal toad and spotted frog. Bird watching is popular in the area. The rare 

plant, Wasatch rockcress, is present. The area includes historic Temple Fork Sawmill site. 

There is moderate potential for additional historic and American Indian sites. Manageability is 

affected by exclusions of nonconforming uses. There are two very large exclusions – Peter Sinks 

(roads, gravel pit) and Temple Peak (roads, timber sales, state land). 

Need: The area is located about 20 miles from Logan. The nearest wilderness area is Mount 

Naomi about 3 miles to the west. The area has received limited public interest in wilderness 

designation but has received high opposition primarily because of summer and winter motorized 

recreation needs as well as mountain biking opportunities.

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Temple Peak

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1

 19,900 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to 

Motorized Use From 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 17 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Temple Peak

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0

Motorized Travel Plan 

Trails Open (miles) 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1

Motorized Travel Plan 

Roads Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6.

Name: Right Hand Fork Logan #0419028

Acres: Gross: 15,000 

Location and Access: Located about 12 miles from Logan, south of Logan Canyon Highway. 

Access to the area is from Logan canyon highway, and Forest Service roads Right Hand Fork, 

Cowley Canyon and long Hollow. 

Setting: Elevations range from 5,200 feet to 8,000 feet. Much of area is wide valley with open 

sage meadows, aspen and fir in the upper elevations.

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 5,400 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Parts of area have been used for firewood cutting. There is potential for 

use of prescribed fire to improve habitat. Recreation: Mountain biking is very popular. The area 

also attracts hikers, cross-country skiers, motorcycle trail users, anglers, hunters, and campers. 

Motorized use on designated trails and snowmobiling use is heavy. Minerals: Minerals are 

federally owned. The area has low potential for oil. Range: Cattle graze within the area under 

permit. Several range improvements are present. Water: The area is part of Logan City 

municipal watershed. Roads and Trails: The area contains no roads designated as open in the 

district travel plan. Two trails, Steel Hollow and Little Cottonwood, allow motorcycle use. There 

are also non-motorized trails in Ricks Canyon, Willow Creek, Maughan Hollow, and Ephraim’s 

Cutoff. The Great Western Trail passes through the area. 

Capability: The area is rated moderate in naturalness with high biological and ecological 

values because of diverse vegetation and habitat types. Its natural appearance is diminished 

somewhat by the evidence of off-trail use of ATVs. Scenery is rated moderate. Challenge, 

solitude and remoteness are rated moderate. Special Features or Attractions: The Logan River 

and Temple Fork have been found eligible in the wild and scenic river inventory. There is good 

wildlife habitat, particularly in the area of Chicken Creek. Habitat for mountain lions and winter 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 18 

range for elk and deer is present. The area is lynx linkage habitat. Species at risk that are present 

include goshawk, flammulated owl, three toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal toad, and 

Bonneville cutthroat trout. There are several TES plants including the threatened plant Maguire 

primrose. There is one known heritage resource site and the area has moderate potential for 

historic and American Indian sites. Because of several nearby sites the area is rated moderate for 

cultural and historic features. The manageability of the area as wilderness is affected by the 

several road exclusions. This is particularly true for Forest Service road 153 (Chicken Creek) 

and its intersecting motorized recreation trail that nearly cuts the area in two. 

Need: The city of Logan is about 12 miles away. The nearest wilderness area is Mount Naomi 

located about 2 miles to the northeast. The majority of the comments received on this area have 

been against wilderness designation. Opponents generally favored the current uses and 

emphasized motorized and mechanical recreation needs. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Right Hand Fork Logan

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1

 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to 

Motorized Use From 

Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan 

Trails Open (miles) 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2

Motorized Travel Plan 

Roads Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Mount Logan North #0419013 

 Mount Logan South #0419029 

 Mount Logan West #0419030

Acres: Gross: North Unit: 19,200 

 South Unit: 17,000 

 West Unit: 5,300 

Location and Access: Mt. Logan Roadless Area is just east of the communities of Logan, 

Providence and Millville. Because of developments since the last inventory the area is now split 

into three distinct units. Logan Canyon Highway 89 forms the northern boundary of the north 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 19 

unit. Private and state land borders the western edge. Roads in Providence Canyon and Millville 

Canyon split the units. Blacksmith Highway 101 forms the southern boundary of the south unit. 

Forest Service road 047 in Cowley Canyon/Herd Canyon forms the eastern edge. 

Availability: Vegetation: The north unit has about 4,900 acres, the south unit 6,100 acres and 

the west unit 1,200 acres of capable and available timber. There is potential for future fuelwood 

gathering and prescribed fire in this area. Recreation: Use includes hiking, horseback riding, 

fishing, hunting, dispersed camping, mountain biking, motorized trail use and snowmobiling. 

The area receives very heavy use for snowmobiling and summer motorized use. Mountain biking 

is takes place on several trails including Card Canyon, Richards Hollow, Richards Elbow, 

Leatham Hollow and the Great Western. Motorized recreation use takes place on South Fork 

Millville, Richards Hollow, Richards Elbow, Cart Hollow, Welches Flat, Card Canyon and some 

other trails. Minerals: Minerals are mostly federally owned except for 765 acres in the entire 

north unit and 252 acres in the south unit. Minerals in the west unit are all federally owned. 

There are no oil and gas leases. Range: The areas include grazing allotments for both cattle and 

sheep. There are several range improvements present. Water: Water is used for Cache Valley 

communities including Logan City’s municipal and irrigation needs. Land Uses: A 1985 Forest 

plan utility corridor follows the southern edge of the south unit. Roads, and Trails: There are 

several non-constructed roads in the units, as well as motorized and non-motorized trails. A few 

of these short road segments in the north and south units are designated open in the District 

travel plan. The Great Western Trail traverses the south unit. 

Capability: The north unit was rated as moderate in the naturalness of its environment with 

some geological and ecological values present. It is considered quite biologically diverse. Steep 

and rugged slope areas provide challenging experiences. Remoteness and solitude values are 

affected by the surrounding development and the popularity of the area. The south and west 

units are viewed as being less natural than the north unit. Special Features or Attractions: 

Logan Peak is a popular destination. Segments of streams found eligible in the wild and scenic 

river inventory included Logan River and Left Hand Fork Blacksmith. Plant species at risk 

present in the northern unit include Maquires primrose, Maquires draba, Frank Smith violet, 

Cache beardtongue, Hopkins tower-mustard, and Rydberg musineon. The southern unit has a 

plant species of concern present, Kings woody-aster. The western unit has no known plants 

species of concern. Scenery throughout the area is typical of similar landscapes with colorful 

autumn colors. Views of Cache Valley are visible from much of the area. There is important 

summer and winter habitat for deer, elk, and moose. Other wildlife present includes bobcats, 

black bear, badger, and raptors including the bald eagle. All 3 units are lynx linkage habitat. The 

northern unit has Bonneville cutthroat and cutthroat, rainbow and brown trout. The western unit 

has brown trout while the southern unit has brown trout, cutthroat trout, and whitefish. There are 

no known heritage resources sites, but Shoshone petroglyph sites exist near the area. Potential is 

low to moderate for historic and American Indian sites. Manageability: There are several 

intrusions such as an electronic site and rock quarry. The south unit has a significant road and 

private land exclusions in the White Bedground area on the north side. The west unit is small in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 20 

size for wilderness. Private and state land and many roads surround nearly all the units. This 

may limit access to the area and encourage trespass of non-conforming uses. 

Need: The area is six miles from Logan and 90 miles north of Salt Lake City. The nearest 

wilderness areas are Mount Naomi, one mile to the north and Wellsville Mountains, ten miles to 

the west. The majority of the public input received was strongly against any wilderness 

designation for these areas. Many of the motorized routes and snowmobile areas are very 

important to the local public. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mount Logan North

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1

 6,500 900 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized 

Use From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan 

Trails Open (miles) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1

Motorized Travel Plan 

Roads Open (miles) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 21 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mount Logan South

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 15,900 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mount Logan West

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 22 

Name: Boulder Mountain #0419024 

Acres: Gross: 8,800 

Location and Access: The area is about 10 miles east of Logan. The best access to it is via the 

Left Hand Fork FS road 245. It can also be accessed from Dip Hollow FS road 056, Marie 

Spring FS road 147, Herd Hollow FS road 047 or Mud Spring FS Road 146. 

Setting: Terrain varies from moderate to steep. Elevations range from approximately 5800 to 

7500 feet. To some the area is known as a “high desert”. Vegetation consists of sage grassland in 

the north with steeper aspen and fir slopes to the south. 

Availability: Timber: There are an estimated 3,600 acres of tentatively suited timber within 

the area. Prescribed burns have been done in the area. Recreation: Hunting use is heavy in the 

area. Though not allowed, the area does receive OHV use. Snowmobiles use the area in the 

winter. Minerals: Minerals are federally owned. A mine was active as recently as 1995 for 

exploration of gold. It is currently not being operated. Range: Sheep grazing is allowed within 

three allotments. Many range improvements are present. Water: The little available water is 

used for livestock. Land Uses: A small seismograph station is operated under permit. Roads 

and Trails: There are no routes designated as open for motorized use within the area; however, 

there are many user-created roads and ATV routes in the area. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is moderate and provides some solitude. It 

has high values for biological diversity and wildlife habitat. Because much of the area is difficult 

to access, it is rated moderate for challenge and primitive recreation opportunities. Special 

Features or Attractions: The Left Hand Fork of the Blacksmith was found eligible in the wild 

and scenic river inventory. Scenery values are moderate to high. Important wildlife habitat is 

provided for elk and deer. The area is lynx linkage habitat. Species at risk that are present 

include goshawk, flammulated owl, three toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal toad, and 

Bonneville cutthroat trout. Area has some Indian rock art. There is moderate potential for 

historic and American Indian sites. The manageability of the area as wilderness would be 

difficult. About 50% of the northern boundary is adjacent to private land. Though excluded from 

the area, Forest road 146 from the northeast to Mud Springs nearly bisects the area in two and 

would make the area difficult to manage as wilderness. 

Need: The area is located about 30 miles from Logan, the nearest population center. The nearest 

wilderness area is Mount Naomi about 10 miles to the northwest. The area received limited 

public comment with the majority not favoring wilderness mainly because of motorized 

recreation needs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 23 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Boulder Mountain

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Elk Valley #0419039 

Acres: Gross: 8,200 

This is a new roadless area in the FEIS that did not appear in the DEIS. It was identified late in 

the process by the Forest Service. 

Location and Access: Area is located on the south east side of the Logan Ranger District in the 

Wasatch Range, about 15 miles east of Logan and 10 miles southwest of Bear Lake. Most of the 

access is by going north from Hardware Ranch or south of Highway 89 from Bear Lake Summit 

on the Sinks to Hardware Ranch Forest Service road. 

Setting: Elevations range from 6500 to over 8,000 feet. Much of the area is a wide high 

elevation valley with upper sage meadows and some aspen and fir pockets in higher elevations. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: Timber sale areas have been excluded from the roadless 

area, there are some adjacent to the roadless area southwest of Temple Flat. There is some 

potential for suitable timber in that area. Some locations of the area are also used for fuelwood 

gathering. The area has potential for prescribed burns to benefit habitat improvement. 

Recreation: The area receives a high amount of summer motorized recreation use for four 

wheel drive, ATV and motorcycles. There is a severe problem of illegal off-road use in this area. 

The area also receives dispersed camping and hunting use. In the winter, this area is popular for 

snowmobiling. The Elk Valley - Sinks road is a State of Utah groomed snowmobile route. 

Snowmobile opportunities in the area are good for families and beginners. Minerals: Most of 

the area has Federal mineral rights except for the state inholding. Range: The area does have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 24 

permitted grazing for sheep and cattle on parts of five allotments. Water: The area is fairly dry 

with some scattered springs and intermittent streams. Roads and Trails: The area is a critical 

high use summer and winter motorized and mechanized recreation and dispersed recreation area. 

The area is networked with roads and trails. Cherry stems have excluded constructed travel plan 

roads from the inventoried roadless area. The area includes several miles of system trails of 

which many allow motorized use such as the Elk Valley Divide Trail 2033. Old road remnants 

and illegally created user roads and trails are found throughout the area. Fire: The area has 

moderate fire potential. Insect and Disease: The area has few insect and disease problems. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is low due to livestock trailing and illegal trail 

and road creation from some recreation users. Geological and educational values of the area are 

low. Biological and ecological values are moderate. The area offers good wildlife and TES 

species habitat. The area is lynx linkage habitat. Scenery is common and unspectacular. The 

potential for challenging experiences moderate. Solitude is generally low because of heavy 

dispersed recreation, but because of the area’s remoteness, high solitude may be found in 

portions of the area at some times. Opportunities for primitive recreation are somewhat limited 

because of motorized activities. The high volume of illegal routes detracts from potential 

Wilderness values. Manageability of the area would be difficult due to the several road cherry 

stems into it. Special Features or Attractions include the Ephraim’s Grave Grizzly Bear site. 

There is moderate potential for additional historic and American Indian sites. 

Need: The area is a long drive (50 to 60 miles) from Logan. The nearest wilderness area is 

Mount Naomi about 12 miles to the northwest. The Wellsville Mountain Wilderness is 25 miles 

to the west. The area has received no public interest in wilderness designation. Many motorized 

use advocates in the Logan area have voiced substantial opposition to any recommendation for 

additional Wilderness on the Logan Ranger District. No one realized the area qualified for 

roadless acreage until late in the process, when the Forest Service identified it. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Elk Valley

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0000 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 25 

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Mahogany Range #0419025 

Acres: Gross: 11,400 

Location and Access: The area is located about 10 miles east of Hyrum. Access is primarily by 

state highway 101 along the Blacksmith Fork. The Left Hand Fork FS Road 245 along the 

northern border of the unit is also a key access point. 

Setting: The area has an expanse of mahogany, which is very valuable for wildlife habitat. 

Elevation ranges approximately from 5,100 to 7,500 feet. Much of the area is dry open 

sage/grass. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 1,200 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Prescribed fire is used to improve wildlife habitat and range suitability. 

Recreation: The area is open in the summer for motorized recreation. Uses include motorized 

recreation, dispersed camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, some mountain biking, and some 

hiking. The area is popular for horseback riding and OHV use. The area is closed to 

snowmobiling. Minerals: The minerals are federally owned. Range: The area is part of two 

grazing allotments and there are many range improvements in the area. Water: The few natural 

springs provide water for wildlife and livestock. Land uses: A 1985 Forest plan utility corridor 

crosses the southern portion of the area. Roads and Trails: There is one short segment of a low 

maintenance road, Pig Hole Spring, designated as open on the travel plan. The area has many 

user-created tracks that are not designated as open. There are non-motorized tails into Hogs 

Hollow, Pigs Hole and Sow Hole. Motorized access is also used for vegetation treatment as well 

as by grazing permittees. 

Capability: The naturalness of the area is rated moderate with high values for biological, 

ecological and wildlife. Unauthorized motorized use has resulted in resource damage in some 

areas and detracts from the natural appearance. Challenging experiences, solitude and 

opportunities for primitive recreation are listed as moderate. Special Features or Attractions: 

The unique complex of vegetative types and terrain, as well as being adjacent to the Hardware 

Ranch Wildlife Management Area provides special wildlife habitat. The area is particularly 

important in the winter and spring for deer, elk, moose, cougar, and bobcat. Most of the area is 

lynx linkage habitat. Species at risk that are present include goshawk, flammulated owl, three 

toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal toad, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. There are brown 

trout, brook trout, and whitefish. The Left Hand Fork of the Blacksmith was found eligible in 

the wild and scenic river inventory. The area does have sites of Shoshone Indian rock art. There 

is low to moderate potential for other historic and American Indian sites. The manageability of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 26 

the area as wilderness would be hindered because the boundaries are along roads. Surrounding 

state and private land contribute to the complexity. 

Need: The area is about 20 miles from Logan, the nearest major population center. The nearest 

wilderness area is Mount Naomi about 10 miles to the north. The area received limited public 

comment, but the majority of those did not favor wilderness designation. The area could add an 

ecosystem type that is currently not common in our wilderness areas. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mahogany Range

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 6,300 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Mollens Hollow #0419015 

Acres: Gross: 17,700 

Location and Access: The area is 3 miles east of Hardware Ranch in Cache County. Access is 

via Forest Service road 059 Curtis Creek. 

Setting: Steep slopes characterize canyons while the terrain is more rolling in other areas. 

Elevations range from 6,000 feet to 8,600 feet. The area has a sinkhole where a stream 

disappears. The area has the largest stand of pinyon pine on the Cache portion of the Forest. Fir, 

spruce and aspen characterize north and east slopes. Mountain mahogany, maple, snowberry and 

juniper are found on the southern and western exposures. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are 6,700 acres of tentatively suited timber 

within the area. Select trees with insect problems were removed as recently as 1998. Prescribed 

fire has been used for habitat improvement and aspen regeneration. Recreation: Recreation use 

is generally light. There is some hiking, horseback riding, and hunting. Tilda Springs is a popular 

ATV trail network. The State of Utah is interested in providing additional trails in partnership 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 27 

with the Forest. The area receives heavy snowmobile use and parts of it are known as a 

snowmobile play area. Minerals: About 800 acres have private mineral rights. The area has 

some potential for oil and gas. Range: Sheep and cattle graze the area. There are many range 

improvements. Water: There are no formal culinary water uses. Land Uses: A 1985 Plan 

utility corridor crosses the northwest corner. Roads and Trails: There are no constructed roads 

present. Tilda Springs is a network of ATV trails. There are a few low maintenance nonmotorized trails. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is fair. Past overgrazing and user created 

ATV routes have compromised its natural appearance. Mollens Hollow RNA offers intact 

ecological and biological systems and provides research opportunities. Opportunities for solitude

and primitive recreation are somewhat limited. Special Features or Attractions: The area 

includes the 1,186 acre Mollens Hollow Research Natural Area (RNA). The area does offer some 

unique scenery. Important fall and winter range for deer and elk. Most of the area is lynx linkage

habitat. The area has potential to support cutthroat trout, but its presence has not been verified. 

Cache beardtongue and Logan buckwheat, two sensitive plants, are present. There is one known 

heritage resource site. The area has moderate potential for the presence of historic and American 

Indian sites. Manageability is affected by the open terrain, which makes it difficult to manage 

motorized use. There are several roads that have been excluded by cherry stems that access the 

area. 

Need: The area is about 85 miles from Salt Lake, 25 miles from Logan and 45 miles from 

Ogden. Mount Naomi and the Wellsville Mountains are the nearest wilderness areas. Interest in 

the area has generally been limited. A few felt that it was a good example of what a mid 

elevation wilderness could be, which is not common in Northern Utah. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mollens Hollow

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 17,400 17,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

Trails Closed to Motorized Use From 

Wilderness Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 28 

Name: Wellsville Mountains #0419014 

Acres: Gross: 1,800 

Location and Access: The Wellsville Mountains are located just north of Brigham City and 

west of Hyrum and Logan. Access to the Wellsville Mountains is somewhat limited, especially 

on the west side because of private lands. Deep Canyon and Maple Bench in the northeast 

quadrant of the range are the key recreation access points. Highway 89 to Logan briefly crosses 

the Forest by Wellsville Canyon. The roadless area is composed of several different units all of 

which are contiguous with the Wellsville Wilderness. 

Setting: Much of the remaining roadless area is lower elevation country 4,500 to 6,000 feet and 

primarily grassland with scattered patches of rock and trees. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There is no tentatively suited timber within the area. 

Recreation: Primarily uses of these areas are hiking, horseback riding, hunting, bird watching, a 

few mountain bike opportunities and some winter recreation including snowmobiles, snowshoers 

and cross-country skiers. There are possible opportunities for additional recreation development 

at Deep Canyon and Maple Bench. Minerals: Almost all of the minerals are federally owned. 

The area has low potential for oil and gas and some potential for uranium and geothermal 

activities. The west side also has some potential for gravel pits development. Range: Cattle 

under permit graze most of the area. Range improvements are present. Water: Much of the area 

is an important municipal watershed for local communities. Land uses: All but one of the 

parcels have water developments for local communities. A utility corridor from the 1985 Plan 

crosses the western edge of a few of the units. Roads and Trails: There are no roads or 

motorized trails designated as open. There may be a few user-created roads. 

Capability: The area is rated moderate for naturalness of the environment and ecological 

values. The current areas of roadless have less wilderness character than the existing wilderness. 

Opportunities for solitude are high because of the low use the area receives and limited access. 

There are opportunities for primitive recreation and challenging experiences. Special Features 

or Attractions: Raptor populations and fall migration routes are important. There is habitat for 

endangered peregrine falcon. Much of area is essential habitat for deer winter range. The area 

has been identified as potential habitat for bighorn sheep. There are some significant 

archaeological sites in the mountain range from the Shoshone tribe. There is low potential for 

historic sites. Manageability: There are few identifiable features to aid in boundary location. 

Need: Most of the Wellsville Mountains is already designated wilderness. The area is about 15 

miles from Logan and about 70 miles from Salt Lake. Very little public support for wilderness 

additions to the existing wilderness has been voiced. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 29 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Wellsville Mountains

Management Area: Cache-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 1,700 40 40 0 0 40 40

Wilderness Character Protected (acres)1 1,700 40 40 0 0 40 40

Trails Closed to Motorized Use From 

Wilderness Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 30 

Bear Management Area 

Name: Swan Creek Mountain #0419001 

Acres: Gross: 9,400

Location and Access: The Swan Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) straddles the 

Idaho/Utah border about 3 miles west of Bear Lake. It is shared with the Caribou National 

Forest though this report refers only to the Utah portion. It is located in Rich and Cache 

Counties. Logan Canyon Highway 89 is the southern boundary, Beaver Creek Road 011 is the 

western boundary, the state line is the northern boundary and the Forest boundary is the eastern 

boundary. The Swan Flat Road 014 splits the Utah portion into two areas. Access to the area is 

via Swan Flat, Beaver Creek and Logan Canyon Highway roads. 

Setting: The topography is generally steep, but is rolling and gentle in some places. Elevation 

ranges from 7,400 to 9,082 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of sagebrush, grass, mahogany, 

and maple at lower elevations and aspen and fir at higher elevations. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 3,500 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. The area has potential for fuel treatment needs. Recreation: Hunting, 

hiking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing are popular recreation uses. The area is well suited 

for beginner and family snowmobile opportunities and has a highly used backcountry ski area 

(Garden City Canyon). New developments in Bear Lake Area have increased use in the area. 

Minerals: Minerals are mostly federally owned except for around 300 acres of State-owned 

minerals. There are no oil and gas leases within the area. Range: Sheep grazing is allowed 

under permit. Water use: The area is within Logan City Municipal watershed. Land uses: A 

fiber optic line traverses the southern boundary. A snowmobile rental and guide service operates 

under permit in the area and also guides horseback trips in the summer. Roads and Trails: 

There are no routes designated as open for motorized use within the area; however, there are 

many user-created roads and ATV routes in the area. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is low to moderate. The natural 

appearance of the area is highly impacted by the appearance of management activities and 

facilities. The area provides limited challenge, solitude and remoteness because of its small size 

and the presence of the Swan Flat Road. Opportunities for primitive recreation are average. 

Special Features or Attractions: The area is important year-round range for deer and summer 

range for elk and a few moose. Lynx linkage habitat is present. The area generally provides 

good habitat for wildlife and sensitive species. A portion is adjacent to a state Wildlife 

Management Area. Beaver Creek drainage has Bonneville cutthroat trout present. One known 

heritage site is present with moderate potential for discovery of other historic and American 

Indian sites. Scenic features are moderate. Bear Lake is visible from numerous vantage points. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 31 

The manageability of the area as wilderness would be difficult because of the Swan Flat Road 

exclusion. 

Need: The area does not significantly contribute to the distribution of wilderness in Northern 

Utah, is not a unique landform, limited in primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities and 

limited in the ability to contribute to research. The area has received limited interest by the 

public, other groups and agencies for wilderness designation. The nearest wilderness is Mount 

Naomi about 7 miles away to the west. The area is 20 miles from Logan and 100 miles from Salt 

Lake. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Swan Creek

Management Area: Bear

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 19,900 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Rock Creek—Green Fork #0419034 

Acres: Gross: 5,600 

Location and Access: Area is about 7 miles east of Hardware Ranch straddling the Cache and 

Rich County lines. It is also about 8 miles west of the community of Randolph. Access is 

primarily from forest roads out of Elk Valley and Curtis Creek or via private and BLM roads 

leaving Randolph. 

Setting: Rounded mountain terrain with predominately east-west drainage patterns characterizes 

the landscape. The forest is a mix of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, sub-alpine fir and Englemann 

spruce. Lower elevations have chokecherry, serviceberry, mountain mahogany and sagebrush. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are an estimated 2,700 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. An adjacent section owned by the State of Utah has had extensive timber 

harvesting. The area is also used for fuel wood gathering. Prescribed fire has been used for aspen 

treatments and fuel reduction. Recreation: The area receives limited recreation use; primarily 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 32 

hunting, hiking and horse riding. There is some snowmobiling and some mountain bike use in 

the area. Access from Old Canyon road along the southern boundary of this area has a large 

amount of dispersed camping especially during the hunting season. Minerals: Minerals are most 

federally owned, but approximately 300 acres are private or state owned. Range: Sheep and 

cattle graze throughout the area in parts of four allotments. The area contains several range 

improvements. Water: Blacksmith Fork, which originates in the area, provides irrigation water. 

Land Uses: A 1985 plan utility corridor crosses much of the northern portion. Roads and 

Trails: The area contains no system roads. There are no routes designated as open for motorized 

use within the area; however, there are many unauthorized roads and ATV routes in the area. 

Road number 26981 is used to access a private forty-acre parcel within this area. There is a trail 

going up Rock Creek. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is low. Evidence of human activity is 

present. The area has little wilderness character. Opportunities for solitude and challenging 

experiences are low. Special Features or Attractions: Locally significant small caves are 

located near the southern boundary. Goshawk, Coopers hawk and other raptors inhabit this area. 

Rock Creek has Bonneville cutthroat trout. The area is lynx linkage habitat. It is important for 

big game summer range. There are no known heritage resource sites, but there is moderate to 

high potential for historic and American Indian sites. The shape of the area presents difficulty in 

manageability. Without acquisition of state land, the area is very narrow with less than 1⁄4 mile 

between old timber sales the state land in section 32. 

Need: Because of manageability difficulties, this area has limited value as wilderness. No public 

interest on this area as wilderness has been received. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Characteristics 

Roadless Area: Rock Creek - Green Fork

Management Area: Bear

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 2,940 2,940 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness Recommendation 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 33 

Name: Sugar Pine #0419031

Acres: Gross: 5,600 

Location and Access: The area is located in the Monte Cristo area, just east of Monte Cristo 

Campground. Most of the access to the area is via Highway 39. 

Setting: Elevations range from 7,600 to 8,900 feet. Key vegetation habitat consists of spruce, fir 

and Douglas fir forest, aspen and grass. The drier, south facing hillsides have a sagebrush and 

grass community. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are an estimated 3,600 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Prescribed burning has been used to improve wildlife habitat. 

Recreation: The area receives limited recreation use, primarily hiking, mountain biking, horse 

riding, fishing, and hunting. There is snowmobile use adjacent to Highway 39. Minerals:

Minerals are federally owned except for about 60 acres of privately owned minerals. Range:

Cattle graze under permit throughout the area. Numerous constructed range improvements such 

as stock ponds, troughs, pipelines, spring developments, water systems, and fences are present. 

Water: Sugar Pine Creek and its tributaries are used primarily for agricultural uses. Land 

Uses: A 1985 Forest Plan utility corridor crosses much of the southern end of the roadless area. 

Roads and Trails: The area has no system roads nor system recreation trails; however, there are 

many user-created routes present. 

Capability: The naturalness of the area is low because of the many range improvements 

present and the many user-created roads. The area is moderate in geological, ecological and 

biological values. Nothing is unique about the area. There are limestone sinks in the Cave Ridge 

area. Evidence of human presence on the landscape detracts from the opportunities for solitude. 

Challenging experiences and primitive recreation opportunities are low. Special Features or 

Attractions: Sugar Pine Creek has Bonneville cutthroat trout. The area may have goshawk and 

boreal toad habitat. Lynx linkage habitat is present. There is summer range for elk, deer, and 

moose. There is an historic mill site along Sugar Pine Creek and some old CCC spring 

developments are present. The area has moderate potential for historic and American Indian 

sites. The manageability of this area as wilderness is very limited. The northern and eastern 

boundaries are adjacent to private land and could increase the complexity for managing the area 

as wilderness. 

Need: The area would not contribute to the national wilderness system; it is a small isolated 

primarily range area, located quite a distance from the Wasatch front. No public comments have 

been received promoting this area as wilderness. The area does provide for some primitive 

recreation such as hunting outside the wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 34 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character

Roadless Area: Sugar Pine

Management Area: Bear

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 4,888 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness Recommendation 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 35 

North Wasatch-Ogden Valley Management Area

Name: Upper South Fork #0419018 

Acres: Gross: 17,300 

Location and Access: The area lies 25 miles east of Ogden and due east of the South Fork of the 

Ogden River. Access is via Forest Service road 039 to Causey Reservoir and Highway 39 at the 

north end near Monte Cristo. 

Setting: Elevations range from 5,700 feet to about 8,000 feet. Rounded ridge tops and very 

steep drainages with sheer cliffs characterize the area’s topography. South and west slope 

vegetation typically includes mountain mahogany, serviceberry, Gambel oak, sagebrush and 

grass, while on north and east slopes there is fir, spruce, maple, snowberry and chokecherry. 

Cottonwood is present in the riparian habitats. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 4,800 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Prescribed burning has been used for habitat improvement and aspen 

regeneration. There is a partnership with Deseret Land and Livestock on the east side for 

prescribed burning. Recreation: The area is popular as undeveloped backcountry. Most of area 

is closed to motorized recreation and snowmobiling, though there is some limited snowmobiling 

on north end. Primary uses include hiking, horseback riding, backpacking, fishing and hunting. 

Day hiking is popular from Causey Reservoir, as well as hunting by foot or horseback. Mountain 

bikes use the Bluebell Flat area. Minerals: About 50% of the minerals in the area are privately 

owned. The area has had some minor mining historically. The area has low potential for oil and 

gas. Range: Sheep graze under permit in the north end. There are some range improvements. 

Water: Water from the area contributes to Ogden City’s water supply, though most of the 

headwaters are on private land. Land Uses: There is a snow-monitoring site operated by the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service in the Bluebell Flat area. Roads and Trails: No system 

roads are present. There are non-motorized trails in Wheatgrass Canyon, and in the Bear Hollow, 

Baldy Ridge, and Cabin Hollow areas. 

Capability: The naturalness of the area is outstanding with little evidence of human intrusion 

except near Causey Reservoir. The scenic quality is enhanced by highly varied vegetation and 

geologic patterns. There are several canyons and caves. Geological, biological, ecological and 

wildlife values are rated moderate to high. Opportunities for solitude are high. The area receives 

low to moderate use. The area provides excellent opportunities for primitive recreation. The 

rugged and wild terrain provides visitors with challenging experiences. Special Features or 

Attractions: The Left Fork of the South Fork of the Ogden River was found eligible in the wild 

and scenic river inventory. The area is an important winter range for deer, elk and moose. Little 

survey work has been completed in this area for species at risk. Small animals and birds 

including raptors are common. The area has a cave inhabited by Townsend big-ear bats. 

Bonneville cutthroat trout are present as is a healthy rainbow trout fishery. Kokanee salmon 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 36 

migrating from Causey Reservoir spawn in creeks in the area. The area is lynx linkage habitat. 

The area has no known heritage sites, but has moderate potential for discovery of historic and 

American Indian sites. Manageability as wilderness is affected by being surrounded on 3 sides 

by private land and having 50% of the minerals are privately owned. These create the potential 

for future non-conforming uses in and around the area. The area is long and narrow and in some 

places down to one mile wide. Forest Service road 201, Bluebell Flat road, has been excluded. 

Need: The area is located about 20 miles away from Ogden. Salt Lake City is about 70 miles 

away. The area is a fair distance from the nearest wilderness areas, with Mount Naomi 50 miles 

to the north and Mount Olympus 60 miles to the south. Some feel there is a need for a designated 

wilderness in the Ogden vicinity. Interest in the area has been moderate with little opposition for 

wilderness designation. The area represents an ecosystem type that is not common compared to 

the other higher elevation wilderness areas on the Forest. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Characteristics 

Roadless Area: Upper South Fork

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 17,200 0 17,200 0 0 14,400 14,200

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 17,200 15,100 17,200 0 0 14,400 14,200

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Willard #0419016 

Acres: Gross: 19,100 

Location and Access: The area lies on the western slope of the Wasatch Range between North 

Ogden and Brigham City. Private lands surrounding most of the area limit and restrict much of 

the access. 

Setting: The area is steep and rugged and dominated by peaks such as Chilly, Ben Lomond, 

Willard and Grizzly. Elevation ranges from approximately 5,500 feet to 9,764 feet. The 

vegetation varies from grass and oak brush in the lower elevations, aspen and maple in the mid-
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 37 

slopes, to patches of fir and alpine in the high country. Rock outcroppings and cliffs intermingle 

between the vegetation. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are an estimated 3,100 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: Ben Lomond is a popular hike. Motorcycles and mountain 

bikes use the Wasatch Crest Trail (part of Great Western Trail). Some snowmobile use occurs on 

the eastern slopes. Minerals: The majority, approximately 75%, of minerals is privately owned. 

A few acres of state mineral rights are present. The area has had historic mining, but currently 

there are no active claims. Range: The area has no grazing allotments. Water: The area is an 

important watershed to local communities. Land Uses: A snow-monitoring site operated by the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service is located on Ben Lomond Peak. A 1985 Forest Plan 

utility corridor crosses the western and southern edges of the roadless area. Avalanche control 

work is done at North Ogden Divide. Roads and Trails: Wasatch Crest Trail allows for 

motorized use. Two short segments of roads allowing motorized use are present: Grizzly Peak 

(FS20092) and Duck Flat (FS26010). There are many user-created roads and ATV routes in the 

area. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment area is rated moderate. There is some 

evidence of human activity with several areas of old watershed terracing present (462 acres). 

Most are not substantially noticeable. Solitude is moderate since the Willard Basin Road nearly 

dissects the area. Noise from avalanche control work detracts from the sense of remoteness in 

the winter. Challenging experiences are present because the terrain is wild and steep. Primitive 

unconfined recreation opportunities are limited. Special Features or Attractions: The area has 

big game winter and summer range. Prime habitat for raptors is present including a significant 

bald eagle roost area. Mountain goats have been introduced to the area. Several populations of 

sensitive and rare plants are present including Burkes draba, Utah ivesia, Wasatch fitweed and 

Wasatch rockcress. Willard Creek was found eligible to be in the Wild and Scenic River 

inventory for its outstanding geological values. Outstanding vistas can be seen from Ben 

Lomond Peak. The area contains a CCC camp and evidence of their work is present in Willard 

Basin. Manageability as wilderness is hampered since most of the area is surrounded by private 

or state land and has eight different parcels of private and state inholdings. 

Need: The area is between wilderness areas to the north (Wellsville Mountains, Mt Naomi) and 

to the south (Mt Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak). Much of the area is similar to these 

wilderness areas, very little uniqueness and would not add much to the wilderness system. The 

area is valuable for providing recreation that is not dependent on the wilderness resource. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 38 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Characteristics 

Roadless Area: Willard

Management Area: North Wasatch-Box Elder

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 18,800 18,400 0 0 0 0 11,400

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 2.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Lewis Peak #0419017 

Acres: Gross: 12,100 

Location and Access: The area is located in the Wasatch Range east of the cities of Ogden and 

North Ogden. Access to the area is via North Ogden Canyon road. 

Setting: Elevations range from 4,599 feet on the western boundary to 8,031 feet on Lewis Peak. 

South and west slopes are vegetated with Gambels oak, mountain mahogany, juniper, sagebrush 

and grass. Maple, fir, aspen, chokecherry and mountain ash characterize north and east slopes. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are an estimated 300 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Prescribed burning has been used for wildlife habitat improvements and 

fuels reduction improvements. Recreation: Use includes hiking, horseback riding, motorcycle 

riding, winter non-motorized recreation, hunting and rock climbing. The area may receive a little 

snowmobiling use on the east side. Several of the trails are motorized and receive heavy 

motorcycle use. The area has been the focus of recent partnership with State of Utah for making 

trail improvements. These trails are some of the few system motorized trail opportunities on the 

Ogden District. The Wasatch Crest Trail, part of the Great Western Trail, traverses the area. 

There are several user-created trails in side canyons near the urban Wasatch Front. The area is 

being considered for possible location of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Minerals: The 

majority, approximately 75%, of minerals is privately owned. There is low oil and gas potential 

and no leases present. Range: The area has no permitted livestock. Water: The area is a 

municipal watershed for Ogden and North Ogden cities. The east side is an important watershed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 39 

for Pineview Reservoir. Land Uses: Utility corridors are present in Ogden and North Ogden 

Canyons and along the Wasatch Front. North Ogden City has a water system in Coldwater 

Canyon which needs maintenance access. There are other small water lines present. Nordic 

Valley Ski Area expansion that would expand into the area has been proposed. Roads and 

Trails: The area contains no roads. Most of the trails in the area are open (Wasatch Crest 2001, 

City View 2040 and Lewis Peak 2041) for motorcycle use. Fire: Proximity to Ogden City has 

caused a high occurrence of fires in the past. Insect and Disease: There are few insect and 

disease problems. 

Capability: The areas naturalness of the environment is excellent. It is rated moderate for 

geological, biological and ecological values. Development at Pineview Reservoir, Nordic Valley 

Ski Area and along the Wasatch Front is visible. Opportunities for solitude are somewhat 

limited, due to inadequate vegetation screening and topography and being within the sights and 

sounds of the city. Challenging experiences and primitive recreation opportunities are excellent, 

due to its wild, rugged terrain along the Wasatch Front with steep canyons and rock cliffs. There 

are flat meadows on top allowing for recreation use on trails. Special Features and 

Attractions: The area is rated moderate for wildlife and TES habitat. The area has habitat for 

peregrine falcon and other raptors. The west side serves as important deer winter range. There 

are also elk, moose and various small animals and birds in the area. The area has rare plant, 

broadleaf beardtongue present. Scenic values are above average. There are no known heritage 

resources sites. The area has moderate potential for historic and American Indian sites. 

Manageability: Most the area is surrounded by private land. The extent of private mineral 

ownership also hampers potential manageability as wilderness. 

Need: The area is adjacent to the city of Ogden. The nearest wilderness is the Wellsville 

Mountains, about 20 miles to the north and Mount Olympus, about 45 miles to the south. The 

area has received limited public comments on recommending the area for wilderness. The 

ecosystem types are represented in other existing wilderness areas. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Characteristics

Roadless Area: Lewis Peak

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 12,100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 12,100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness Recommendation 

(miles) 16.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 40 

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 0 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Burch Creek #0419019

Acres: Gross: 6,900 

Location and Access: The area is located in the Wasatch Range just east of the towns of 

Ogden, South Ogden and Uintah. Access is from the Wasatch Front, Interstate 84 and State 

Highway 226 to Snow Basin Ski Area. 

Setting: The country is steep with varied geologic and vegetation patterns. South and west slope 

vegetation typically includes mountain mahogany, serviceberry, Gambel oak, sagebrush and 

grass. Douglas fir, subalpine fir, Englemann spruce, maple, snowberry and chokecherry are 

found on the north and east slopes. Elevations range from 4,500 feet to 9,572 foot Mount Ogden.

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 100 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Prescribed fire has been used for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

Recreation: Use includes day hiking, some backpacking, mountain biking, non-motorized 

winter recreation and hunting. Ski area development along the ridgeline is directly adjacent to 

the area. Minerals: The majority, approximately 65%, of minerals is privately owned. There is 

no known mineral potential or current activity. The area is not leased for oil and gas. Range:

There are no permitted livestock. Water: The area is a valuable municipal watershed to Ogden 

and Uintah cities. Land Uses: The feasibility of a tram from Weber State University to 

Strawberry Peak has been studied though is not currently being considered. A 1985 Forest plan 

utility corridor crosses the southern portion above Interstate 84. Mount Ogden, directly adjacent 

to the area, has a communication site, which can require helicopter landings. Roads and Trails: 

The Beus Canyon Trail, ascending Mount Ogden, is part of the Great Western Trail system. An 

additional length of the Great Western Trail is proposed in the upper ridgeline area from 

Strawberry Peak to Ogden Canyon. A portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, which allows 

mountain bikes, has been completed between Beus and Strong Canyons near the urban interface. 

Fire: Fire occurrence and danger is high near Ogden City and in Weber Canyon. High value 

homes are located not far from the area. Insect and Disease: There is no disease or insect 

infestation. 

Capability: A mostly natural environment is present. In some locations in the roadless area, a 

visitor’s sense of solitude is diminished from the sights and sounds of nearby development. It is 

moderate for providing biological and wildlife values. Opportunities for primitive recreation

are moderate, limited somewhat by the size of the area and screening from vegetation. The area 

provides a unique, unconfined experience for urban users in the Ogden area. The rocky, steep, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 41 

rugged terrain provides challenging experiences. Special Features or Attractions: Peregrine 

falcon habitat exists. Lower Weber Canyon is important deer and moose winter range. A variety 

of small birds and mammals exist. Burch Creek has rainbow trout. There is a Forest Service 

sensitive plant, Burkes draba present. The area has one known heritage site and moderate 

potential for historic and American Indian sites. Manageability of the area as wilderness is 

somewhat hindered given it is surrounded by urban development, private land and is adjacent to 

the Snowbasin Ski area. 

Need: The area is located adjacent to south Ogden. The nearest wilderness area is Mount 

Olympus, about 40 miles to the south. Much of the area is very similar to other Wasatch front 

wilderness areas. The area received few public comments, although there is high interest in the 

area because of nearby Olympic developments and the proposed tram. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects toWilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Burch Creek

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roadless/Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1

 6,900 6,900 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Francis #0419010 

Acres: Gross: 14,800

Between the Draft and Final EIS, it was decided to combine the North Francis Roadless Area 

with what had been called the Middle Francis and South Francis Roadless Areas for the purposes 

of consideration for Wilderness. In the DEIS the Middle (3,294 acres) and South Francis (3,372 

acres) had been considered too small to meet minimum size criteria for roadless (5,000 acres). 

Upon further examination the interdisciplinary team determined that the cultural barriers (minor 

powerlines and blocks of private lands of similar roadless character) which had been considered 

area separators during preparation of the DEIS did not significantly interrupt the predominantly 

undeveloped nature of this landscape and that the Middle and South areas should be combined 

with North Francis. The nature of the combined roadless area is described below.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 42 

Location and Access: The area lies mostly on the western slope of the Wasatch Range east of 

Layton, south of Interstate 84, north of Farmington Canyon Road, and west of Francis Peak 

Road. Trails from Fernwood Picnic Area, Adams Canyon and the Great Western trail segment 

from Francis Peak Radar Station can access area. 

Setting: The topography is steep and rugged, with elevations ranging from 4,500 feet near the 

valley to 9,707 feet at Thurston Peak. Drainages such as Hobbs Canyon, Adams Canyon, Bair 

Canyon, and Shepard Creek cut through the area. Vegetation at lower elevations consists of 

Gambels oak, maple and grasses. Aspen and fir grow in patches on higher slopes, along with a 

few remnants of whitebark pine. The Great Salt Lake Valley, Antelope Island, Weber River 

Valley and Morgan Valley are visible from many vantage points. 

 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are 140 acres of tentatively suited timber within the 

area. Recreation: Use includes hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, hunting and some 

winter recreation activities. A popular hike is from the Francis Peak Federal Aviation radar 

facility in the south along the Great Western Trail to the top of 9,707 foot Thurston Peak. This 

portion of the trail also receives some mountain bike use. The Great Western Trail also receives 

use out of Fernwood Picnic Area. Adams Canyon is another recreation trail with a trailhead on 

the Wasatch Front. Portions of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail near Fernwood currently exist or 

are being planned. Other canyons such as Hobbs Canyon also receive some dispersed recreation 

use. Minerals: The majority of minerals, about 2/3, are privately owned. Range: Sheep graze 

under permit on the Morgan County portion. Water: The area serves as municipal watershed 

for local communities. Land Uses: A portion of the area is within the permitted area for 

heliskiing. A 1985 Forest plan utility corridor crosses the western portion of the area. Roads and 

Trails: The area contains no roads, but has some recreation trails. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment remains intact with little influence of human 

activities. The southern portions of the area are more human influenced than in the north due to 

the presence of the adjacent roads and facilities in Farmington Canyon and along the road to 

Francis Peak. Opportunities for solitude and challenging experiences are generally good though 

in a few locations in the roadless area, a visitor’s sense of solitude is diminished from the sights 

and sounds of nearby development. Special Features or Attractions: Thurston Peak is the 

highest point in Davis County. There is habitat for peregrine falcon and bald eagle. Summer 

and winter range are present for deer, elk and few moose along with the usual variety of small 

birds and animals. The area has some of the most remote and spectacular scenic vistas from the 

ridgeline in Davis County. The area has moderate potential for discovery of heritage sites of 

historic water control, logging, and American Indian sites. Manageability is generally good in 

the northern section, but decreases as one moves toward the south. Private land surrounds much 

of the area. 

Need: The area is located adjacent to the Davis County communities of Fruit Heights, Kaysville 

and Layton. The nearest wilderness area is Mount Olympus, about 30 miles to the south. Much 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 43 

of the ecosystem types of the area are represented in other wilderness areas. The area received 

limited public comment on its wilderness potential. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Francis 

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 8,100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 14,300 14,300 0 0 0 4,800 4,800

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6.1

Name: Farmington #0419009

Acres: Gross: 10,900 

Location and Access: It is situated on the western slope of the Wasatch Range northeast of 

Bountiful in Davis County. The area is bordered by improved roads on three sides: Ward Canyon 

Road on the south, Skyline Drive along the eastern edge at the mountain crest, and Farmington 

Canyon Road on the north. Along the western side is the urban Wasatch Front. 

Setting: The topography is steep and rugged with elevations ranging from 4,500 feet at the base 

to over 9,000 feet near the Skyline Road. Sagebrush, gambel oak, and maple vegetate the lower 

elevation slopes. Aspen and fir are found at higher elevations. The ridge near Skyline Drive is 

windswept and much of it consists of grass, rock and pockets of shrubs and trees including aspen 

and subalpine fir. 

Availability: Timber: There are an estimated 1,000 acres of tentatively suited timber within 

the area. Recreation: Use is primarily day hiking with increasing dispersed camping. There are 

non-motorized winter recreation activities such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and 

snowboarding. Snowmobiles access portions of the area especially near Skyline Drive and along 

Farmington and Ward Canyon Roads. The area receives heavy hunting use and has some limited 

fishing opportunities. Minerals: The majority of minerals, approximately 60%, are privately 

owned. Range: Some sheep grazing is permitted in the area. Water: The area is valuable 

municipal watershed for the surrounding communities. A portion of the Davis County 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 44 

Experimental Watershed is within the area. Land uses: Part of this area is currently under 

permit for guided helicopter skiing opportunities. A utility corridor from the 1985 Forest Plan 

crosses some of the area as does the Davis Aqueduct. Roads and Trails: There are no roads 

except for a few remnants. There are no routes designated as open for motorized use within the 

area; however, there are many unauthorized roads and ATV routes in the area, particularly near 

the urban interface and off the main roads surrounding the area. Recreation trails exist in Parrish 

Creek and Farmington Canyon. There are a few trails up other canyons such as Rick’s Creek and 

Steed Canyon. The proposed Bonneville Shoreline Trail could cross portions of the area along 

its western boundary. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment and appearance of the area is good, but 

generally wilderness characteristics are lacking. Extensive areas of terracing completed for 

watershed improvement are visible along the Skyline Drive just outside the area. Its evidence 

varies by location, season and lighting. A small area of terracing is within the roadless area itself. 

This element of human alteration of the landscape can affect one’s sense of remoteness. In some 

locations in the roadless area, a visitor’s sense of solitude is diminished from the sights and 

sounds of nearby development. Challenging experiences and primitive recreation are 

somewhat limited. Special Features or Attractions: The roadless area contains the 167 acre 

Morris Creek Research Natural Area (RNA), which was set aside as a benchmark area that was 

not impacted from past grazing. The area contains habitat for Peregrine falcon and goshawk. The 

area is important summer and winter range for deer, elk, moose and small game. Near the 

Skyline Drive, are ponds called Farmington Lakes, which have habitat for beaver, ducks, and 

dragonflies. There are no known heritage sites, but some prehistoric rock art has been found near 

the area. The area has moderate potential for discovery of historic logging, water control, 

recreation, and American Indian sites. Manageability of the boundary would be fair primarily 

because the development along the Front and the popularity of Skyline Drive. There is one 

intrusion of narrow private land on the south end. 

Need: The area is within 15 to 20 miles of Salt Lake City adjacent to the South Davis 

communities of Centerville and Farmington. The nearest wilderness area is about 20 miles to the 

south (Mount Olympus). Public interest in the area as wilderness has been low. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Farmington

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 1,200 1,200 200 200 200 1,200 1,200

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 45 

Recommendation (miles) 

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6.1

Name: Hogsback #0419026

Acres: Gross: 7,900 

Location and Access: The area is on the eastern slope of the Wasatch Range in Morgan County 

5 miles east of Farmington and 7 miles southwest of Morgan. Primary access is by Skyline Drive 

and a segment of the Great Western Trail near Bountiful or Farmington. The Farmington Flats 

road that leaves Skyline Drive also reaches the area. 

Setting: Much of the area is steep and rugged. The area is known for its ridgeline shaped like a 

“hog’s back” in the distance. This ridge is primarily grass, rock and scattered patches of shrubs. 

Elevation for the area ranges from approximately 7,000 feet to 9,259-foot Bountiful Peak. 

Vegetation consists of grass, sage, and patches of shrubs, aspen and conifer. The ridge near 

Skyline Drive is windswept with rock outcroppings and remnants of a few whitebark pines. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are an estimated 2,300 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: The primary recreation use is hunting. There is some day 

hiking, dispersed camping, snowmobiling and OHV use. Minerals: Half of the minerals are 

privately owned. Range: Sheep grazing is permitted in much of the area. Water: The area 

provides water for communities in Morgan Valley. Land Uses: A 1985 plan utility corridor 

crosses the southern boundary. A portion of the area is within the permitted area for heliskiiing. 

Roads and Trails: There are three lightly used trails (Wasatch Crest, Arthur’s Fork and Deep 

Creek). 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is moderate. Areas that have been terraced 

for watershed improvement are visible along the Skyline Drive and Farmington Flats areas just 

outside the area. Solitude is moderate because of the low use in the area, but is sometimes 

affected by noise from nearby motorized recreation use in the Farmington Flats area. 

Challenging experiences are moderate. Special Features or Attractions: From the ridgeline, 

you can see vistas of the Great Salt Lake and Morgan Valley areas. The area has good habitat 

for deer. There are a few elk and moose that use the area as well as small game, grouse and 

raptors. There is a rare plant, the broadleaf beardtongue, present. There are no known heritage 

resource sites, but the area has moderate potential for historic and American Indian sites. 

Manageability is affected because of very narrow portions of the area such as on the Hogsback, 

which is surrounded by private land. The area between Farmington Flats and Bountiful Peak has 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 46 

been excluded resulting in a difficult to manage boundary. The roadless area almost surrounds 

Farmington Flats FS road 084. 

Need: The area is located near communities of Bountiful, Farmington and Morgan. The nearest 

wilderness is Mount Olympus about 15 miles to the south. It offers limited value as wilderness 

when compared to other nearby areas. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Hogsback

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 6,900 6,900 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6.1 

Name: Mueller Park #0419038 

Acres: Gross: 7,700 

This is a new roadless area in the FEIS that did not appear in the DEIS. It was identified by the 

public during the review of the DEIS and confirmed by the Forest Service for the forest plan 

revision. 

Location and Access: It is situated on the western slopes of the Wasatch Range, east of the 

communities of North Salt Lake and Bountiful, along the Salt Lake and Davis County line. Much 

of the access is from the Mueller Park recreation area near Bountiful. Some access also occurs 

from North Canyon, the Great Western Trail and north of the State Capitol area. 

Setting: The topography in the area is steep and rugged. The Sessions Mountains area is very 

rugged and remote. Elevations range from 5,600 feet along the Wasatch Front to around 9,000 

feet below Grandview Peak. There are stands of deciduous trees along the lower stream canyons 

that provide brilliantly colored examples of exceptionally large maples and deciduous trees. 

There are also some secluded examples of old growth Douglas fir trees that have never been cut. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 47 

These Douglas fir and Gambel Oak communities are relatively undisturbed. The City Creek 

recreation managed by Salt Lake City lies to the south of the area and is popular for hiking, 

biking and picnicking. A Forest Service trailhead and picnic area exists at Mueller Park. 

Availability: Much of the area is currently being managed as roadless. Steep terrain has limited 

chances for additional development. Development of the private lands along the Wasatch Front 

are limiting access on the western side. Vegetation: There are no known populations of rare 

plants in the area. Timber stands are small and no timber harvest will occur in this area. 

Recreation: The area near Mueller Park recreation area receives high use. In 2001, the 

Grandview Peak Trail was part of the Adventure Challenge Race special use event. A portion of 

the Great Western trail crosses the area in the Sessions Mountains and the annual Wasatch 100 

race special use event uses this route. Use in the area includes day hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, hunting, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Motorcycles are allowed on 

the Mueller Park and North Canyon trails. The Session Mountains portion has had substantial 

illegal ATV abuse. This has also occurred in the North Canyon area. A portion of the Heleski 

permit lies within the Session Mountains. Minerals: Approximately 46% of the area has private 

mineral rights. There are no existing oil and gas leases in the area. There is an inactive mine 

(Burro Mine) on the private land parcel included in the roadless area. Wildlife: The area is 

important winter range for deer, elk and moose. The area contains habitat for Peregrine Falcon 

and Goshawks. Range: There may be some old contoured terracing and seeding areas in the 

upper reaches from the 1930’s to mitigate past overgrazing. Area contains parts of the Mill 

Canyon and Shingle Mill sheep allotments in the upper reaches of the area that are currently 

open, but in non-use. Water: The area is watershed for Bountiful City. There are some minor 

water developments in the canyons in the area. Roads and Trails and Utility Lines: The Kern 

River gas pipeline represents part of the northern boundary. The area contains about one mile of 

the non-constructed Rudy’s Flat 4x4 road 80285. Other system roads have been excluded from

the roadless area by a cherry-stem boundary. System trails include Mueller Park (Mill Creek), 

North Canyon and Grandview Peak and Great Western. Insect and Disease: No major insect 

and disease problem has been identified. Fire: Fire danger is high along the Front, because of 

fuels located not far from development and high visitor use in the lower reaches. Land 

Ownership: There is a 79 acre parcel of private land included within the roadless area. Heritage 

Resources: The area has had only limited surveys completed in the past, and there are no known 

heritage sites recorded. There is a moderate probability that cultural resources are present, 

particularly those related to early settlement of the valley and Native American sites. 

Capability: The naturalness of the area and its integrity and appearance of the area are good. 

Remote areas in the upper portion of the area like Willey, Howard and Frederick Hollows offer 

secluded opportunities for solitude. Elephant Rock from the Mueller Park Trail provides

breathtaking views of the Wasatch Front. Overall wilderness characteristics are average, 

opportunities for primitive recreation moderate while challenging experiences range from 

average in the lower reaches to high in upper pockets of the area. The Wasatch Front urban 

development is visible and audible from much of the area. Manageability of a boundary for 

wilderness is fair. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 48 

 

Need: The Mueller Park roadless area is located adjacent to the communities of North Salt Lake 

and Bountiful whose residents utilize the area for day Forest recreation. The nearest existing 

wilderness area is about 10 miles to the south (Mount Olympus). Much of the roadless area is 

similar to other roadless areas in Davis County. Public interest in this area as a roadless or 

wilderness area has been low, as witnessed by its late identification in the roadless process. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mueller Park

Management Area: North Wasatch-Ogden Valley

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 5,300 3,800 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 49 

Central Wasatch Management Area 

Name: Red Butte #0419037 

Acres: Gross: 6,200 

This is a new roadless area in the FEIS that did not appear in the DEIS. It was identified by the 

public during the review of the DEIS and confirmed by the Forest Service for the forest plan 

revision.

Location and Access: It is situated on the Western slope of the Wasatch Range northeast of Salt 

Lake City in Salt Lake County. It is located NW of Emigration Canyon, SE of City Creek and 

west of the Pinecrest area. 

Setting: The topography is steep, rugged and brushy with elevations ranging from 5020 feet 

near Red Butte Reservoir to over 8,200 feet near the crest. The area has four distinct plant 

communities – riparian, grass-forb, oak-maple and coniferous. The area contains a lower 

elevation type that is not typical of nearby existing higher elevation wilderness areas. There are 

excellent examples of undisturbed gambel oak communities with maple and grass mixtures, one 

reason for its RNA status. There are a few scattered patches of aspen and fir pockets in the upper 

elevations. The University of Utah and Red Butte Gardens are located just west of the roadless 

area. The National Historic route for the Pony Express and Mormon Pioneers lies to the South in 

Emigration Canyon. 

Availability: Vegetation: Red Butte is known for its high amount of botanical diversity. The 

area has a high number of known rare plant species including Hopkins Tower Mustard, Wasatch 

Rockcress, Small Yellow Lady’s Slipper, Utah Fleabane, Broadleaf Penstemon and Beckwiths 

Violet. Timber harvest is not allowed and has not occurred since the 1800’s. Recreation: Access 

for recreation to the RNA portion is not allowed. There is some hiking and mountain biking on 

the Skyline Trail as well as non-system trails such as Mount Wire and Georges Hollow. In the 

past, Red Butte reservoir was once used as a fishing location open to disabled veterans. Limited 

hunting in the RNA has been allowed in the past if the Utah DWR determined that conditions 

warranted it. The RNA was open to the general public for recreation on some days in 1987 and 

1988, but it resulted in thousands of visitors and led to trampling of much vegetation along the 

main road. Minerals: There are no existing oil and gas leases in the area, and the area has no 

private minerals. The area is reported to have a unique combination of sedimentary strata that 

includes the Wasatch and Morrison formations accompanied by the Mississippian Humbug 

formation and possibly the Permian Arcturus formations. Red sandstone was quarried from the 

area starting in 1848 and up until 1940, especially in the Quarry Canyon area. Fossils have been 

found in the area such as in nearby Cephlapod Gulch. Wildlife: The area is very important for 

deer, elk and moose winter range. Bobcat and Mountain Lion have occasionally been observed. 

The area contains Colorado Cutthroat Trout. Red Butte Reservoir is used as a breeding location 

for the endangered fish, the June Sucker. Beaver were once native to the area and were 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 50 

reintroduced in 1928, however they were removed in 1982 by the army because of possible 

giardia contamination in the water supply. With the loss of beaver dams, floods destroyed much 

of the riparian and marsh habitat in 1983, resulting in declines in associated biotic species. The 

Forest Service had proposed in 1991 to reintroduce them, but this was not allowed, because of 

concerns that beavers could create problems if they migrated to Red Butte Gardens or 

Emigration Canyon areas. A total of 51 species of mammals should hypothetically occur in Red 

Butte, of which 39 are known to occur. There have been 106 species of birds identified including 

32 permanent residents, 44 summer residents and 30 migrants. Range: As a protected watershed 

for much of its history, for the most part the area has been kept free of grazing. Water: The area 

has not been used as culinary water since 1991. Prior to that it was used as a water source for 

Fort Douglas. RNA designation was given as the canyon was identified as one of the few 

remaining undisturbed watersheds in the Great Basin. Prior to that, the U.S. Army protected the 

area for its watershed and water quality. Roads and Trails: The upper part of Red Butte road 

80253b was originally constructed but, approximately 4.5 miles up from the RNA entrance the 

road has now been closed for many years (there are signs and berms). It has reverted back to trail 

like conditions. This section is not being re-constructed or maintained neither for motorized use 

nor as a system trail. Parleys Fork 4x4 road 80224, except for the lower 1⁄4 mile has also reverted 

back to trail like conditions. Mount Wire is a communication special use site, which could 

require motorized access for maintenance. There are several other old trails and road remnants 

that have reverted to trails within the area. Insect and Disease: No serious insect and disease 

problems. 

Capability: The RNA designation denotes an area that has been set aside, because it contains 

unusual or unique features of substantial value to society and will be managed as a living 

museum and biological library. Consequently, the naturalness of the area is very high. Since 

access to the area is controlled/limited, the area has high solitude values, despite being adjacent 

to a high-populated urban area. Much of the area is quite rugged and trail-less with very brushy 

oak stands making route navigation a challenging experience. The area has high values for 

ecological research. The University of Utah Biology Department has conducted studies in the 

past in the area. Research has included physiological adaptation, nutrient cycling impacts from 

airborne (air pollution, acid rain), vegetation distribution and beaver population effects. Current 

opportunities for primitive recreation are almost always are not allowed, because of the RNA 

status. Manageability of the boundary for possible wilderness designation would be excellent, 

because of the current RNA boundaries. 

Need: Red Butte is located adjacent to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. The nearest existing 

wilderness area is about 5 miles to the south (Mount Olympus). Public interest in the area as 

roadless or wilderness has been low as witnessed by its late identification in the roadless process, 

but this may be because of the fact that it was already protected as a RNA. Continued RNA 

protection has high public interest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 51 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Red Butte

Management Area: Central Wasatch

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 4,600 3,200 3,200 6,000 5,200 5,300 4,800

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles)2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles)2

 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6 + 3.1 and 3.1a. For this roadless area, 3.1 and 3.1a acres within the proposed RNA 

are also considered as protecting Wilderness Character.1

2. Red Butte is currently managed as a Research Natural Area. Public recreation is not allowed and any existing 

roads and trails are not open for motorized or non-motorized use. 

Name: Mount Aire #0419008 

Acres: Gross: 9,700 

Location and Access: The Mount Aire Roadless Area is located in the Wasatch Range east of 

Salt Lake City, bordered by Parleys and Lambs Canyon on the north and Mill Creek Canyon on 

the south. Access to the area is via the county road in Mill Creek Canyon, the Lambs Canyon 

Road, and Interstate 80 in Parleys Canyon. 

Setting: The area is composed of primarily brush-covered steep slopes ranging to about 8,600 

feet in elevation. Mount Aire and Grandeur Peak are the most prominent features. Vegetation at 

lower elevations includes maple, gambel oak and box elder with some aspen and fir are present 

at higher elevations. 

Availability: Vegetation Treatment: There are an estimated 500 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: The area is a very popular dispersed recreation area. 

Almost all the hiking is day use. There are some limited cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

opportunities. The Pipeline Trail, paralleling a 1⁄4 mile above the canyon is one of most popular 

mountain bike trail opportunities near Salt Lake. Use is extremely heavy on the Pipeline, 

Rattlesnake Gulch, Mount Aire and Grandeur Peak Trails. Burch Hollow and Lambs Canyon 

Trails receive lower use. Part of the area’s popularity can be attributed to the fact it is one of the 

few areas in the Salt Lake portion of the Wasatch Front where dogs are allowed. Use is very low 

off the system trails due to brush and steep rocky slopes. The area does have some limited 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 52 

hunting. Minerals: Minerals are federally owned. There are no known significant mineral 

deposits. Range: There are no grazing allotments in the area. Water: Part of the area is in 

Salt Lake City municipal watershed, but currently it is not for culinary water purposes. North 

side drainages contribute to the Mountain Dell Reservoir, while south side drainages contribute 

to Mill Creek. Land Uses: The eastern side is currently under permit for guided helicopter 

skiing opportunities. There is a utility corridor from the 1985 Plan, which crosses the northwest 

corner of the area. Roads and Trails: The area contains no roads. All trails are nonmotorized. 

Capability: The naturalness of the area has been somewhat affected in heavy trail use areas 

but the natural integrity is intact otherwise. Air pollution, noise pollution and visual views of 

urban development affect this area. The narrowness and proximity to development can affect the 

solitude available to the visitor. Noise from traffic, Mill Creek visitors and Lambs Canyon 

summer home users is often heard. Solitude opportunities are very low along the trail corridors 

year round; however off trail visitor can experience outstanding opportunities for solitude. The 

area can present very challenging experiences off trail. An example is the northern ridgeline of 

Mill Creek Canyon, which is very brushy and rocky and requires route-finding skills. Special 

Features or Attractions: The area has a rare plant, the Wasatch Daisy. The area has habitat for 

peregrine falcon and golden eagle. The area is important summer and winter range for deer, elk, 

moose, and small game. There is moderate potential for discovery of historical mining and 

American Indian sites. Manageability is somewhat affected by the narrowness of the area 

(down to 1⁄2 mile in places), having a large portion of the area surrounded by private land and 

being adjacent to the heavily-used Mill Creek Canyon. 

 

Need: The area is adjacent to Salt Lake City. There are three other wilderness areas within close 

proximity of Mount Aire. Although somewhat similar to nearby wilderness areas, Mount Aire 

does offer some diversity in wildlife and lower elevation habitat. This area may have similar 

watershed protection needs in the future as the other nearby wilderness areas. Salt Lake City 

Public Utilities is currently not pushing for wilderness designation for this area; however the area 

has strong local support from the public and environmental groups on having the area designated 

as wilderness or at least roadless undeveloped management. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mount Aire

Management Area: Central Wasatch

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 9,400 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 9,400 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 53 

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Mount Olympus #0419007 

Acres: Gross: 10,000 

Location and Access: The area is located on western slope of Wasatch Range between Big 

Cottonwood and Mill Creek Canyons. The area is composed of three separate parcels. Most of 

the area is east of the existing Mt Olympus wilderness. The two remaining parcels are Neffs 

Canyon and areas along the Mill Creek and Big Cottonwood corridors. Access to the area is 

provided by State Highway 152 (Big Cottonwood) and county road in Mill Creek Canyon. 

Setting: Elevations range from about 6,000 feet to 10,246 feet on Gobblers Knob. Much of the 

area has steep rugged slopes with alpine scenery in the higher elevations. Douglas fir and 

subalpine fir grow in scattered patches on northern exposures and higher elevations. Other 

vegetation includes Gambel oak, maple, mountain mahogany, aspen and box elder. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 2,500 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: The area is a very popular year round recreation area. Uses 

include hiking, backpacking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and some limited hunting. There 

is no motorized recreation, except for helicopter skiing in the winter. Most trails receive 

extremely heavy recreation use. Lake Desolation and a climb to the top of Gobblers Knob are 

popular hikes. The area has some of the best high elevation mountain biking opportunities in the 

Salt Lake area. Trails such as Dog Lake, Big Water, Mill D North, Desolation, and Great 

Western receive a high amount of mountain biking use. Minerals: The majority of minerals are 

federally owned except for 450 acres. The area has evidence of past mining activity, but there is 

little evidence of current mining activity. It is a mineralized area and has the potential for mineral 

reserves. Range: There is no permitted domestic livestock grazing. Water: The area is part of 

the municipal watershed for Salt Lake City. Neffs Canyon has potential for water development. 

Land Uses: Mount Olympus Water has a long-term special use permit for access rights to their 

water system. Parts of the area such as Alexander Basin/Gobblers Knob are under permit for 

guided helicopter skiing opportunities. These areas were excluded in the 1984 Wilderness Act 

because of this use. Roads and Trails: The area contains several non-motorized trails including 

the Great Western Trail on the eastern edge. The trail to Alexander Basin is one of the steepest in 

the Wasatch Range gaining 2000 feet in 1.5 miles. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment has been influenced little by human intrusion. 

The naturalness and associated values are high in the Alexander Basin/Gobblers Knob area and 

moderate in other portions of the area. Solitude is mostly moderate throughout the area but 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 54 

diminishes in areas near the Mill Creek and Big Cottonwood Canyon corridors. More solitude is 

offered in the interior and eastern portions especially in off-trail areas and in Alexander Basin. 

Development along the Wasatch Front is highly visible from the western portion of the area. 

Opportunities for primitive recreation are excellent. Special Features or Attractions: Scenery 

and views are outstanding in much of the area. The country around Alexander’s Basin/Gobblers 

Knob is very steep and rugged, a geologic wonder of glaciation. Neffs Canyon has a deep 

limestone cave, managed for protection of cave resources. The area has habitat for Peregrine 

Falcon and golden eagle. There is summer and winter range for deer, elk, moose, bear and 

transplanted mountain goats. Forest Service sensitive plant Wasatch jamesia, and rare plants 

Wasatch shooting-star, and Wasatch and broadleaf beardtongue are present. The area has one 

known heritage site and has moderate potential for discovery of mining and American Indian 

sites. The manageability of the area as wilderness could be difficult along Mill Creek and Big 

Cottonwood because of heavy recreation developments and the Porter Fork summer homes area. 

The proximity of the Porter Fork development could create potential conflicting uses as 

evidenced by the occasional snowmobile trespass from this area into the existing wilderness. 

There is one private inholding near Beartrap Fork. 

Need: The area is adjacent to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. It is contiguous to the existing 

Mount Olympus Wilderness area. Across Big Cottonwood Highway is the Twin Peaks 

Wilderness area. The area has a lot of public interest in wilderness especially in the Alexander 

Basin/Gobblers Knob area. Many have emphasized watershed protection, ecosystem and wildlife 

values and primitive recreation needs in the vicinity of urban populations. Some would prefer 

heliskiing and mountain biking opportunities continue. Local environmental groups and Salt 

Lake City Public Utilities recommend much of this area as wilderness. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Mount Olympus

Management Area: Central Wasatch

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 9,300 2,200 2,000 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 9,300 2,200 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 55 

Name: Twin Peaks #0419006 

Acres: Gross: 6,500 

Location and Access: The Twin Peaks Roadless Area is located in the Wasatch Range between 

Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood Canyons, west of Brighton and east of Salt Lake City 

and is composed of eight units. Four are less than 100 acres and three are smaller than 300 acres. 

Most of the area is within one unit of 5,600 acres and includes Mineral Fork, Days Fork and 

Silver Fork Canyons. Included in the Twin Peaks Roadless Area are Reed and Benson Ridge, 

Greens Basin, Mats Basin, and the area west of Kessler Peak. Along the Wasatch Front, the 

smaller parcels include Deaf Smith Canyon, the mouth of Ferguson Canyon and an area above 

the Little Cottonwood Park and Ride Lot. Access to the area is via State Highways 152 and 210 

or from Wasatch Boulevard. 

Setting: Much of the topography is rugged and steep, with peaks towering up to 11,000 feet 

(east of Superior Peak). The vegetation varies from maple, box elder, and Gambel oak to heavy 

stands of subalpine fir, aspen and some Douglas fir. There is also steep rock slope, riparian 

habitat, as well as subalpine and alpine country in the upper reaches. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 800 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: Day hiking, cross-country and backcountry skiing, 

snowshoeing, and snowboarding are popular, especially in Mineral Fork, Days Fork and Silver 

Fork. The Mineral Fork trail is open to ATVs (vehicles less than 50 inches wide), motorcycles 

and mountain bikes. Motorized use is generally low except during hunting season. Use is low in 

Deaf Smith Canyon because access is difficult with housing developments adjacent to the forest 

boundary. Part of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is proposed to cross near Ferguson and Deaf 

Smith Canyons. Minerals: The area has had mining activities in the past and some interest in 

prospecting continues. Some of the mining claims are still active and could warrant future 

access needs. The area does show evidence of mineralization. Most of the minerals are federally 

owned though in Deaf Smith Canyon and above Little Cottonwood Park and Ride there is 

substantial acreage of privately- owned mineral rights. There is one mining claim in lower Deaf 

Smith Canyon. There are no oil and gas leases and the potential is low. Range: There is no 

permitted domestic livestock grazing. Water: The area is part of the Salt Lake City municipal 

watershed. Land Uses: Parts of the area are under permit for guided helicopter skiing 

opportunities. These areas were excluded in the 1984 Wilderness Act because of this use. 

Solitude Ski area has expressed interest in expanding its downhill ski development into Silver 

Fork. Roads and Trails: It includes (or parts of) Mineral Fork, Days Fork, Silver Fork, Deaf 

Smith Canyon, and Ferguson Canyon Trails. 

Capability: The area has moderate values for naturalness and environmental values with 

interior areas providing higher values. Much of the area is similar to the existing wilderness area. 

Opportunities for solitude and serenity are affected by the nearness to the Salt Lake Valley 

metropolitan area and the heavy recreation corridors of Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. 

During the winter months solitude is also affected by helicopter noise at some times in some 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 56 

areas. The steep and off-trail country however provides diverse and challenging experiences

and primitive recreation. Deaf Smith Canyon with its limited access and rugged, remote terrain 

offers excellent solitude and challenge. Special Features or Attractions: The area has 

renowned examples of glaciations. Little Cottonwood Creek was found eligible to be included in 

the wild and scenic river inventory. The area contains habitat for peregrine falcon and golden 

eagles. Little North Deaf Smith Canyon does have the sensitive Bonneville cutthroat trout. The 

parcels of roadless along the Wasatch Front provide important winter big game habitat. Many 

plant species of concern are present. They include Garrett’s bladderpod, Wasatch Jamesia, 

Garrett’s daisy, Wasatch fitweed and broadleaf beardtongue. The area contains sites of historic 

mining activities. There is high potential for additional mining sites and some potential for 

American Indian sites. Manageability of the area as wilderness could be affected by the seven 

parcels of private land included, primarily in the narrow corridor area (only 1⁄2 mile wide in 

places) by Montreal Hill and west of Reed and Benson Ridge. The development potential of 

these lands is limited because of the area’s steepness and county land use restrictions. Two of 

these parcels are owned by Salt Lake City for watershed values. Private mineral ownership of 

these parcels, as well as other tracts in the Deaf Smith Canyon and above the Little Cottonwood 

Canyon Park and Ride could create conflicting uses should they ever be developed.

Need: The closest portions of the area are adjacent to Wasatch Front communities. It is 

contiguous to the existing Twin Peaks Wilderness Area. People who support this area for 

wilderness see a strong need for the primitive recreation opportunities provided in close vicinity 

to urban populations. They also see the need to manage these areas to protect them from 

impacts. The area has strong public support from the City of Salt Lake (for watershed 

protection), as well as local environmental organizations for wilderness designation. Former 

Congressman Cook studied the area for possible wilderness designation. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Twin Peaks

Management Area: Central Wasatch

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 5,700 2,300 500 0 0 0 0

Roadless/Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1 5,700 2,300 500 0 0 1,600 1,600

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 2.7 2.7 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0.1 0.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 57 

Name: White Pine #0419004 

Acres: Gross: 1,900 

Location and Access: The area is located in the Wasatch Range south of Little Cottonwood 

Canyon and west of Snowbird Ski Area. The northern boundary is the Little Cottonwood 

Highway, the eastern boundary is Snowbird Ski Area, the southern boundary is the Uinta 

National Forest and the western boundary is the Lone Peak Wilderness. Access to White Pine is 

from a trailhead on State Highway 210 (Little Cottonwood). There is one private inholding. 

Setting: Topography is rugged and steep with peaks towering over 10,000 feet. White Pine 

Lake (constructed reservoir) is a picturesque mountain lake located near the southern portion of 

the roadless area. Douglas fir and subalpine fir grow in scattered patches on the northern 

exposures and higher elevation. There is also gambel oak, maple, mountain mahogany, aspen 

and box elder. The upper portions of White Pine are alpine and subalpine terrain. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 300 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: The area receives heavy hiking and backpacking use 

primarily on the White Pine and Red Pine trails. Mountain biking use is moderate, with most 

riders only going as far as the Red Pine/White Pine trail junction. Extreme bikers can continue 

all the way to the lake. There is some fishing at White Pine Lake. The area is very popular in the 

winter for outstanding backcountry skiing opportunities. Minerals: Minerals in the area are 

federally owned. Range: There are no permitted livestock. Water: The area is part of Salt 

Lake City’s municipal watershed. Land Uses: The White Pine dam and road are under a special 

use permit that allows occasional motorized access for maintenance. Snowbird Ski Resort has 

expressed an interest for potential expansion in the White Pine area. The area is currently under 

permit for guided helicopter skiing opportunities. Road and Trails: A developed trail, which 

was a former road, leads to White Pine Lake. Fire: Area has low fire potential. There could be 

a need for fire control access, given its proximity to resort structures. Insect and Disease: 

Insect populations are low. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is moderate to high and influenced very little 

by human development except for the trail (former road) and the lake (reservoir with dam). 

Geological, biological, ecological, educational and historic values are moderate. Opportunities 

for solitude and challenge experiences are excellent away from the White Pine trail. There are 

some very rugged rock climbs and backcountry ski runs. Special features and attractions: The 

area is very scenic. The area provides habitat for deer, elk, moose, bear, mountain lion, and 

golden eagles. A Forest Service sensitive plant, Garrett’s bladderpod is present. Other rare 

plants such as Garrett’s daisy, Wasatch fitweed, and broadleaf beardtongue also inhabit the area. 

There are no known heritage sites but the area has moderate potential for discovery of American 

Indian and mining sites. The manageability of the area as wilderness is fairly good because it is 

mostly surrounded by easily identified ridgelines. The western boundary is adjacent to Lone 

Peak Wilderness. The ability to manage the area as wilderness along the eastern boundary would 

be more difficult given its proximity to Snowbird Ski Area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 58 

Need: It is adjacent to Lone Peak Wilderness. Both the Mount Olympus and Twin Peaks 

Wilderness are nearby. The area is within a 5 to 10 mile drive from Salt Lake City. It is one of 

the most accessible high alpine areas in the Wasatch. There is strong public and Salt Lake City 

support for wilderness designation of the area. Others have said this area is needed for mountain 

bike use, heliski opportunities (key important area) and the potential ATV use. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Characteristics 

Roadless Area: White Pine

Management Area: Central Wasatch

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 1,900 1,900 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected (acres)1 1,900 1,900 0 0 0 1,900 1,900

Trails Closed to Motorized Use From 

Wilderness Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6 

Name: Lone Peak Additions #0419027 

Acres: Gross: 900 

Location and Access: There are 3 parcels along the Wasatch Front-- Little Willow Canyon, 

Rocky Mouth Canyon and an area near Corner Canyon with a fourth parcel just south of Little 

Cottonwood Canyon near Coalpit Gulch. State Highway 210 can access that portion. 

Setting: The area is lower elevation (5,500 to 8,000 feet) and primarily consists of rock, 

grassland, and scattered oak/maple patches with a few conifer. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are less than 100 acres of tentatively suited timber 

within the area. Recreation: The areas receive frequent use from local neighborhoods. Sandy 

City has established trailheads at Rocky Mouth and Little Willow Canyons. Use is primarily day 

hiking on user-created trails. Little Cottonwood Canyon is popular for dispersed use along the 

Creek. A mountain bike route leads up the canyon from the Temple Quarry Nature Trail. The 

Uinta National Forest has a trailhead just outside the boundary of the south end of the Corner 

Canyon parcel. It eventually leads to Lone Peak Wilderness. Minerals: Minerals on about 320 

acres are privately owned. Most of the private minerals are in the Coalpit Gulch area. Mineral 

potential is suspected to be low. Range: There is no grazing by domestic livestock. Water: The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 59 

area has some water rights. Land uses: There are developments present used by irrigation 

companies. Roads and Trails: The Bonneville Shoreline Trail could potentially cross three of 

the parcels. 

 

Capability: The parcels on the front have naturalness of the environment diminished because 

of adjacent urban development. However, the parcel on the south side of Little Cottonwood is 

moderate in naturalness. The natural appearance in Corner Canyon has been diminished because 

of the resource damage caused by user-created ATV routes. Solitude and remoteness are quite 

limited being next to the Wasatch Front. Primitive recreation opportunities and challenging 

experiences are limited. Special Features or Attractions: Little Cottonwood Creek was found 

eligible in the Wild and Scenic River Inventory. The area includes some important deer winter 

range. A Forest Service sensitive plant Wasatch jamesia is present. The area has no known 

heritage sites but moderate potential for discovery of relic mining and American Indian sites. 

The manageability of the area as wilderness is hampered because it is adjacent to private land 

that may be developed in the future. Privately-owned minerals could create conflicting uses 

should they ever be developed. 

Need: The area is contiguous to the existing Lone Peak Wilderness area. Public interest in these 

parcels as future wilderness has been low.Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to 

Wilderness Character. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Characteristics 

Roadless Area: Lone Peak

Management Area: Central Wasatch

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 900 500 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 900 500 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use From 

Wilderness Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 60 

Stansbury Management Area 

Name: Stansbury Mountains #0419011 

Acres: Gross: 39,700 

Location and Access: The Stansbury Inventoried Roadless Area is located in an isolated 

mountain range in the Great Basin. It is located southwest of Grantsville, Utah. The roadless 

area surrounds the Deseret Peak Wilderness area. Primary access to the area is Forest Service rod 

578 in South Willow Road from Grantsville. There is also access by other low development 

roads from the Skull valley Road, Highway 199 from Terra and Granstsville to St. John. 

Setting: The terrain of the northern part of the range is steep and rugged while the southern part 

is rolling brush-covered area with some rocky peaks and slopes. Elevations range from 6,000 feet 

in the foothills to 10,301 feet at Vickory Mountain. The area contains some unique springs, 

limestone caverns and isolated forested stands. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 1,200 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Fuelwood gathering has been allowed in the past, but is not currently 

being managed for that activity. Recreation: Use includes hiking, backpacking, horseback 

riding, motorized recreation, mountain biking, rock climbing, dispersed camping and hunting. 

The area receives some local snowmobiling use. Minerals: Minerals are federally owned. 

There are a few small claims that have been active in the past. The area is rated as low for oil 

and gas potential. Range: Cattle graze under permit throughout most of the area. Water: 

Water is used for agriculture and local community needs. Land Uses: There are minor water 

developments in some side canyons. Roads and Trails: There are numerous low maintenance 

and user-created roads. There are several motorized and non-motorized low maintenance trails. 

The Stansbury Front Motorized Trail, which traverses the east side of the range is very popular. 

West Canyon also receives OHV use, but it is much more limited. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is intact with few human intrusions 

noticeable. Evidence of user-created trails and roads and historic small watershed treatment 

terracing areas detract from the area’s natural integrity in isolated areas. There are moderate 

values for naturalness, geological, biological, ecological and wildlife habitat. Solitude is 

outstanding because of the isolation, size and topography of the area. The area is wild and remote 

offering challenging experiences to visitors. Special Features or Attractions: The area is 

unique from much of the Wasatch-Cache, because it is part of the Great Basin ecosystem. The 

range itself is very scenic with views of the existing wilderness, surrounding desert and the Great 

Salt Lake. Area has one rare plant, the broadleaf beardtongue. There is habitat for deer, elk, 

mountain lion, raptors including peregrine falcon and goshawk, and a variety of small animals. 

There is potential for reintroduction of bighorn sheep. The area around Big Creek on the western 

side is part of the Big Creek Wild Horse Territory. Brown trout are found in North Willow Creek 

and rainbow trout are found in South Willow Creek. The area has about 20 known heritage sites 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 61 

including a prehistoric chipping area. Much of the area has high potential for discovery of relic 

mining and American Indian sites. Manageability: The Stansbury Front Trail dissects a major 

portion of the northern end of the roadless area. The proximity of motorized trails and accessible 

roads near future wilderness boundaries would create potential trespass problems as evidenced 

by current problems in Deseret Peak Wilderness. The Mining Fork Road and private land access 

would be difficult to manage because of the area between it and South Willow Canyon is very 

narrow.

Need: It is located 20 miles from the rapidly growing Tooele area and about 50 miles west of 

Salt Lake. It surrounds the existing wilderness area and is contiguous to BLM Wilderness study 

areas in the north and south. There have been several public comments to include the roadless 

area, existing wilderness and BLM WSA and other contiguous lands as a large wilderness 

ecosystem area. The area is known as a desert island roadless area, part of the Great Basin and 

Range ecosystem. There is some opposition to wilderness additions from local communities. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Stansbury Mountains

Management Area: Stansbury

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 37,300 17,100 5,000 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 37,300 33,900 17,100 0 0 17,100 17,100

Trails Closed to Motorized Use From 

Wilderness Recommendation (miles) 24.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 0.2 26.2 26.2 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 62 

Western Uintas Management Area 

(The High Uintas Roadless Area is described in the Eastern Uintas Management Area) 

Name: Nobletts #0419003 

Acres: Gross: 3,100 

Location and Access: Most of Nobletts roadless area is on the Heber District of the Uinta 

National Forest. This following will describe the Wasatch – Cache portion. It is located south of 

the Mirror Lake Highway between Pine Valley and Soapstone about 10 miles east of Kamas. The 

northern boundary is the Mirror Lake Highway, the western boundary is private land in Pine 

Valley and the southern boundary is the Uinta National Forest. Access from the Wasatch – 

Cache side is limited due to the Provo River, steep slopes and private land. Most access to the 

area comes from the Uinta National Forest side. 

Setting: Much of the area is a heavily timbered mountain up to 9,400 feet forested with aspen, 

lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, subalpine fir and Douglas fir. There are rocky cliffs above 

the Provo River on the north side of the area. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 1,700 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Recreation: Because of the area’s limited access, use is low. There is 

some hiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and hunting. Dispersed recreation and 

fishing are popular on the north side of the Provo River. The portion north of the Provo River 

along the Mirror Lake Highway receives heavy dispersed recreation use. Terrain limits most 

snowmobiling opportunities. The area contains part of a groomed ski and snowmobile route near 

the Provo River. Minerals: Minerals are primarily federally owned except for about 100 acres. 

Mineral potential is low. Range: Cattle graze in a portion of in the area. Water: Water use is 

for livestock use. Roads and Trails: There are a couple of system trails by the Provo River. 

There are no roads designated as open in the area. A few user-created roads are present. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is high in its quality and integrity, because of 

its limited access and topography and little influence from human activities. The area provides 

moderate geological, biological, ecological and educational values. While the area does receive 

low use, solitude is somewhat diminished by the influence from Mirror Lake Highway and the 

Soapstone Summer Home area. Primitive recreation opportunities and challenging 

experiences are limited. Special Features or Attractions: The area provides habitat for bear, 

mountain lion and moose. It is an important area for elk calving. Views of the scenic rocky cliffs 

above the Provo River are especially pleasing. There are no known heritage sites and moderate 

potential for historic logging and American Indian sites. Manageability of the area is limited 

because its small size. Management of the area as wilderness is affected by adjacent private land 

on the west end. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 63 

Need: The High Uintas Wilderness is about 8 miles away to the east. The area is about 15 miles 

from Kamas and 65 miles from Salt Lake City. Some people felt designating wilderness here 

would protect a larger intact ecosystem important for wildlife needs. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Nobletts

Management Area: Stansbury 

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness (acres) 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected (acres)1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use From 

Wilderness Recommendation (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads Open 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 

Name: Lakes #0419005 

Acres: Gross: 122,000 

Location and Access: The Lakes Roadless area is immediately east of Kamas and north of 

Mirror Lake Highway. The area includes the headwaters of the Bear, Weber, Provo and 

Duchesne Rivers. Most of the area is within Summit County. Access to the area is State Highway 

150 (Mirror Lake Highway), county road 213 (Weber River) and Forest Service road 160 

(Whitney Reservoir)

Setting: Elevations range from about 7,500 feet on the west and south ends to 11,943 feet atop 

Bald Mountain near the east end. Mount Watson at 11,521 feet is another well-known peak. 

Deep canyons, forests and meadows characterize the west end; the east end is alpine country 

with high peaks and numerous natural and nine reservoirs. The extreme western and southern 

sections are vegetated with mountain mahogany, juniper, and sagebrush. The central portion is 

forested with aspen, lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands. The high country is characterized 

by isolated stands of mixed conifer, patches of krumholz on windswept ridges and meadows 

composed of grasses and sedges. 

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 45,000 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. Evidence of previous timber sales is nearby. There is potential for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 64 

prescribed burning in some of the area for habitat diversity improvements. Recreation: The area 

is extremely popular and receives high visitation. The more popular uses include day hiking, 

backpacking, horseback riding, fishing, hunting, wildlife watching, snowshoeing, cross-country 

skiing, dispersed camping, and snowmobiling. The many lakes and higher elevation areas are 

major attractions during the summer months and several receive very high use. There is some 

mountain bike use. Motorized trails receive heavy use during the deer-hunting season and use is 

increasing. Snowmobiling is very popular with most of the higher use in the outer portion of the 

area (approximately 42% of the area). The remaining area provides opportunities for the highly 

skilled and adventuresome snowmobiler. About 95% of the roadless area is currently open to 

snowmobiling in the District travel plan. There is some rock climbing with fixed anchors in the 

Stone Garden area by Ruth Lake, near mile marker 18, on Bald Mountain and on the ridge north 

of Boy Scout Camp Steiner. Minerals: The majority of minerals are federally owned with an 

estimated 600 to 700 acres privately owned. The area has limited hard rock mining potential. 

There has been some prospecting in the past in Dry Fork near Fish Lake, in the South Fork of the 

Weber, Paulsin Basin and near Hoyt Peak. Two claims in the Paulsin Basin area are active and 

have proposed exploration and small-scale development. The area has low potential for oil and 

gas. There is one lease (about 100 acres) in the area around Gold Hill on the Evanston District. 

Range: Cattle are permitted to graze in much of the area except Dry Fork, Main Weber, Ruth 

Lake area and south of Bald Mountain. Cattle are not authorized above the 9800 feet elevation 

level. Sheep graze in lower Smith & Morehouse and directly south of Whitney Reservoir. 

Water: As the headwaters for several important streams, the area is a valuable watershed 

providing irrigation and culinary water to farms and communities downstream. Land Uses: 

There is one outfitter permit for cross-country skiers that use yurts for overnight use. Guided 

youth programs are also permitted in the Yellow Pine, Coop, Shingle, Norway Flats and Boulder 

Creek drainages. There are two snow-monitoring sites operated by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service in Paulsin Basin and Spring Canyon, which are sometimes maintained by 

helicopter support. There is a small electronic site near the West Portal and and a repeater station 

on Bald Mountain. There are nine reservoirs owned by private companies and operated under 

special use permits (Sand, Fish, Anchor, Ibantic, Castle, Kamas, Meadow, Abes and Notch. 

Maintenance to these reservoirs is generally limited though at times by helicopter support. Roads 

and Trails: The area has four short segments of roads that are designated open in the District 

travel plan. There are a few motorized trails primarily in the northwest corner of the area such as 

Swifts Canyon, White Pine, South Fork Weber River, Hoyt Peak and Slader Ridge. The area has 

substantial miles of non-motorized trails. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is outstanding particularly in the core of the 

area where man-made developments have influenced the wildness of the area very little. 

Resource damage from ATVs detracts from the natural appearance in several areas. The area is 

known for its large open country carved by glaciers, scenic vistas and high country lakes and 

wetlands. The Middle Fork of the Weber River has some of the wildest country in the Uinta 

Mountain Range. Areas like south of Abe’s Lake and Hells Kitchen are known as very remote 

areas. Historic uses such as logging, shingle mills, mining and water developments have 

penetrated into the area though little evidence remains except for the dams, reservoirs and a few 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 65 

scattered remains. Many former reservoirs have been stabilized to natural lake levels. Restoration 

in these areas complements the undeveloped character of the land. Past watershed treatment 

terracing areas in the Mud Lake Flat area (about 370 acres) are no longer substantially 

noticeable. Timber sales around the perimeter have affected the natural appearance somewhat in 

these areas. The opportunity for solitude ranges from moderate to high depending on location, 

distance from development, vegetation and topography. Because of its large size, there are good 

opportunities for solitude and remoteness. Noises from Mirror Lake Highway can be heard in 

portions of the roadless area with snowmobile noise being the most dominant. Solitude in the 

non-winter months is higher off trail, along the Weber River side, and on the Evanston District 

side by Whitney Reservoir. During summer season the solitude is diminished at some lakes 

because of crowding. Opportunities for challenging experiences are rated as moderate with 

much of the use from short day hikes. Diverse opportunities exist for primitive recreation. 

Special Features or Attractions: The Lakes area includes some of the most scenic country and 

trails in northern Utah and in the state. The area has several segments of streams found eligible in 

the wild and scenic river inventory – Main Fork Weber, Middle Fork Weber, Beaver Creek, and 

the Provo River. The area has abundant variety of species because of the diverse habitat present. 

The area is important summer and winter range for deer, elk and moose. There are also mountain 

lions, black bear, pine marten, weasel, beaver, bobcat, coyote, pika, badger and skunk. The Utah 

State Division of Wildlife Resources has introduced mountain goats in the area. The area is 

potential lynx habitat. Over 100 species of birds inhabit the area. Bonneville cutthroat trout are 

native to the area. Introduced fish include brook trout, rainbow trout and artic grayling. Sensitive 

species present include goshawk, boreal owl, and boreal toad. There is a Utah species of concern, 

the smooth green snake and the area has potential habitat for the spotted frog. The area has 

Forest Service sensitive plant, rockcress draba and a rare plant, Utah ivesia. The area contains 

some known heritage sites. Limited prehistoric cultural evidence has been found in some isolated 

spots. There are a few remains of old cabins associated with shingle mills and discarded 

machinery associated with attempted mining operations. There is high potential for further 

discovery of past logging, water development, and American Indian sites. The manageability of 

the area as wilderness is complex because the boundary meanders substantially. The area is large 

over 122,000 acres, which allows some flexibility to help designate a more manageable area. 

There are several roads excluded such as Paulsin Basin, Upper setting, Norway Flat, around 

Lambert Meadow, Gardners Fork, Slader Basin, Box Canyon, Mud Lake Flat, Swift Canyon etc. 

Proximity to private land and private inholdings contribute to the complexity. The north and 

west sides are primarily adjacent to private land. Present vehicular trespass in closed areas 

especially on the Weber River side suggests potential problems in the future. There are two 

private inholdings west of Holiday Park. In addition, there is one private inholding of 158 acres 

excluded out with a cherry stem in the northwest corner by Swifts Canyon. Private land 

peninsulas intrude into the roadless area by Hoyt Canyon and Holiday Park. 

Need: The area is 60 miles east of Salt Lake City. Both Kamas and Oakley are only about 3 

miles away from the western edge of the roadless area. The nearest wilderness area is the High 

Uintas, the largest wilderness area in Utah. It is separated from the Lakes area by the Mirror 

Lake Highway corridor, in some places only 1 mile away. Lakes area is very significant as a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 66 

roadless area, because of its size, one of the largest in Utah. Many view it is a large valuable 

ecosystem when combined with the roadless area and wilderness of the High Uintas. Because of 

this size it offers important habitat for the survival of wildlife. The effects on lynx and other 

carnivores and their habitat from winter recreation are an issue. The area has probably received 

the highest amount of public interest of all the roadless areas on the Forest. This interest has 

been highly polarized with some people very much in support of wilderness designation and 

others very much opposed to the idea. The support for wilderness designation includes 

environmental organizations that have emphasized this area as a high priority for wilderness 

designation. Some groups have proposed the area as the Mount Watson Wilderness – this is 

approximately the inner 2/3 of the roadless area (approximately 71,000 acres). Opposition is also 

high against the Lakes area as wilderness, primarily from the snowmobile community, summer 

motorized users and some local residents. Many feel it is better managed, as it is now as 

backcountry allowing for winter motorized use. The Lakes backcountry is a very valuable niche 

for the increasing demand for non-wilderness backcountry. It offers high lakes that contain 

fishing opportunities, for visitors wanting a backcountry-fishing trip, but not necessarily a 

wilderness experience that impacts the wilderness. This type of management could allow for 

more cost effective mitigation of human impacts in the face of drastically declining budgets. The 

demand for this type of opportunity is rapidly increasing. This area is viewed by the 

snowmobiling community as one of the critical opportunity areas for their use. Snowmobile use 

is viewed as important economic sources for communities like Kamas and Oakley. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Lakes

Management Area: Western Uintas

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended 

Wilderness (acres) 119,200 71,900 0 0 0 26,300 38,000

Wilderness Character 

Protected (acres)1

 119,200 76,400 60,400 0 0 64,800 65,500

Trails Closed to 

Motorized Use From 

Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 11.1 4.5 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan 

Trails Open (miles) 0 8.6 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1

Motorized Travel Plan 

Roads Open (miles) 0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 67 

Eastern Uintas Management Area

Name: High Uintas #0419022 

Acres: Gross: 103,100 

Location and Access: The High Uintas Roadless Area is located on the Ashley and WasatchCache National Forests. This write-up describes only the Wasatch-Cache portion. The area is a 

strip of land lying along the western and northern boundary of the High Uintas Wilderness in 

north central Utah. Most of the access is off of or from roads and trails accessing State Highway 

150 (Mirror Lake Highway) or Forest Road 058 (North Slope Road. In addition, there is one 

small area of 100 acres between Burnt Fork Lakes and Reader Lakes in the roadless area. 

Availability: Current resource demands and uses of the roadless area vary significantly across 

the roadless area. Because the area is so large, characteristics of smaller areas will be discussed 

as appropriate. 

 

Vegetation Treatment: Timber harvest in the area began in the 1860’s, when the wood was 

used for railroad ties and charcoal. Evidence of past and present timber harvest is present in areas 

directly outside of the area. Several old timber sale areas are being used for fuelwood gathering 

permits. There are 43,300 acres of timber considered tentatively suited for harvest. Areas with 

higher timber values are found near Boundary Creek, East Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork Smiths, 

Middle Fork Beaver and Beaver Creek. There has been a proposal for timber harvest units in the 

Thompson/Kabell areas, where there are large stands of dead lodgepole pine. Recreation: The 

High Uintas Roadless Area is extremely popular for backpacking, horse packing, hiking, 

hunting, fishing and dispersed camping. Mountain biking is gaining in popularity. Much of the 

roadless area is used as primary access into the wilderness. ATV use is popular in several areas 

including Murdock Basin, Broadhead Meadows, and Wolverine areas. Big game hunting is 

heavy in portions of the area with less use on the Kamas District side. Recreation use is heaviest 

in areas accessed by roads and trails and around popular lakes. Lake basins are popular and 

receive high visitation. Snowmobiling use as well as non-motorized winter recreation (crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing) is increasing on the North Slope. 

The Stillwater/Hayden portion is made up of three areas – Hayden Fork, Main Fork and 

Stillwater drainages. Stillwater Fork is a popular backcountry recreation area because of easy 

access. Large Boy Scout groups frequent Scow Lake. The Main Fork is an isolated and lightly 

used drainage with the most concentrated use during the hunting season. There is some 

motorized trail use primarily in the northwest area. 

The East Fork Bear River portion of the roadless area is made up of three areas – Lily Lake, 

Boundary Creek and East Fork Bear River. The Wolverine ATV Trail system occupies much of 

the Lily Lake portion. Firewood is harvested in this area. In the winter months there is a 

developed cross-country ski area near Lily Lake with a system of yurts available for overnight 

use. Anglers use the East Fork Bear River trail to access the river for fishing. Large groups often 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 68 

camp and fish at Lorena Lake. Boundary Creek has become a very popular area for large groups 

seeking a backcountry camping experience. It is also popular for fall hunting and cross-country 

ski use is increasing. Snowmobile use is light except near the head of Boundary Creek. 

The Blacks Fork area is comprised of East Fork, West Fork, and Middle Fork of the Blacks 

Fork. West Fork Blacks Fork is heavily used particularly during the fall big game hunt. Summer 

motorized use is popular along the road paralleling the river, as is snowmobiling in the winter. 

Most of Middle Fork Blacks has restricted motorized use, but a very low standard and rough 

road provides access to four-wheel drive and ATV's into the northern end of the area. East Fork 

Blacks Fork has increasing recreation use supported by nearby facilities. Motorized recreation is 

prohibited except for snowmobile use in the portion of the area north of the trailhead. The area 

behind the trailhead is restricted to all motorized use and is managed for semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities. 

Cataract creek, Steel Creek Park and North of Bull Park are important snowmobile areas. 

East Fork Smiths and West Fork Smiths form the Smiths Fork area. East Fork Smiths is near a 

heavily used road and campgrounds that receives heavy recreation use in the summer and fall. 

Snowmobile use is popular in the winter and the area has a developed mountain bike trail. 

Recreational use in West Fork Smiths Fork is very light with some increase occurring during the 

fall hunt. Snowmobile use in Steel Creek Park and north of Bull Park is very popular. The areas 

provide excellent snowmobiling opportunities, which are limited on much of the Mountain View 

District. 

The Henrys Fork/Gilbert Creek area is similar to the West Fork Smiths Fork with numerous 

small roads that provide opportunities for development of bike, ATV and cross-country ski trails. 

The Beaver Creek area can be divided into three fairly distinct areas – Bullocks Park, West Fork 

Beaver Creek and Middle Fork Beaver Creek. Bullocks Park and West Fork Beaver receives 

light summer use but increasingly heavy fall hunting use. Motorized use is prohibited except for 

snowmobiling, which only use the area infrequently. 

The Burnt Fork/Thompson/Kabell area could be divided into three distinct areas – 

Thompson/Kabell Creek, Burnt Fork and Beaver Meadows. The Thompson/Kabell Creek area 

has two popular trails that provide access to the wilderness. Burnt Fork is becoming increasingly 

popular and receives quite heavy use during the fall hunt. Fishing is very poplar on the scenic 

stream that has numerous small falls and pools. 

Minerals: The majority of the minerals are federally owned. There are about 6,500 acres of 

privately owned minerals. The Uinta Mountains is considered high in its potential for oil and gas 

discovery, A substantial amount of the roadless area contains geology that has a high potential 

for formations known to contain hydrocarbons in other locations. There are 21,000 acres of 

existing oil and gas leases. Range: The area is summer range for numerous cattle and sheep 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 69 

allotments. Parts of 24 allotments are in the roadless area. There are many range improvements 

in some areas such as fences and water developments scattered throughout the area. Several 

low-level maintenance roads are used for motorized access for grazing permittees. Water: The 

Uintas are the headwaters for several of Utah’s river systems. Water from the Henrys Fork, 

Blacks Fork, Bear River, Duchesne River, and Provo River is used for downstream irrigation 

purposes. The area contributes to the water supply for developed recreation sites such as Meeks 

Cabin and Stateline Reservoirs. Land Uses: The Natural Resource Conservation Service has 

snow-monitoring sites in the Lily Lake area and south of Steel Creek Park. The Provo Water 

Users Association has two electronic sites maintained by helicopter and vehicular motorized 

access in the Duchesne Tunnel area. The Bureau of Reclamation has a weather station near the 

boundary up the West Fork Blacks Fork. The area does have two sites under special use permit 

for weather data collection that requires motorized access for maintenance. There is a 

constructed ditch with a headgate that diverts Thompson Creek water to Hoops Lake. The ditch 

was constructed with motorized equipment and could require motorized access for maintenance 

in the future. Roads and Trails: There are some motorized trails out of the Wolverine and East 

Fork of Bear River, as well as the Broadhead Meadows and Murdock Basin areas that are 

important areas for motorized recreation. A couple of short segments of low maintenance roads 

designated as open in the Kamas District travel plan are included in the roadless area. The West 

Fork Blacks Road is closed to the general public and open only for administrative use and a 

special use weather station permit. There are some designated mountain bike trails near Stateline 

Reservoir. The Duchesne Tunnel crosses the roadless area underground. Motorized access for 

maintenance work on the tunnel is gained from outside the area. There is no surface disturbance. 

Capability: The area is known for its size, high natural values, pristine and wild landscapes, 

remarkable scenery, and diverse landscapes. Human activities influence the natural environment 

near the perimeter, which are adjacent to timber sales, roads, and developed campground and 

trailheads. This is particularly true close to the North Slope Road. Opportunity for solitude is 

high for much of the area due to the area’s large size and dense vegetative screening. Primitive 

recreation opportunities are also excellent because of the vast size and wildness of the area. 

Diversity of the landscape enhances the area scenic quality. Because of the uniqueness and size 

of the range, there are high educational and research values. The Middle Fork of Bear, Boundary 

Creek, Middle Fork Blacks and west Fork Beaver are known as the most pristine and remote 

areas. 

The Stillwater/Hayden portion (Hayden Fork, Main Fork and Stillwater drainages) has the most 

diversity within the roadless area. Hayden Fork has outstanding primitive recreation 

opportunities. Much of the area has few impacts but its proximity to Highway 150 and developed 

campgrounds results in sights and sounds of mechanization filtering into the area. Stillwater 

Fork is similar to Hayden Fork. Scenic quality and primitive recreation opportunities are high 

away from the campground and summer home area. The Stillwater Fork trail is visited 

extensively affecting opportunities for solitude. Large groups in the Scow Lake area can 

diminish one’s sense of remoteness. The Main Fork has outstanding scenery and is the most 

remote of the three drainages. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 70 

The naturalness of the environment of East Fork Bear River portion of the roadless area (Lily 

Lake, Boundary Creek and East Fork Bear River) varies significantly from one location to 

another. The natural environment of the Lily Lake area has been diminished somewhat by the 

presence of numerous four-wheel drive and ATV trails. Boundary Creek is known for its 

outstanding primitive recreation opportunities and isolation from nearby developments. The East 

Fork Bear has many wilderness characteristics present, although use from large groups 

diminishes solitude in some locations. A variety of habitats attract a multitude of wildlife. 

Remnants of old tie hack cabins are present. 

The Blacks Fork area is comprised of East Fork, West Fork, and Middle Fork of the Blacks 

Fork. The West Fork has outstanding primitive recreation opportunities. The road in the West 

Fork Blacks Fork is closed to all but administrative use, so solitude and remoteness are rarely 

affected; most of the area is isolated from concentrated use and development. Past timber 

harvesting is all but nonexistent with a few old decrepit cabins, decaying stumps and old grown 

over narrow roads. There is good habitat for wildlife present. Middle Fork Blacks has 

outstanding primitive recreation opportunities available. There are high opportunities for finding 

solitude and remoteness in this area. Wilderness characteristics within East Fork Blacks Fork 

vary greatly. Near the East Fork Blacks Fork Road and in the more northern portion of the 

drainage solitude and remoteness are diminished. However, south of the East Fork Blacks Fork 

Guard Station, a deep sense of solitude and remoteness is present. 

East Fork Smiths and West Fork Smiths form the Smiths Fork area. The West Fork Smiths 

Fork is a relatively narrow band of the roadless area. Scenery is not unique since most of the area 

contains extensive stands of lodgepole pine. Opportunities for primitive recreation activities are 

limited, however one can experience a sense of solitude and remoteness. East Fork Smiths Fork 

is fairly similar to West Fork Smiths Fork for providing solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities. The area is more scenic. Numerous isolated ponds and small wet meadows afford 

excellent wildlife habitat viewing opportunities. 

The Henrys Fork/Gilbert Creek area is also similar to the West Fork Smiths Fork. Its 

proximity to a very popular trailhead results in sights and sounds penetrating into the 

surrounding roadless area. 

Beaver Creek can be divided into three fairly distinct areas – Bullocks Park, West Fork Beaver 

Creek and Middle Fork Beaver Creek. Bullocks Park is a relatively narrow piece of land lying 

between a recent timber sale and the wilderness, covered quite extensively by lodgepole pine 

with limited primitive recreation opportunities. West Fork Beaver is a large area that provides 

opportunities for primitive recreation. The terrain is diverse and the abundance of various 

habitats affords a good opportunity to see different wildlife. The Middle Fork Beaver Creek is 

very similar to the West Fork Beaver Creek. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 71 

The Burnt Fork/Thompson/Kabell area (Thompson/Kabell Creek, Burnt Fork and Beaver 

Meadows) are somewhat similar to Beaver Creek. Burnt Fork has somewhat higher scenic 

quality and could easily be managed as wilderness. Beaver Meadows is also similar to Beaver 

Creek but more limited in primitive recreation opportunities, much of rest of the year, visitor use 

is light since scenery is not unique to the North Slope. 

The portion of the roadless area on the Kamas District has moderate values of naturalness, 

solitude, remoteness, and primitive recreation. There are a lot of high elevation wetlands next to 

alpine country. The naturalness of the environment is somewhat lower near the Mirror Lake 

Highway and in Murdock Basin ATV network. The sights and sounds of the Mirror Lake 

corridor and the presence of roads affect solitude, and remoteness. Special Features or 

Attractions: The Uinta Mountains are known for their outstanding scenic qualities. The Uinta 

Mountain range is unique in that they are the highest range in Utah and the most prominent eastwest range in the lower 48 states. There are many segments of streams that were found eligible in 

the wild and scenic river inventory: Henrys Fork, West Fork Beaver, Thompson Creek, West 

Fork Blacks, East Fork Blacks, Little East Fork, West Fork Smiths, East Fork Smiths, Stillwater, 

Hayden Fork, Ostler Fork, Left Hand Fork Bear, Right hand Fork Bear, East Fork Bear and 

Boundary Creek. The area has an abundant number of species of fish, amphibians, birds and 

mammals inhabit the Uintas, one of Utah’s most biological diverse areas. Area offers important 

habitat for species at risk like lynx, wolverine, river otter and pine marten, as well as potential 

habitat for large carnivores such as wolves and grizzly bear, which once existed in the area. The 

area also has black bear, cougar, deer, elk, moose, fox, badger, weasel, skunk, grouse, and 

ptarmigan. Several drainages such as Beaver Creek, Burnt have extensive stands of lodgepole 

pine with numerous pockets of wet meadows and ponds scattered throughout providing for a 

variety of wildlife habitat where big game species flourish. East Fork Blacks is an important 

migration corridor for elk. Elk use the higher elevations of the roadless area extensively in the 

summer. There is a herd of Bighorn Sheep in the Hole-in-the-Rock area. Mountain goats have 

been have been transplanted to the area. Species at risk include great gray owl, boreal owl, 

osprey, three-toed woodpecker, goshawk, and boreal toad. Sandhill and whooping cranes and 

bald eagles migrate through the area. Streams have native Colorado and Bonneville cutthroat 

trout and rocky mountain whitefish as well as introduced rainbow trout, brook trout and grayling. 

Plant species at risk are rockcress draba, Uinta beardtongue and Siberian aster. There are several 

historical and cultural sites from use by American Indians, mountain men, and early pioneers. 

There are several remnants of the tie hack days. The area has high potential for additional 

historic tie hacking, logging, and American Indian sites primarily on the Evanston Ranger 

District. 

Manageability: The manageability of the area varies significantly across the landscape from 

one area to another. Hayden Fork has an easily identifiable boundary though its proximity to 

concentrated use along Lily Lake Road and Highway 150 would make managing for wilderness 

challenging. East Fork Bear’s terrain and layout of existing roads have isolated the area from the 

sights and sounds of development. The Bear River-Smiths Fork Trail provides an effective and 

easy to locate boundary. The terrain of West Fork Black affords manageability of the area for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 72 

wilderness characteristics. The remote location and difficult access of Middle Fork Black 

contributes to its manageability for wilderness characteristics, though the checkerboard land 

ownership could hinder management as wilderness. East Fork Blacks manageability for 

wilderness characteristics could be achieved with existing roads and streams used as identifiable 

boundaries. With relatively limited access, the East Fork Smiths area could be managed for 

wilderness characteristics. Much of the North Slope road could be used as a boundary. 

Alternately, manageability for wilderness in the West Fork Smiths, Henrys Fork and Bullocks 

areas would be hampered by the lack of physical features that could readily identify the 

boundaries of the area. The narrow corridor of roadless east of Stateline Reservoir and Bridger 

Lake would be difficult to manage as wilderness. The West/Middle Beaver area lacks 

outstanding physical features that may be used as a boundary. Areas along significant road 

exclusions and development (Murdock Basin, Main Fork, Stillwater Fork, East Fork Blacks 

Fork, East Fork Smiths Fork, Middle Fork Beaver and the oil and gas development area near 

Dahlgren) could increase potential for non-conforming motorized use. 

Need: It is contiguous to the existing High Uintas Wilderness area, the largest wilderness in 

Utah (over 460,00 acres). The area is located 110 to 150 miles from Salt Lake City and about 30 

miles southeast of Evanston, Wyoming. Other local communities include Kamas, Mountain 

View, Robertson and Lonetree. 

The area has received much public interest. This interest has been highly polarized with some 

people very much in support of wilderness designation and others very much opposed to the 

idea. The area has received public interest in wilderness designation from both local and national 

groups. Some view the range as biologically important and an ecological sanctuary, part of an 

ecosystem complex that connects with the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. By including the 

existing wilderness and nearby roadless acreage as well as areas on the Ashley National Forest 

they view the value as a critical corridor as enhanced. They felt wilderness designation would 

also provide connectivity from sagebrush ecosystems to high alpine country. Others suggest that 

by increasing the size of the existing wilderness, pressure on other parts of the wilderness will be 

reduced. 

Others have expressed opposition to wilderness designation for several different reasons. There 

is a growing segment of the public who want an outstanding backcountry experience without the 

restrictions that accompany a wilderness designation. They desire a place where large groups of 

more than 14 people can go and have a backcountry experience. Lakes like Baker, Lorena in the 

Boundary Creek/East Fork Bear area are popular for such large groups. 

Snowmobiling groups have expressed a desire to have areas currently open remain open because 

of the great increase in use of snowmobiling. Many snowmobilers seek wide-open spaces with 

open steep slopes to challenge and the High Uintas roadless area provides this experience. They 

feel much of the available terrain is already closed because it is within the wilderness. Like nonmotorized users, snowmobilers use and enjoy outstanding, rugged scenery. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 73 

Kamas portion of the roadless area has received less public interest when compared to the public 

interest along the North Slope. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character

Roadless Area: High Uintas

Management Area: West and East Uintas

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 98,200 29,300 18,200 0 0 20,100 20,600

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1 98,200 41,600 30,000 0 2,000 29,700 31,400

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 

Recommendation (miles) 15.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 1.1 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescriptions 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.6.

Name: Widdop Mountain #0419020 

Acres: Gross: 8,000 

Location and Access: The area lies near the Utah – Wyoming state line south of Lone Tree, 

Wyoming. The area includes Widdop Mountain, the lower Burnt Fork drainage and the area 

around Coal Mine Hill. Access is primarily by the North Slope Road FS086 and from the north 

by the Gregory Basin Road (Summit County Road 589). 

Setting: The terrain consists of short, steep east-west ridges. The north and west portions of the 

area are steep ridges with birch-leaf mahogany on southern exposures and dense stands of 

Douglas fir on the northern exposures. The ridges in the eastern and southern portion extending 

into the Burnt Fork drainage are vegetated with lodgepole pine. The area also offers rolling 

grasslands. Elevations range from 8,000 feet in the Burnt Fork drainage to the peak of Widdop 

Mountain at 9,451 feet.

Availability: Vegetation treatment: There are an estimated 3,400 acres of tentatively suited 

timber within the area. A past thinning project in the western portion just north of Hole in the 

Rock is evident. Recreation: Recreation use is light with most use occurring during the fall 

hunting season. Some fishing takes place in the Burnt Fork River. The area is also popular for 4-

wheel drive and ATV use. It is used for dispersed camping opportunities. The area is closed to 

snowmobiles. Minerals: The area is located in the Green River Moxa-Arch oil and gas play. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 74 

The oil and gas industry rates the area high for oil and gas potential. There are no oil and gas 

leases currently issued. The area also has known deposits of coal. There were a few past efforts 

to attempt to mine coal in the area. All of the minerals are federally owned. Range: The range 

allotments have been vacant since bighorn sheep were introduced. The area has two substantial 

wire wildlife exclosures for vegetation study purposes. Water: The area provides irrigation 

water for Burnt Fork and Mckinnon, Wyoming. Roads and Trails: The area includes numerous 

user-created and low maintenance roads. 

Capability: The naturalness of the environment is rated moderate influenced by the evidence 

of user created roads, timber harvest, vegetative treatments and grazing improvements. 

Opportunities for solitude are good especially away from existing roads, since the area has 

limited access and use is generally low. There are moderate opportunities for primitive 

recreation. Challenging experiences and diversity of opportunities are somewhat limited. 

Special Features or Attractions: The area has some stands of old Douglas fir and sagebrush 

areas in limestone outcroppings, which are somewhat unique for the North Slope. Thompson 

Creek was found eligible in the Wild and Scenic River Inventory. Values for wildlife habitat are 

high. It is an important big game summer and winter range – elk, deer, moose, and bighorn 

sheep. The area is potential lynx habitat. Burnt Fork has Colorado cutthroat trout, a Forest 

Service Sensitive Species. The area contains few known heritage sites, but has moderate 

potential for discovery of historic mining, logging, and American Indian sites. Manageability: 

The area is surrounded by state and private land in the north and northeast creating potential 

conflicts with nearby non-wilderness uses. 

Need: Area is about 60 miles from Evanston and 150 miles from Salt Lake City. The 

community of Mountain View is about 30 miles away. The High Uintas Wilderness Area, the 

largest wilderness area in the State of Utah is about 3 miles away (separated by the North Slope 

Road and the large existing reservoirs). Public opinion on the area is divided. It has not received 

many comments compared to more popular nearby roadless areas like Lakes and High Uintas. 

Some have emphasized wilderness to protect ecosystem values for the entire Uinta Mountain 

range. Others feel this area is needed to meet the growing demand for dispersed motorized 

recreation opportunities. The area is also important for local community values of traditional 

Forest uses and recreation. 

Alternatives and Potential Environmental Effects to Wilderness Character 

Roadless Area: Widdop Mountain

Management Area: Eastern Uintas

Alternative: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Recommended Wilderness 

(acres) 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness Character Protected 

(acres)1

 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails Closed to Motorized Use 

From Wilderness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C1- 75 

Recommendation (miles) 

Motorized Travel Plan Trails 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Travel Plan Roads 

Open (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Prescription 1.5 +2.4 + 2.6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-1 

APPENDIX C-2 

Evaluation of Roadless Area Values and Analysis of 

Effects on Individual Roadless Areas 

Evaluation of Roadless Areas 

The consideration of how values in roadless areas will be maintained in future forest 

management was a prominent issue throughout Forest Plan development. The National 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 identified several values that should be 

considered in forest management (Roadless Area Conservation; 36 CFR Part 294; 66 

Federal Register 3244; January 12, 2001). These were soil, water, and air resources; 

municipal watershed; biodiversity; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large undisturbed 

areas of land; recreation opportunities in the primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, 

and semi-primitive motorized classes; reference landscapes; scenic integrity; traditional 

cultural properties; sacred sites; and other unique characteristics. The values from the 

Final Rule were refined for local use by the Wasatch-Cache forest plan interdisciplinary 

team in collaboration with the Intermountain Region, Caribou-Targhee, and Uinta 

National Forests. (These are the first 7 values below.) The criteria for assessing values 

were developed by the interdisciplinary team and are stated below; these criteria are then 

applied to each roadless area on the Wasatch-Cache to develop a sense of the overall and 

unique values of each roadless area. Information on which roadless areas were included 

in this analysis is provided in Appendix C-1. 

The value of Size and Context (number 8. below), did not originate in the Final Rule. 

This value was identified by the interdisciplinary team as an important additional 

consideration for roadless areas given the team’s professional knowledge, recent 

literature, and public comments that were received throughout this forest planning 

process. 

An assessment of these roadless values for each area is presented directly after the 

Wilderness evaluation. These value assessments are represented by the numbers 1 

through 5, with 1 being low and 5 being high. For some values interdisciplinary team 

members could only determine low or high values (ie. A score of 1 or 5); for other 

values, assessments of 1 – low; 3 – medium, or 5 – high value, could be discerned; and 

finally for a few values the full range of numbers was used: 1 – low, 2 – low-medium, 3 – 

medium, 4 – medium-high, and 5 – high. 

The numbers assigned to represent values were not and are not to be used 

mathematically; they are simply provided as a code to quickly identify values (from low 

to high). Numbers were not added, averaged, or otherwise calculated to determine a 

relative ranking of roadless areas. Rather, each area was considered as a unique 

landscape with certain inherent values regarded through the filter of the several 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-2 

values/criteria provided below. Similarly, values were not ranked within an area in terms 

of their relative merit. That is – a high value for a fishery is neither higher, nor lower 

than a high value for a scenic landscape or a watershed. 

Individual and collective interdisciplinary team work and judgments led to the 

determinations in this section, given the values and the criteria listed below as a 

framework for consideration. The criteria are recognized as imperfect and not a cookbook 

that could be rigidly applied for determining values. The final assessment is a short 

narrative put together by the interdisciplinary team that provides information for 

planners, forest managers, and the public on whether a roadless area had a preponderance 

of high, medium, or low values. Given this summary of values, the interdisciplinary team 

and forest management then assess the effects of the several alternatives on these roadless 

areas in the FEIS and in a record of decision protect and use them appropriately. The 

summary of values is presented below and in the analysis chapter of the FEIS as part of 

context setting for the Wilderness/Roadless topic. 

Roadless Area Values and Criteria 

1. Soils and Water. The value of roadless areas regarding the soil and water resource is 

based on the presence of extensive areas of wetlands. A high value (5) is assigned for 

roadless areas that have extensive amount of wetland area. A low value (1) is assigned 

for roadless having small amounts of wetland. 

2. Sources for Public Drinking Water. The Wasatch-Cache supplies drinking water for 

many communities. The value of roadless areas regarding sources of public drinking 

water is its location within watersheds that have public water sources that take water 

directly from a surface source (i.e. stream) downstream of the roadless area. A high 

value (5) is assigned to roadless areas that have public water sources that take water 

directly from a surface source (i.e. stream) downstream of the roadless area and a low 

value (1) is assigned to watersheds that do not. 

3. Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities. This value is composed of a number of 

sub-categories: Properly Functioning Condition (PFC), Plant Species, Terrestrial Species, 

and Fish Species. 

Subcategory 1: Properly Functioning Condition/Evidence of Weeds 

A roadless area has higher values for protection if it is closer to properly functioning 

condition (pfc). Ecosystems are at properly functioning condition when they function 

within their historic range of variability. For medium-high or high values a consideration 

of Nature Conservancy identified types in need of protection are made. 

PFC Value: 

1. Low. - High variance from pfc; high impacts to composition, structure, and/or 

function (e.g. through livestock grazing and fire control); high amount of noxious 

weeds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-3 

2. Low-Medium. - Moderate to high variance from pfc; moderate to high impacts to 

composition, structure, and/or function (e.g. through livestock grazing and fire 

control); moderate to high amount of noxious weeds. 

3. Medium. - Moderate variance from pfc; moderate impacts to composition, 

structure, and/or function (e.g. through livestock grazing and fire control); low to 

moderate amount of diversity of plant communities and/or age class diversity; low 

to moderate amount of noxious weeds. 

4. Medium-High. - Low variance from pfc; low impacts to composition, structure, 

and/or function (e.g. through livestock grazing and fire control); one or more 

reference landscape communities identified by The Nature Conservancy needs for 

protection are present; moderate amount of diversity of plant communities and/or 

age class diversity; low amount of noxious weeds. 

5. High. - Area at pfc - area has demonstrative features of composition, structure, 

and function; and/or several reference landscape communities identified by The 

Nature Conservancy needs for protection are present; high diversity of 

communities; and/or communities that represent high age class diversity; and/or 

communities that are uncommon; no or low noxious weeds and low potential for 

invasion. 

Subcategory 2: Species at Risk (SAR) (includes TECPS – Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, Federally listed and proposed, and State rankings) is identified elsewhere in 

this analysis. This is not based on numbers alone, but also on rarity. 

A roadless area has a higher value for species that are very rare and/or higher numbers of 

species at risk. 

Plant Species Value: 

1. Low. - No SAR present. 

2. Low-Medium. - SAR present, but relatively low rarity (S2-S3) or no to low 

threats for disturbance; or habitat that is likely to support SAR plants is present. 

3. Medium. - SAR present, and typically S2 rarity with some S3 plants and no to 

low threats for disturbance; or habitat that is likely to support S1-S2 SAR plants is 

present. 

4. Medium-High. - More than one S2 SAR or one or more S1T1 plants with no 

known threats. 

5. High. - High number of SAR or one or more G1S1T1 plants with known threats. 

Terrestrial Species Value: 

1. Low. - No habitat for species at risk. 

2. Low-Medium. - Habitat present for species at risk. 

3. Medium. - Habitat present. Unconfirmed sightings for species at risk. 

4. Medium-High. - Sensitive, proposed or candidate species present. 

5. High. - Endangered or threatened species present. 

Based on the species at risk vertebrates listed in Appendix B-2. Species listed in the 

evaluation criteria above are the minimum known for a roadless area; other species may 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-4 

be present as well as habitat for more. See Appendix B-2 to see species possibilities if 

habitat is available. 

Fish Species Value: 

1. Low. - No native cutthroat trout meta-populations or streams containing cutthroat 

trout, no potential for expanding native populations of cutthroat trout. 

2. Low-Medium. - No native cutthroat trout meta-populations or streams containing 

cutthroat trout, potential for expanding native populations of cutthroat trout with 

treatment. 

3. Medium. - No native cutthroat trout meta-populations or streams containing 

cutthroat trout, potential for expanding native populations of cutthroat trout 

without treatment. 

4. (not used) 

5. High. - Native cutthroat trout meta-populations or isolated streams containing 

cutthroat trout 

4. Recreation – Recreation Opportunities Spectrum (ROS). The value is based on 

relative amount of semi-primitive motorized (SPM) and semi-primitive non-motorized 

(SPNM) recreation opportunities present. Areas with more semi-primitive recreation 

would have more value for preservation. The Wasatch-Cache ROS map (2000) for 

existing opportunities in inventoried roadless areas was used to calculate a percentage of 

total acres per area composed of SPM and SPNM. While a Primitive (P) experience 

would also be considered of high value, mapping of the existing recreation opportunities 

in inventoried roadless areas identified no Primitive ROS acres. 

SPM and SPNM ROS Value: 

1. Low. - 49%-0% of the area of inventoried roadless area is semi-primitive 

non-motorized and/or semi-primitive motorized. 

2. Low-Medium. – (not used) 

3. Medium. - 74%-50% of the area of inventoried roadless area is semiprimitive non-motorized and/or semi-primitive motorized. 

4. Medium-High. – (not used) 

5. High. - 100%-75% of the area of inventoried roadless area is semiprimitive non-motorized and/or semi-primitive motorized. 

5. Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity. The landscape character value is based 

on how intact the inventoried roadless area is as compared to the descriptions of the 

landscape character theme for natural appearing landscape and existing scenic integrity 

levels. The inventoried roadless area was considered as a whole. If one part of the area 

did not meet the description of a scenic integrity level of 5 the area was valued lower as a 

4. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived 

to be “complete”. The highest scenic integrity ratings of 5 are given to those inventoried 

roadless area landscapes which have little or no deviation from the character described in 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Natural Appearing Landscape description scenic 

integrity objective of Very High. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-5 

Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity Value: 

1. Low. – (not used) 

2. Low-Medium. - Low scenic integrity level. 

3. Medium. - Moderate scenic integrity level. 

4. Medium-High – High scenic integrity level. 

5. High. - Very high scenic integrity level. 

6. Traditional Cultural Properties. This value recognizes archeological and historic 

sites and sites sacred to indigenous people. Recorded field data for this value for many 

roadless areas is scanty on the Wasatch-Cache as little survey work has been done in 

roadless areas. Professional judgment of the forest heritage specialist is used in 

estimating the potential value of roadless areas in this respect when field data is absent. 

Traditional Cultural Properties Value: 

1. Low. – No sites known or very little potential for presence of sites. 

2. Low-Medium. – A few sites known or some potential for presence of sites. 

3. Medium. – Medium number of known sites or medium potential for presence of 

sites. 

4. Medium-High. – Medium-high number of sites known or medium-high potential 

for presence of sites. 

5. High. - Important sites known or high potential for important sites. 

7. Locally Identified Unique Characteristics. The value of local unique characteristics 

based on the presence of unique geologic, hydrologic, vegetative or other distinctive 

features. Presence of eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers is noted here. If the feature is noted 

in other values it is not considered here again. For example, cultural and historical 

features are discussed above. Areas with a greater number of unique features present have 

a higher value. 

Unique Characteristics Value: 

1. Low. – None noted. 

2. Low-Medium. – (not used) 

3. Medium. – A few unique characteristics present. 

4. Medium-High. – (not used) 

5. High. – Several to many unique characteristics present. 

8. Size and Context. This value was designed to evaluate how important a roadless area 

is in regard to where it is and how it fits into the landscape it occupies. Size (in Acres) 

has been determined to be an important factor in protecting wild ecosystems. Some areas 

are not heavily intruded into by Cherry Stems, others are. Evaluations of cherry 

stemming were done by looking at GIS projections of each area and counting, measuring, 

and scrutinizing how much the cherry stems intruded. Some roadless areas are more 

remote from urban areas or existing developed highways and roads (i.e. have less chance 

of disruption from visitors, less overall disturbance, and higher potential for ecological 

integrity without human disruption through use or recreation demand) than others. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-6 

An overall score for the value is presented first followed in parentheses by scores for 

each of the sub-variables. Sub-variables are not of equal importance. Of the listed subvariables, Size and Acres is most important; Integrity is next most important, then 

Adjacency and Context. An average score is not calculated for the sub-variables; rather a 

judgment is made to assign an overall value of Size and Context. 

Size and Acres: Larger roadless areas have higher values. For Wasatch-Cache scope only. 

Based on comparison to other roadless areas on the forest, and considered with 

proclaimed Wilderness or roadless, if immediately adjacent. Acreages are provided. 

(Must score 5 in adjacency below). 

1. Low. Small (<10,000 acres.) 

2. Low-Medium. – Small-Medium (10-15,000 acres) 

3. Medium. - Medium (15-20,000 acres) 

4. Medium-High. - Medium-Large (20-35,000 acres) 

5. High. - Large (>35,000 acres) 

Adjacency: Closeness to larger numbers of people may negatively affect roadless 

character. 

1. Low. - Isolated near urban. 

2. Low-Medium. – Isolated near rural or within general national forest context. 

3. Medium. - Surrounded or adjacent to major paved highways or roads that separate 

the area from other undeveloped areas. 

4. Medium-High. - Surrounded or adjacent to minor roads that separate the area 

from other undeveloped areas. 

5. High. - Immediately adjacent to designated Wilderness. 

Context: Relative amount of undeveloped area in a subarea of the Forest, based on 

looking within four subareas: Bear River Range, Stansbury Range, Wasatch Range, Uinta 

Mountains. 

1. Low. - Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. 

2. Low-Medium. - Some other roadless or Wilderness in section. 

3. Medium. - Only roadless no Wilderness but RNA in section. 

4. Medium-High. - Only roadless but Wilderness and RNAs in section. 

5. High. - Only roadless and no Wilderness or RNAs in section. 

Integrity: Cherry Stems into an area negatively affect its roadless integrity. 

1. Low. - More than 5 and/or very long and intrudes deeply. 

2. Low-Medium. - 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive. 

3. Medium. - 3 or 4 and/or short and short intrusions. 

4. Medium-High. - 1 or 2 and/or very short intrudes almost unnoticeably. 

5. None. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-7 

Summary Statement. After the individual values of each roadless area are stated, a 

summary statement is presented for the area that was developed by the forest plan 

interdisciplinary team. This summary statement is intended to be a general state regarding 

the value of the roadless area compared with other settings on the Forest. 

Effects of Alternatives on Individual Roadless Area 

Considerations and disclosures of the effects of alternatives on all roadless areas taken 

collectively are provided in Chapter 3, Topic 5 of the FEIS. 

The effects of the alternatives on roadless area values are largely shown by four tables for 

each roadless area that give the acres by alternative for: 

• Management Prescriptions 

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) category 

• Motorized or Non-Motorized Winter Recreation (and Heliski if 

applicable) 

• Categories of Management Prescriptions that Maintain Values, Mostly 

Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

These several allocations give a good indication of the intent of management for each 

area as they are conceived in the alternative, and the potential for affecting roadless area 

values. 

For the ROS and Winter Recreation tables, columns are shown for both the existing on 

the ground condition of current use, as well as for Alternative 4, (mapped as intended for 

the 1985 Forest Plan.) 

Heliski operations are only allowed or not allowed in those roadless areas where there is 

an accounting in the tables for them. In all other roadless areas no heliski operations are 

allowed under any alternative. Areas where heliski operations are allowed may overlay 

areas where snowmobile use is allowed or winter non-motorized areas. 

Acreage totals are not provided for the MPC, ROS and Winter Recreation tables, and 

acreage figures for each roadless area are rounded off to the nearest 100 acres. In the 

DEIS acreage figures were shown to the nearest acre, however, the GIS mapping 

accuracy for these areas was not accurate to that degree across the several alternatives. It 

is thought that rounding provides a more appropriate realistic approximation of the 

acreage for these roadless areas. Areas may be said to be within 100 acres of the area 

presented in the tables. 

The intent of the effects analysis is to show how different the allocations for the roadless 

areas are across the alternatives, and with that the potential effects of these allocations to 

either development or maintenance of roadless value. Also, for the ROS and Winter 

Recreation tables the 1985 Forest Plan columns will often sum to a considerably different 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-8 

total acreage than other alternative columns due to changes in the ownership of the forest 

since 1985 through land acquisitions or exchanges. 

Finally, there is a short narrative with more interpretation of the effects of the alternatives 

for those roadless areas that had high value overall: Mt. Naomi, Upper South Fork, 

Stansbury, Lakes, High Uintas. See FEIS, Chapter 3, Topic 5 for a listing of high, 

medium, and low value roadless areas. Also, rationale is given in Chapter 3, Topic 5 to 

group management prescriptions into those that maintain roadless values, mostly 

maintain roadless values, or allow development is applied to high value roadless areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-9 

Cache-Box Elder Management Area 

Gibson 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - Most of this roadless area is not grazed (The 

eastern portion is in a sheep allotment). Most of the area is dominated by aspen 

and aspen-conifer communities with scattered mixed conifer, Douglas-fir, and 

sagebrush communities. Some Canada thistle is present in this roadless area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Arabis glabra var. furcatipilis occurs in this 

roadless area, while habitat for Wasatch rockcress is present 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 3 – Lynx linkage habitat present. Unconfirmed 

wolverine sighting. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area contains parts of the Logan River and its 

tributaries that contain cutthroat trout. 

• ROS – 3- 11% SPM, 59% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - No remnants of forest harvest that 

do not mimic natural lines found in the landscape. Some ghost roads/trails 

evident. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common 

• Heritage Resources – 2 - Survey data primarily around Beaver Ski Area. Sites are 

potentially around Logan River, but low possibility overall. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 - (Acres and Size: 2. 

Medium Small (5347 (WCNF) + 8500 (CBNF) =13,847 acres) (Acreage includes 

adjacent CBNF roadless.) Adjacency: 2. Surrounded or adjacent to major paved 

highways or roads that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. Context: 

Bear River Range, 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: 

Cherry Stems, 2. 1 or 2 and/or very short intrudes almost unnoticeably. 

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low to medium. High value for fish.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Gibson– Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.5 200 200 200 300 300 200 200 

2.6 4,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 400 5,100 400 0 0 400 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-10 

3.2 0 0 0 0 0 4,700 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,700 

4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4.4 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 

5.1/6.1 0 0 4,700 0 0 0 0 

5.2 0 0 0 4,900 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gibson – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 3,200 0 0 0 0 

Rural 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 

RN 1,800 1,800 1,900 2,100 1,800 2,200 1,600 1,600 

SPM 500 500 500 0 500 0 600 600 

SPNM 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 3,100 3,100 3,100 

Gibson – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 5,300 2,200 5,300 4,300 2,900 4,400 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

5,300 5,300 0 0 0 1,000 2,400 1000 

Gibson – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

5,300 5,300 400 200 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 0 5,100 5,100 

Allows Development 4,900 5,300 5,300 0 200 

Sum 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 

Mount Naomi 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water - 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area except the surface water of the lower part 

of Green Canyon supplies public drinking water to North Logan. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - This roadless area includes representative 

stands of the Douglas-fir/Ninebark habitat type, which has been identified by The 

Nature Conservancy as a type in need of protection in the Intermountain Region. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-11 

Dyers woad is primarily confined to lower elevations within this roadless area and 

is common on the western portions in Logan Canyon and Green Canyon. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 5 - Cache beardtongue, Rydbergs musineon, Frank 

Smith violet, Maguires primrose, Maguires draga, Wasatch rockcress, Cronquest 

daisy, and Logan buckwheat are present within this roadless area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Townsend' big-eared bat present. Linkage habitat 

for lynx, and habitat for goshawk, Northern three-toed woodpecker and others. 

• Fish Species at Risk - 5 - This area contains parts of the Logan River mainstem 

and tributaries that contain cutthroat trout. 

• ROS – 5 - 32% SPM, 46% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Preston Valley staging area is 

included in this area adjacent to Highway 89. Scenic Attractiveness Level: 

Distinct 

• Heritage Resources – 3 to 4 - Little data, but Logan River is a major corridor and 

the presence of continuous water sources suggest cultural resources presence. 

• Unique Characteristics – 5 - Several features present including Logan and Wind 

caves and other limestone caverns, Jardine Juniper, oldest known tree of this 

species. Portions of three streams found eligible in the wild and scenic river 

inventory. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 4 - (Acres and Size: 5. 

Large (45,122 WCNF roadless + 44,350 Mt. Naomi Wilderness +28,800 CBNF 

roadless = 118,272 acres). Adjacency: 4. Surrounded or adjacent to minor roads 

that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. (Mt. Naomi roadless is both 

near urban, Logan Canyon Highway, but also immediately adjacent to other large 

roadless and designated Wilderness, an interpolated score of 4 was judged for this 

factor.) Context: Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in 

section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium-high to high values. Public drinking water in lower part of Green 

Canyon, PFC, vegetation SAR, fish SAR, semi-primitive experience and unique 

characteristics have high value. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mount Naomi – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 40,000 20,300 8,200 0 0 8,200 500 

2.5 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,700 3,300 2,300 2,300 

2.6 600 18,200 0 0 0 25,700 33,400 

3.1 1,000 2,300 5,900 3,600 3,400 6,300 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,900 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,400 

4.1 0 1,100 19,600 13,100 500 0 0 

4.4 1000 800 900 2,700 900 2,400 2,400 

5.2 0 0 0 16,200 7,700 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-12 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 29,200 0 0 

6.1 0 0 8,000 0 0 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 6,700 0 0 0 

Mount Naomi – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 12,900 0 0 0 0 

Rural 1,200 1,200 1,200 100 2,500 1,200 0 0 

RN 3,200 6,200 8,400 12,600 8,600 9,700 9,500 9,500 

SPM 2,000 3,200 3,200 2,300 3,200 1,900 3,200 3,200 

SPNM 38,600 34,300 32,200 17,000 30,600 32,200 32,200 32,200 

Mount Naomi – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 100 29,100 20,500 44,300 23,200 14,700 28,300 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

45,000 44,800 15,900 11,600 600 21,800 30,300 16,700 

Mount Naomi – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

45,000 43,100 14,100 36,300 33,900 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 1,100 19,600 13,100 500 6,300 6,300 

Allows Development 800 11,200 31,800 44,500 2,400 4,800 

Sum 45,000 45,000 45,000 44,900 45,000 45,000 45,000 

Additional Comments on Effects for High Value Roadless Area 

In Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 the intent of the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule is applied 

and neither timber harvest nor road construction is allowed. 

In every Alternative, a band of MPC 2.5 is applied to about 2,300 to 3,200 acres (5-7% of 

the roadless area) along the Logan Canyon Highway to protect outstanding scenic 

qualities of the Scenic Byway. Development is allowed in this acreage. 

In Alternative 1 nearly all of the Mt. Naomi roadless area is recommended for Wilderness 

and roadless values are protected. Only existing cherry stems roads in Green Canyon and 

to Tony Grove Lake provide motorized access into the core of the area, and any other 

development is not allowed. 

In Alternative 2 a recommendation for Wilderness of slightly less than half of the 

roadless area in the southern part of the area provides protection for roadless values. In 

the northern part of the area more than half of the roadless area’s values are maintained 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-13 

with an MPC of 2.6. Less than 2% of the area allows development, mostly in the Green 

Canyon road corridor, and about 2.5 % of the roadless area on its east side just north of 

White Pine Creek allows new trail construction. 

 

In Alternative 3, 31% of Mt. Naomi roadless character is maintained. 8,200 acres in the 

southern portion of the area adjacent to Mt Naomi Wilderness is recommended as an 

addition to that Wilderness. On the northern side of the area MPC 4.1 is applied to 

provide for backcountry summer non-motorized recreation to nearly half the roadless 

area. Most of the Green Canyon watershed is maintained in a roadless character by MPC 

3.1, while the road corridor is managed for dispersed motorized recreation. Stringers of 

MPC 3.1 also are commonly applied along streams in the area to protect metapopulations 

of Bonneville Cutthroat trout and stream habitat. 8,000 or 18% of the area on its 

southeastern side is allocated to MPC 6.1, where emphasis on non-forested vegetation 

allows road construction and a variety of potential treatment types to improve vegetative 

conditions. 

In Alternative 4 about 3⁄4 of the Mt. Naomi roadess area allows development, with an 

MPC of 5.2 for forested vegetation management for timber growth and yield on 36% of 

area’s northeastern side. 29% of the area on its east and south sides is managed for 

backcountry non-motorized recreation, and an MPC of 6.2 is applied to livestock forage 

production for 15% of the area. The Green Canyon watershed is managed as an 

important watershed by MPC 3, while allowing changes to roadless character as needed 

to reach watershed objectives. The Green Canyon road corridor is managed for dispersed 

motorized recreation. 

In Alternative 5 almost all of the roadless area is managed under prescriptions that allow 

development. Either forested vegetation management for timber growth and yield or 

rangeland vegetation management for livestock forage production is applied to about 2/3 

of the area. The remaining 1/3 of the area is composed of a 7,700 acre block adjacent to 

the south side of the Mt. Naomi Wilderness that is managed for livestock forage 

production, while the Green Canyon area is managed as in Alternatives 3,4,6, and 7. 

In Alternative 6, roadless values are maintained on 81% of the Mt. Naomi roadless area, 

primarily by a large MPC 2.6 on 25,700 acres on the east and north sides of the area, and 

also by a Wilderness recommendation of 8,200 acres on the south margin of Mt. Naomi 

Wilderness. Stringers of MPC 3.1 are applied to streams to provide for Bonneville 

cutthroat trout metapopulations and habitat, while the Green Canyon area is managed as 

in Alternatives 3,4,5, and 7. 

In Alternative 7, there is no recommendation for Wilderness for portions of the Mt. 

Naomi roadless area, but about 3⁄4 of the roadless area’s values are protected by an 

application of the 2.6 MPC. A corridor for dispersed motorized recreation is recognized 

along the northern stretches of the Logan River with MPC 4.4 on 2,400 acres (5% of the 

area), stringers of 3.1 are applied to streams with metapopulations of Bonneville cutthroat 

trout for their protection, and, and Green Canyon is managed as in Alternatives 3-6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-14 

Temple Peak 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition –2 - The Temple Peak roadless area is dominated 

by a variety of plant communities, including aspen, Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, 

lodgepole pine, mountain mahogany, and sagebrush. Most of this area is covered 

by grazing allotments; some portions show impacts from historic grazing. Dyers 

woad is a component is many portions especially on the lower, western portions 

of the area, while hemlock, Canada thistle, field bindweed and whitetop also 

occur. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - Wasatch rockcress and clustered lady's slipper 

occur within this roadless area. In addition, habitat for Arabis glabra var. 

furcatipilis is present. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Lynx linkage habitat present. Flammulated owl, 

goshawk, Northern three-toed woodpecker present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area contains parts of the Logan River mainstem 

and tributaries that contain cutthroat trout. 

• ROS –5- 26% SPM, 49% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Some ghost roads; it appears that 

there have been timber sales in the past. Adjacent to the Sinks Road. Scenic 

Attractiveness Level: Common 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - Known prehistoric sites along Logan River. Also 

includes Temple Fork Sawmill site. Moderate potential for more sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 3 - Portions of five streams found eligible in wild and 

scenic inventory. Segment of the Great Western Trail present. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 – (Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium (23,379 acres). Adjacency: 3. Surrounded or adjacent to major paved 

highways or roads that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. Context: 

Bear River Range, 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: 

Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive.)

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low to medium, except fish SAR and semi-primitive experience 

that are high.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Temple Peak – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.5 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,700 1,700 1,300 1,300 

2.6 19,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-15 

3.1 1,900 21,800 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,900 

3.2 0 0 0 0 0 19,800 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,600 

4.3 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 

4.4 200 200 200 0 200 200 200 

5.1 0 0 0 0 0 100 300 

5.1/6.1 0 0 19,900 0 0 0 0 

5.2 0 0 0 15,200 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 21,400 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 6,500 0 0 0 

Temple Peak – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 3,200 0 0 0 0 

RN 5,800 5,800 5,800 20,200 12,400 5,800 5,800 5,800 

SPM 6,100 6,100 6,100 0 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 

SPNM 11,500 11,500 11,500 0 4,900 11,500 11,500 11,500 

Temple Peak – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

1000 0 20,000 20,200 23,400 18,500 15,800 20,200 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

22,400 23,400 3,400 0 0 4,900 7,600 3,200 

Temple Peak – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

23,400 23,100 1,900 1,300 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 100 21,900 21,500 

Allows Development 200 21,500 23,400 23,400 200 1,900 

Sum 23,400 23,400 23,400 23,400 23,400 23,400 23,400 

Mount Logan North 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1- Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - This roadless area includes all of the 

proposed Logan Canyon Special Interest Area (SIA) which includes 

representative stands of the Douglas-fir/Ninebark habitat type, which has been 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-16 

identified by The Nature Conservancy as a type in need of protection in the 

Intermountain Region. Dyers woad is a common noxious weed in this area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 5 - This roadless area includes several plant species 

at risk (SAR) including Arabis glabra var. furcatipilis, Maguires draba, Rydberg's 

musineon, Cache beardtongue, Maguires primrose, and Frank Smith violet. In 

addition, habitat for the nearby occurring Beckwith violet is present. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area has an isolated population of cutthroat trout in 

Spring Creek 

• ROS – 5 – 23% SPM, 62% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Old timber harvest in southwest 

portion of this roadless area. Utility corridors on north, east and west sides. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - Little data - low to moderate potential primarily 

depending on steep slopes. River valleys have greater potential for sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context - 2 – (Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium (19,197 acres) Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: Bear River 

Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 

3. 3 or 4 and/or short and short intrusions.) 

Summary Statement 

• Some high values especially fish SAR, PFC, vegetation SAR, semi-primitive 

experience, scenic integrity. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area

Mount Logan – North – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.5 900 900 900 1000 1000 900 900 

2.6 6,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.7 11,300 11,300 0 0 0 11,300 11,300 

3.1 200 200 200 0 0 6,700 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,500 

3.2 0 6,400 17,800 0 0 0 0 

4.3 300 300 300 0 400 300 300 

5.2 0 0 0 0 5,800 0 0 

6.1 0 0 0 6,700 0 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 11,500 12,100 0 0 

Mount Logan – North – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 

Rural 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 3,000 0 0 

RN 300 300 300 5,900 800 300 3,000 3,000 

SPM 4,300 4,300 4,300 12,500 3,800 4,300 4,300 4,300 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-17 

SPNM 11,600 11,600 11,600 0 11,600 11,600 11,900 11,900 

Mount Logan – North – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 14,000 18,900 19,200 11,800 9,200 18,500 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

19,200 18,900 5,200 0 0 7,400 10,000 700 

Mount Logan – North – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

19,200 18,900 18,000 12,200 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 300 7,000 18,000 

Allows Development 1,200 19,200 19,200 1,200 

Sum 19,200 19,200 19,200 19,200 19,200 19,200 19,200 

Mount Logan South 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - Juniper interspersed with sagebrush is a 

common component of the west- and south-facing slopes in this roadless area. 

Douglas-fir is common on the north-facing slopes. Aspen communities are 

common at upper elevations. Dyers woad is a common component of the lower, 

drier sites in this area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk – 2 – This roadless area includes one plant species at 

risk, Kings woodyaster, which is of moderate rarity. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area has an isolated population of cutthroat trout in 

the Left Hand Fork of the Blacksmith Fork. 

• ROS – 5 – 41% SPM, 48% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 – Cherry stems into roadless area 

along several roads. Utility corridors on north, and south. Scenic Attractiveness 

Level: Common 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - Little data available, but low to moderate potential 

primarily depending on steepness of slopes. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-18 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 – (Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium (17,001 acres) Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general 

national forest context. Context: Bear River Range, 1. Much other roadless or 

Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately 

intrusive.) 

Summary Statement 

• Most values are medium. Fish, scenic integrity and semi-primitive experience 

values are high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mount Logan – South – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 15,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.7 200 200 0 0 0 200 200 

3.1 0 15,900 0 0 0 15,900 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,900 

3.2 100 200 16,200 0 0 100 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

4.3 500 500 500 0 500 500 500 

4.4 300 100 300 0 300 300 300 

6.1 0 0 0 1,700 0 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 15,300 16,200 0 0 

Mount Logan – South – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 

RN 1,900 1,900 1,900 9,400 2,300 1,900 1,900 1,900 

SPM 5,300 5,300 7,000 7,000 6,600 7,000 7,000 7,000 

SPNM 9,800 9,800 8,100 0 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 

Mount Logan – South – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 17,000 16,400 17,000 17,000 11,100 17,000 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

17,000 17,000 0 0 0 0 5,900 0 

Mount Logan – South – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

17,000 16,300 16,200 200 

Mostly Maintains 500 16,500 16,200 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-19 

Roadless Values 

Allows Development 100 800 17,000 17,000 300 800 

Sum 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 

Mount Logan West 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - Juniper interspersed with sagebrush is a 

common component of the west- and south-facing slopes in this roadless area. 

Douglas-fir is common on the north-facing slopes. At upper elevations, subalpine 

fir dominates with scattered inclusions of aspen. Dyers woad is a common 

noxious weed in this area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area, however, habitat for the nearby occurring Beckwith violet is present at the 

lower elevations, while habitat for King's woodyaster occurs at the upper 

elevations. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – Score for Criteria – 2 - Lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk - 2 - Habitat is available in Spring Creek. The stream would 

have to be treated to remove brown trout 

• ROS – 5 – 16% SPM, 84% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Has gravel pit in the middle of 

area, some ghost roads. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - Little data - low to moderate potential primarily 

depending on steep slopes. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 – (Acres and Size: 1. Small (5,281 acres). 

Adjacency: 3. Isolated near rural or within general national forest context. 

Context: Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section 

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low to medium, except semi-primitive experience that is high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mount Logan – West – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 4500 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.2 0 4500 4500 0 0 4500 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 4500 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-20 

4.3 700 700 700 0 700 700 700 

6.1 0 0 0 4300 0 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 900 4500 0 0 

Mount Logan – West – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 4,300 0 0 0 0 

Rural 500 500 500 0 500 500 0 0 

RN 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 

SPM 800 800 800 700 800 800 800 800 

SPNM 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 4,000 4,400 4,400 

Mount Logan – West – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

100 100 5,300 1,000 5,300 5,300 3,500 5,300 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

5,200 5,200 0 0 0 0 1,800 0 

Mount Logan – West – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

5,300 4,500 4,500 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 700 5,300 4,500 

Allows Development 700 5,300 5,300 700 

Sum 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 

Boulder Mountain 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - The area is dominated by mountain 

mahogany, sagebrush and aspen plant communities. Portions of three allotments 

occur in this roadless area and the area shows some impacts from grazing. Dyers 

woad occurs on the southern portion of this area and Canada thistle and hemlock 

occur in the Left Hand Fork Blacksmith Fork riparian area adjacent to this 

roadless area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-21 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Goshawk and Northern three-toed woodpecker 

present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area has an isolated population of cutthroat trout in 

Saddle Creek 

• ROS – 5 – 25% SPM, 75% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity - 3 – North edge of roadless area 

appears to have several geometric vegetation patterns, but it is on south-facing 

slopes. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct to Common: Blacksmiths Fork 

Canyon rock spires and distinct vegetation patterns. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - No survey data, rank based on professional judgment of 

presence of cultural resources. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 - Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (8,845 acres) Adjacency: 4. Surrounded or adjacent to minor roads that 

separate the area from other undeveloped areas. Context: Bear River Range, 1. 

Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems. 1. 5 and/or 

long and moderately intrusive. (Only 1 cherry stem – 2 miles) 

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low to medium, except fish SAR and semi-primitive experience 

which high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Boulder Mountain – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 5,800 0 0 0 0 0 

3.2 0 2,700 0 0 0 100 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

4.3 100 300 400 0 400 400 400 

4.4 400 0 100 0 100 100 100 

5.1/6.1 0 0 8,300 0 0 8,300 8,300 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 8,300 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 8,800 0 0 0 

Boulder Mountain – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 200 200 200 8,800 900 200 200 200 

SPM 2,300 2,300 2,300 0 1,700 2,100 2,100 2,100 

SPNM 6,400 6,400 6,400 0 6,200 6,500 6,500 6,500 

Boulder Mountain – Winter Recreation (Acres) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-22 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 8,200 8,800 8,800 8,800 7,900 8,800 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

8,800 8,800 700 0 0 0 900 0 

Boulder Mountain – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

8,800 8,500 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 300 8,700 100 

Allows Development 0 8,800 8,800 8,800 100 8,800 

Sum 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 

Elk Valley 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 1 - This roadless area is dominated by aspen 

communities with inclusions of sagebrush, Douglas-fir, and mixed conifer. 

Portions of four allotments cover this roadless area. Many of the aspen and 

sagebrush communities show impacts of historic grazing. Dyers woad is present 

on the western portion of this roadless area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Goshawk and Northern three-toed woodpecker 

present. 

• Fish Species at Risk - 5 -This area contains isolated populations of cutthroat trout. 

• ROS – 5- 88% SPM, 0 % SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - High amount of ghost roads/trails 

and road # 20248 bisects the roadless area. Scenic Attractiveness Level: 

Common. 

• Heritage Resources - 3 - Low survey data, but moderate potential for prehistoric 

sites near springs. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 – None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 - Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (8,839 acres). Adjacency: 4. Surrounded or adjacent to minor roads that 

separate the area from other undeveloped areas. Context: Bear River Range, 1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-23 

Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. More 

than 5 and/or very long and intrudes deeply. (Area has 3 cherry stems – 1 very 

intrusive, over two miles long with donut hole along course. Trails network the 

area. State inholding.) 

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low. High values for fish and motorized semi-primitive 

experience. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Elk Valley – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

3.2 8,000 8,000 0 0 0 7,900 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,900 

4.3 200 200 200 0 200 200 200 

5.1/6.1 0 0 8,000 0 0 100 100 

5.2 0 0 0 2,200 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 

Elk Valley – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 400 400 400 8,200 1,000 400 400 400 

SPM 7,800 7,800 7,800 0 7,200 7,800 7,800 7,800 

Elk Valley – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Elk Valley – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres)

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

8,200 8,000 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 8,200 7,900 

Allows Development 200 8,200 8,200 8,200 300 

Sum 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-24 

Mahogany Range 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 2 - The Mahogany Range roadless area is 

dominated by curlleaf mountain mahogany with scattered juniper and sagebrush 

communities on south-facing slopes and Douglas-fir on north-facing slopes. 

Some aspen stands are present at higher elevations, but are being replaced by 

conifers. Most of the area is in a cattle allotment and shows some evidence of 

historic grazing. Dyers woad is common on this allotment. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk, Northern three-toed woodpecker, and 

flammulated owl habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - Cutthroat trout are found the Left Hand Fork of the 

Blacksmith Fork. 

• ROS – 5 – 21% SPM, 64% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - In the mid-section of this area the 

vegetation patterns are very geometric explaining the number of unconstructed 

traverlways in the area. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct. A unique complex 

of vegetation types and terrain. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - Low data, but moderate potential of sites based on 

amount of springs and creeks in area. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 – Small portion of one stream found eligible in the 

wild and scenic river inventory. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context - 2 - Acres and Size: 2. 

Medium Small (11,400 acres) Adjacency: 2. Surrounded or adjacent to major 

paved highways or roads that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. 

Context: Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. 

Integrity: Rank 4. Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive. 

 

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low to medium, except fish SAR and semi-primitive experience, 

that are high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mahogany Range – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 6,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-25 

3.2 100 4,100 10,400 0 0 10,400 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,400 

4.3 100 300 500 0 500 500 500 

4.4 4,900 100 500 0 500 500 500 

6.2 0 0 0 11,400 10,400 0 0 

Mahogany Range – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RN 2,200 2,200 1,700 11,300 2,200 2,200 1,700 1,700 

SPM 1,900 1,900 2,400 0 1,900 1,900 2,400 2,400 

SPNM 7,300 7,300 7,300 0 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 

Mahogany Range – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 11,400 11,400 11,400 2,500 900 2,500 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

11,400 11,400 0 0 0 8,900 10,500 8,900 

Mahogany Range – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

11,400 11,000 10,400 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 300 10,900 10,400 

Allows Development 100 1000 11,400 11,400 500 1000 

Sum 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-26 

Right Hand Fork Logan 

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 5 - This roadless area includes all of the 

proposed Logan Canyon Research Natural Area (RNA) which includes 

representative stands of the Douglas-fir/Ninebark habitat type, which has been 

identified by The Nature Conservancy as RNA needs on National Forest Lands in 

Utah (Tuhy 1998). The area includes Dyers woad occurs on the drier slopes near 

Logan Canyon. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 5 - This roadless area includes several plant species 

at risk (SAR) including Rydbergs musineon, Logan buckwheat, Cronquist daisy, 

Maguires draba, Maguires primrose, and Frank Smith violet. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk, Northern three-toed woodpecker, lynx 

linkage and other SAR species habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area contains parts of the Logan River mainstem 

and tributaries that contain cutthroat trout. 

• ROS – 5 – 36% SPM, 44% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - Past timber harvest in south part 

of roadless area. A number of ghost roads are also present. Scenic Attractiveness 

Level: Distinct. Adjacent to Logan Canyon Scenic Byway. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - Several sites located along Logan Canyon - moderate to 

high potential to record more 

• Unique Characteristics – 3 - Portion of two streams found eligible in the wild and 

scenic river inventory. 

• Size and Context - (Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 - Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium (15,011 acres). Adjacency: 3. Surrounded or adjacent to major paved 

highways or roads that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. Context: 

Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: 

Cherry Stems, 1. More than 5 and/or very long and intrudes deeply. (Area has 6 

cherry stems. 4 are small – about .5 miles each. One is deep and forked into two 

segments in the northern half of the area; Mud Flat-Chicken Creek area. It runs 

several miles into the area nearly bisecting the northern part of the area.)

Summary Statement 

• Some low, medium and high values. PFC, vegetation SAR, fish SAR and semiprimitive experience are high.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-27 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Right Hand Fork Logan – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.5 600 600 600 800 800 600 600 

2.6 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.7 2,200 2,200 0 0 0 2,200 2,200 

3.1 1000 12,000 1000 0 0 1000 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 

3.2 0 0 0 0 0 5,600 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,600 

4.3 100 100 100 0 200 100 100 

4.4 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 

5.1/6.1 0 0 13,300 0 0 5,500 5,500 

5.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 13,900 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 14,100 0 0 0 

Right Hand Fork Logan – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

Rural 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 

RN 2,900 2,900 2,900 14,900 3,400 2,900 2,900 2,900 

SPM 5,400 5,400 6,600 0 6,200 5,400 5,400 5,400 

SPNM 6,700 6,700 5,500 0 5,500 6,700 6,700 6,700 

Right Hand Fork Logan – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 12,200 14,000 15,000 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

15,000 15,000 0 0 2,800 1,000 0 

Right Hand Fork Logan – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

15,000 14,800 1000 2,800 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 100 12,100 8,800 

Allows Development 100 14,000 15,000 15,000 100 6,200 

Sum 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-28 

Mollens Hollow 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - The Mollens Hollow Research Natural Area 

(RNA) occurs entirely within and occupies approximately 10 percent of this 

roadless area. Stands of single needle pinyon pine and curleaf mountain 

mahogany representing relatively undisturbed conditions occur within this RNA. 

Some Canada thistle is near the edge of the area as is dyers woad. Dyers woad 

has the potential to spread if uncontrolled. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - Maguires draba, Logan buckwheat, and Cache 

beardtongue occur within this roadless area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area has an isolated population of cutthroat trout in 

Curtis Creek and potential for other populations to be found in the Blacksmith 

Fork 

• ROS – 5 – 38% SPM, 44% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Scenic Attractiveness Level: Has a 

number of prominent rock outcrops and dense conifer. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - No survey data, rank based on professional 

judgment of likelihood of presence of cultural resources near springs. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context– 2 - (Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium (17,676 acres). Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general 

national forest context. Context: Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or 

Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 2. 5 and/or long and moderately 

intrusive.)

Summary Statement 

• Most values are low to medium, except fish SAR and semi-primitive experience 

that are high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mollens Hollow – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.4 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 

2.6 16,200 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 300 500 300 0 0 500 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 

3.2 0 0 16,200 0 0 15,700 0 

3.2D 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,200 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-29 

4.3 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 

4.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 

5.1 0 0 0 11,100 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 16,500 0 0 

6.1 0 0 0 5,400 0 0 0 

Mollens Hollow – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 4,100 4,100 4,100 11,400 4,100 4,100 3,100 3,100 

SPM 5,800 5,800 5,800 0 5,800 5,800 6,800 6,800 

SPNM 7,800 7,800 7,800 6,300 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 

Mollens Hollow - – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

4,400 4,400 11,900 11,400 11,900 11,900 12,600 8,200 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

13,300 13,300 5,800 6,300 5,800 5,800 5,100 9,400 

Mollens Hollow – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

17,700 17,700 17,700 1,200 1,200 1,200 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 1,200 16,500 11,700 

Allows Development 16,500 16,500 0 4,800 

Sum 17,700 17,700 17,700 17,700 17,700 17,700 17,700 

Wellsville Mountains 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 2 - Maple communities are common on the 

Cache Valley portions of this roadless area while juniper communities are 

common on the western portions in Box Elder County. Two of these units are 

included in cattle allotments. Dyers woad and leafy spurge have been noted in 

portions of these widespread units. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - No known SAR plants are present, but habitats 

for Beckwith violet, Burkes draba, and Wasatch rockcress are present. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Peregrine falcon habitat present. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-30 

• Fish Species at Risk -1 - No cutthroat trout or potential 

• ROS – 3 – 47% SPM, 5% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 – Roadless area some has old 

clearcuts, based on old recovering road locations. Scenic Attractiveness Level: 

Common 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Heritage Resources – 4 - No data, but Shoshone tribe described area as high 

potential for significant Shoshone sites. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 – (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (1763 acres. Wellsville Mountain Wilderness = 22,986. Roadless areas are 

small in relation small-medium sized Wilderness. Not significant in relation to 

other areas on the Forest.) Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general 

national forest context. Context: Wasatch Range, 1. Much other roadless or 

Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately 

intrusive.)

Summary Statement 

• Mostly low values except for potential heritage resources. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Wellsville Mountains – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 1,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.2 100 1,700 300 300 300 1,700 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,700 

5.1/6.1 0 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 1,400 1,400 0 0 

Wellsville – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RN 100 1,400 1,500 900 1,500 0 800 800 

SPM 0 200 200 500 200 1,700 900 900 

SPNM 1,700 200 0 300 0 100 100 100 

Wellsville Mountains – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 1,800 1,400 1,800 1,400 1,400 1,800 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

1,800 1,800 0 300 0 300 300 0 

Wellsville Mountains – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 1,800 1,800 300 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-31 

Values 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 1,700 1,700 

Allows Development 1,400 1,800 1,800 

Sum 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-32 

Bear Management Area 

Swan Creek Mountain 

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - The Swan Creek Mountain roadless area is 

dominated by a variety of plant communities from mountain mahogany and 

sagebrush, to Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, and aspen. This area is included in two 

sheep allotments. It does not have any major occurrences of noxious weeds, 

although dyers woad occurs on adjacent lands. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5 - This area contains parts of the Beaver Creek that contain 

cutthroat trout 

• ROS – 3 – 1 % SPM, 73% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - Past timber harvest in south part 

of area. A number of ghost roads are also present. Scenic Attractiveness Level: 

Common. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - No data. May have some potential based on 

proximity to Bear Lake. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 – (Acres and Size: 2. 

Medium-small – (9,384 WCNF roadless acres + 6156 CBNF roadless acres = 

15,725 total roadless acres on both forests.) Adjacency: 3. Surrounded or adjacent 

to major paved highways or roads that separate the area from other undeveloped 

areas. Context: Bear River Range, 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in 

section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive. (Two 

roads – 1: 3 miles long from Highway 89 to and past state line from Willow 

Spring area. 2: Small incursion less than .5 mile in southwest corner to Amazon 

Mine area.)

Summary Statement 

• Mostly low to medium values, except fish SAR that is high.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-33 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Swan Creek Mountain – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.5 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 

2.6 8,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 8,900 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.2 0 0 0 0 0 8,900 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,900 

5.1/6.1 0 0 8,900 0 0 0 0 

5.2 0 0 0 4,100 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 8,900 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 4,900 0 0 0 

Swan Creek Mountain – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 2,500 2,500 2,500 9,400 2,500 2,500 2,400 2,400 

SPM 0 0 0 0 6,800 0 100 100 

SPNM 6,900 6,800 6,900 0 0 6,800 6,800 6,800 

Swan Creek Mountain – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 9,400 9,400 9,400 8,900 6,200 9,400 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

9,300 9,300 0 0 0 500 3,200 0 

Swan Creek Mountain – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

9,400 9,400 0 400 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 8,900 8,900 

Allows Development 9,300 9,400 9,400 400 

Sum 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 

Rock Creek – Green Fork 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-34 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 2 - This roadless area is dominated by a variety 

of plant communities including Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, aspen, sagebrush, and 

lodgepole pine. It includes portions of three allotments. Dyers woad is a 

common component on the lower elevations of this area and black henbane also 

occurs. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -3- Rock Creek is currently fishless up this high but contains 

cutthroat trout downstream and could be stocked with native fish. 

• ROS – 3 – 52% SPM, 0 % SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - Timber harvest geometric shapes 

are evident, and ghost roads present. The general appearance is that vegetation is 

moth-eaten. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - No data, but moderate potential for prehistoric sites near 

springs. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Locally significant small caves present. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 - (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (5,651 acres). Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general national 

forest context. Context: Rank 3. Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or 

Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. More than 5 and/or very long 

and intrudes deeply. (For a very small area this is intruded into heavily by cherry 

stems – Two major cherry stems intrude about 2 miles each from the eastern edge 

of the area.) 

 

Summary Statement 

• All low values except for fish SAR, semi-primitive experience and heritage which 

are medium.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Rock Creek – Green Fork – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 5,500 5,500 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 100 100 100 0 0 100 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

3.2 0 0 5,500 0 0 5,000 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 

4.3 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 

4.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 

5.1 0 0 0 5,600 0 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 5,600 0 0 

Rock Creek – Green Fork – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 2,300 2,300 2,300 5,600 2,300 2,300 2,700 2,700 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-35 

SPM 100 800 3,300 0 3,300 200 2,900 2,900 

SPNM 3,300 2,500 0 0 0 3,100 0 0 

Rock Creek – Green Fork – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

2,000 2,000 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

3,600 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rock Creek – Green Fork – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

5,600 5,600 5,600 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 5,600 5,100 

Allows Development 5,600 5,600 500 

Sum 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 

Sugar Pine

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 2 - This roadless area is dominated by aspen, 

sagebrush, and Douglas-fir, with spruce-fir at the higher elevations. The area is 

included in an allotment that shows evidence of grazing and fire suppression 

(aspen being replaced by conifer at an accelerated rate). Canada and musk thistle 

are common in the riparian portions of this roadless area and dyers woad occurs 

on adjacent lands. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk and lynx linkage habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk - 5 - This area contains parts of the Sugar Pine Creek that 

contain cutthroat trout. 

• ROS – 5 – 23% SPM, 65% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 – Large number of ghost roads. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - No survey data, score based on professional 

judgment of resource potential. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-36 

• Size and Context - (Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 - (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (5,591 acres). Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general national 

forest context. Context: Bear River Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness 

in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems. 1. 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive. 

(Three cherry stems – the longest of which is about 1.5 miles up from the areas 

southwest corner. The other two are less than .5 miles each. This is moderate to 

heavy intrusion for a small area.)

Summary Statement 

• Mostly low values except fish SAR and semi-primitive experience that are high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Sugar Pine – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 4,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 700 5,600 5,600 0 5,600 5,200 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,200 

3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4.4 0 0 0 0 0 400 400 

4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6.1 0 0 0 5,600 0 0 0 

Sugar Pine – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 0 700 700 500 1,900 1,900 700 700 

SPM 1,900 1,300 1,700 5,100 3,700 0 1,300 1,300 

SPNM 3,700 3,700 3,100 0 0 3,700 3,700 3,700 

Sugar Pine – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

5,600 5,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sugar Pine – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

5,600 5,600 5,600 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 0 5,200 5,200 

Allows Development 0 0 5,600 5,600 400 400 

Sum 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-37 

North Wasatch-Ogden Valley Management Area 

Upper South Fork 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water –5- Located about 10 miles east of Ogden 

above Causey Reservoir. The roadless area drains Causey Reservoir then into 

Pineview Reservoir which is used as a surface water supply for public drinking 

water. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - The Upper South Fork roadless area has a 

variety of plant communities including aspen, Douglas-fir, spruce-fir, sagebrush, 

and tall shrub. Only the northernmost portion of this roadless area is in 

allotments. Dyers woad approaches the western portion of this area, while thistle 

(Canada and musk) have been found in or near the area 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Townsends big-eared bat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -5- This area has an isolated population of cutthroat trout 

Wheat Grass and Left Fork of the South Fork. 

• ROS – 5- 3% SPM, 92% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 5 - Very intact natural appearing 

landscape with minimal intrusions. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct. 

Rounded ridgetops, bisected with steep drainages bordered with sheer cliffs 

characterize the area. Many different types of vegetation are found within the 

area that add to the texture of the landscape. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - Low survey data, but low to moderate potential for 

sites based on professional judgment. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Portion of one stream found eligible in the wild and 

scenic river inventory.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 – (Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium. (17,255 acres). Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general 

national forest context. Context: Bear River Range (Monte Cristo Range). 2. 

Some other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Rank 4. Cherry Stems, 3. 

1 or 2 and/or very short intrudes almost unnoticeably. (2 short .5 mile segments 

intrude. One just north of Causey Reservoir; the other at the north end of the area 

at the head of Wheatgrass Canyon.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium to high values: public drinking water, fish SAR, terrestrial SAR, 

and semi-primitive experience are high and scenic integrity is very high.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-38 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Upper South Fork – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 17,200 0 17,200 0 0 14,400 14,200 

2.6 0 15,100 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 1,200 0 0 300 0 0 

3.2 0 1,000 0 0 0 2,100 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,300 

4.1 0 0 0 14,300 15,500 0 0 

4.2 0 0 0 1,600 0 0 0 

4.3 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 

4.4 0 0 0 0 1,000 700 700 

6.1 0 0 0 1,300 0 0 0 

Upper South Fork – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 

Rural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RN 0 2,600 0 2,300 2,600 1,500 900 900 

SPM 0 100 0 0 0 0 600 600 

SPNM 17,200 14,600 17,200 14,400 14,600 15,800 15,800 15,800 

Upper South Fork – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 1,100 16,700 2,600 2,300 2,300 2,800 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

17,200 17,200 16,200 0 14,600 14,900 14,900 14,400 

Upper South Fork – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

17,200 17,200 17,200 14,400 14,200 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 15,900 15,500 2,100 2,300 

Allows Development 1,300 1,800 700 700 

Sum 17,200 17,200 17,200 17,200 17,200 17,200 17,200 

Additional Comments on Effects for High Value Roadless Area 

In Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 the intent of the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule is applied 

and neither timber harvest nor road construction is allowed. 

In Alternatives 1 and 3 all of the Upper South Fork roadless area is recommended for 

Wilderness (MPC 1.5) maintaining roadless area values. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-39 

In Alternative 2 88% of the Upper South Fork roadless area is managed as MPC 2.6 to 

maintain roadless character. Stringers of MPC 3.1 manage 7% along the Left Fork South 

Fork and Wheat Grass Creek to protect Bonneville cutthroat trout habitat while 

maintaining roadless values. MPC 3.2 manages terrestrial wildlife habitat on 6% of the 

area’s northwest side while also maintaining roadless values. 

In Alternative 4 roadless area values are maintained while managing 83% of the area for 

backcountry non-motorized recreation (MPC 4.1) and 9% for denser-use dispersed nonmotorized recreation (MPC 4.2). The remaining 8% of the area, about 1,300 acres of the 

area’s northwest side is managed for non-forested vegetation ecosystems (MPC 6.1) 

which allows vegetation treatments and road construction; this is approximately the same 

area that is managed under a terrestrial wildlife prescription in Alternative 2. 

In Alternative 5, 90% of the Upper South Fork roadless area is managed for backcountry 

non-motorized recreation, which maintains roadless values. The remaining 10% is 

managed as either backcountry (3%) or dispersed (7%) motorized recreation, which can 

allow the development of roads, a full range of vegetation treatments, and trail 

construction potentially affecting roadless values. 

In Alternative 6, 84% of the Upper South Fork roadless area is recommended as 

Wilderness, which maintains roadless values. The remainder is divided between 

terrestrial habitat MPC 3.2 (12%) and a dispersed motorized recreation MPC 4.4 (4%) to 

buffer the recommended Wilderness along the heavily used Monte Cristo and Wasatch 

Ridge areas, but allowing some possible effects to roadless values. 

Alternative 7 is much like Alternative 6, recommending just slightly less Wilderness 

(83%). A similar buffer along the north side of the recommended Wilderness of MPCs 

3.2 and 4.4 is provided. Most of the difference between Alternatives 6 and 7 for Upper 

South Fork roadless area is due to mapping refinement rather than any difference 

between the intent of the two alternatives. 

Willard 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 5 - This roadless area is dominated by a variety 

of plant communities including spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, Gambel oak, juniper, tall 

forb, and sagebrush. It has examples of the Tall Forb communities in excellent 

condition, which have more or less been depleted elsewhere through historic 

grazing in many places on the forest. The area is not in an allotment, but has seen 

impacts from off road vehicle use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-40 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 4 - Wasatch rockcress, Burkes draba, and Utah ivesia 

occur in this roadless area and Wasatch fitweed occurs near the trail to Ben 

Lomond. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 5 - Wintering bald eagles. 

• Fish Species at Risk -1 - No cutthroat trout or potential 

• ROS – 5 – 34% SPM, 58% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 – Large number of ghost roads are 

in this roadless area on its eastern side. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct. 

This area has very rugged rock spires, and rock monoliths mostly on the western 

face. 

• Heritage Resources – 4 - Low data, but based on proximity to Public Grove area, 

high potential of prehistoric sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Portion of one stream found eligible in the wild and 

scenic river inventory.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 - (Acres and Size: 4. 

Medium Large (20,011 acres) Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general 

national forest context. Context: Wasatch Range, 1. Much other roadless or 

Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. 4 or 5 and/or long and 

moderately intrusive. (Scenic Backway (Route 084) to top of Willard Peak is over 

4 miles long and enters intrusively into the north side of the area.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium to high values. High values for PFC, terrestrial SAR, scenic 

attractiveness and integrity, and semi-primitive experience. Medium-high for 

Vegetation SAR and heritage.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Willard – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.6 10,500 18,400 0 0 0 0 11,400 

2.7 200 200 0 0 0 200 2,100 

3.1 100 500 19,100 19,100 0 18,100 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,800 

4.4 0 0 0 0 19,100 800 800 

Willard – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 1,100 0 0 0 0 

RN 1,500 1,600 2,400 100 3,000 1,900 700 700 

SPM 6,800 6,800 9,000 3,700 6,100 6,100 6,800 6,800 

SPNM 10,800 10,700 7,700 14,200 10,000 11,100 11,600 11,600 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-41 

Willard – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

1,200 1,200 16,700 3,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 19,100 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

17,900 17,900 2,400 14,200 17,900 18,000 18,000 0 

Willard – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

20,000 20,000 20,000 200 11,400 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 19,000 6,900 

Allows Development 20,000 20,000 800 800 

Sum 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 19,100 

Lewis Peak 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 -Located on steep terrain just east of Ogden 

with the southern part just north of Ogden River in Ogden Canyon water supply 

for City of Ogden. The east side of the roadless area drains into Pineview 

Reservoir which is used as a surface water supply for public drinking water. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - Lewis Peak roadless area is dominated by 

Gambel oak with Douglas-fir on more north-facing slopes and at higher 

elevations. The area has not seen recent historic grazing and, because of the 

dense oakbrush, probably has not been heavily grazed in the past. Dyers woad is 

a common component of the lower elevations surrounding this roadless area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Broadleaf penstemon is present and habitat for 

Utah fleabane may occur. Habitat for Burkes draba is also present, but recent 

surveys have not found this plant in the area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – Score for Criteria – 2 - Peregrine falcon habitat 

present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -1- No cutthroat trout or potential. 

• ROS – 5 – 56% SPM, 24% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Steep on both sides with Ogden 

Canyon on the south and North Pass divide on with power lines on the north. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - Low survey data - rank based on professional judgment. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-42 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 - (Acres and Size: 2. 

Medium Small (12,092 acres). Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: 

Wasatch Range, 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: 

Cherry Stems, 1. 1 or 2 and/or very short intrudes almost unnoticeably. (One .75 

cherry stem up Coldwater Canyon from the west.)

Summary Statement 

• Mostly low values except PFC and heritage that are medium value and public 

drinking water and semi-primitive experience that are high value.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Lewis Peak – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 12,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.6 0 12,100 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 0 12,100 12,100 0 11,900 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,900 

4.4 0 0 0 0 11,200 100 100 

4.5 0 0 0 0 900 0 0 

Lewis Peak – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 1,100 0 0 0 0 

Rural 1000 1000 1000 200 1000 1000 0 0 

RN 1,800 1,800 2,400 200 5,100 1,800 1,200 1,200 

SPM 3,200 3,200 5,900 2,000 2,500 3,200 3,200 3,200 

SPNM 6,100 6,100 2,800 8,600 3,400 6,100 7,700 7,700 

Lewis Peak – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 10,700 2,400 900 0 0 12,100 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

12,100 12,100 1,400 8,600 11,200 12,100 12,100 0 

Lewis Peak – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

12,100 12,100 12,100 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 11,900 11,900 

Allows Development 0 0 12,100 12,100 200 200 

Sum 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-43 

Burch Creek 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - This roadless area is dominated by Gambel 

oak and scattered sagebrush openings with some limber pine at upper elevations. 

The area has not been grazed and the oak is likely to be too dense to 

accommodate much historic grazing. Dyers woad is a common component on the 

lower, west-facing slopes. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - Burkes draba occurs in this roadless area, while 

Wasatch rockcress and Utah fleabane are known from habitats nearby. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Peregrine falcon habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk -2- The area has the potential for a population of cutthroat 

trout in Burch Creek. A treatment would need to be conducted to remove the 

natural rainbow trout 

• ROS – 5 – 0 % SPM, 89% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Some ghost roading on southwest 

edge with possible old mine. Also Beus Trail creates a dominant line across 

gambel oak patches in the trail location. Area appears natural in vegetation 

patterns. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct, from mid-slope to the top of the 

ridge line. Steep slopes with a high amount of diversity in vegetation, and rock 

outcrops. Below this level the landscape is Common, like the other landscapes 

along the Wasatch Front. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 - No survey data, rank based on professional judgment of 

liklihood of presence of cultural resources. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context - 2 - (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (7,518 acres). Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: Wasatch Range, 

2. Some other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems. 5. 

None.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly low except for PFC and vegetation SAR that are medium and semiprimitive experience that is high.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Burch Creek – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.6 0 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 0 6,900 6,900 0 6,900 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-44 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,900 

4.2 0 0 0 0 6,900 0 0 

4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Burch Creek – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

Rural 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 

RN 0 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 800 800 

SPNM 6,900 5,400 5,400 6,100 5,400 5,400 6,200 6,200 

Burch Creek – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

6,900 6,900 6,900 6,100 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 

Burch Creek – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

6,900 6,900 6,900 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 6,900 6,900 6,900 

Allows Development 6,900 

Sum 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 

Francis 

Francis (Includes the North, Middle, and South Francis Roadless areas from the DEIS, 

now combined. Rational for separation into separate units was considered weak. Rather, 

combination of North and Middle units which have similar lands and are connected and 

linked by private land of similar character, and combination of Middle and South units 

which had been deemed separate based on minor unobtrusive powerline with no access 

roads is considered appropriate.)

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water - 5 - Located adjacent to Wasatch Front. Two 

of the drainages are used as a surface water supply for public drinking water. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 2 - The Francis roadless area is dominated by 

Gambel oak with sagebrush communities at highest elevations and Douglas-fir on 

north-facing slopes. The northeastern portion of the area is in a sheep allotment, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-45 

but does not show signs of excessive grazing. The lower, western slopes have a 

conspicuous component of dyers woad. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Broadleaf penstemon and Utah fleabane occur in 

this roadless area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 1 - No known cutthroat trout 

• ROS – 5 – 10% SPM, 78% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Ghost roads on the western edge. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common for the Wastach Front. Main vegetation is 

gambel oak except in drainage where there are cottonwoods and some conifer at 

higher elevations. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - No survey data, rank based on professional 

judgment. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Segment of the Great Western Trail present.

• Size and Context - - Overall Score for Size and Context – 2 – (Acres and Size: 3. 

Medium (15,196 acres.) Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban, and 2. Isolated near 

rural or within general national forest context. Context: Wasatch Range, 1. Much 

other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5. None. 

(Combined area is larger than original three smaller areas. Area in close 

proximity to urban/ watersheds has relative high value.) 

Summary Statement 

• All low to medium values except scenic integrity that is medium-high and public 

drinking water and semi-primitive experience that are high. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Francis – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 8,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.6 6,200 14,300 0 0 0 0 4,800 

3.1 0 0 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,400 

4.4 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 

4.5 

6.1 0 0 0 0 0 2,200 2,200 

6.2 0 0 2,200 2,200 2,200 0 0 

Francis – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 

RN 3,200 3,200 3,200 900 3,200 3,200 1,700 1,700 

SPM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 1,500 

SPMN 11,600 11,600 11,600 13,700 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-46 

Francis – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

100 100 1,500 900 1,500 1,500 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

14,700 14,500 13,300 13,700 13,300 13,300 14,800 14,800 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 

Heliski - no 0 0 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400 

Francis – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

14,800 14,300 12,100 4,800 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 14,300 7,400 

Allows Development 400 2,600 14,800 14,800 400 2,600 

Sum 14,800 14,800 14,800 14,800 14,800 14,800 14,800 

Farmington 

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - The Farmington Roadless Area includes all 

of the existing Morris Creek Research Natural Area (RNA), which has 

represenative stands of Douglas-fir and aspen communities. It also includes all of 

the proposed expansion of this RNA which includes relatively undisturbed stands 

of curlleaf mountain mahogany, Gambel oak, aspen, Douglas-fir, and subalpine 

fir communities. Dyers woad is a common component of the lower elevations on 

the north and western boundaries of this roadless area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - This roadless area has at least one population of 

broadleaf penstemon as well as Wasatch rockcress. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 3- The area contains habitat sufficient to maintain a 

cutthroat trout population. Historically cutthroat trout were found in Parrish 

Creek. These fish were lost in 1983 during the floods. Cutthroat trout could be 

sustained in Farmington Creek. Treatment of non-native fish would be required 

here 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-47 

• ROS – 3 – 7% SPM, 64% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Ghost roads on the western edge. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common for the Wastach Front. Main vegetation is 

gambel oak except in drainages where there are cottonwoods and some conifer at 

higher elevations. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - No survey data, rank based on professional judgment of 

likelihood of presence of cultural resources. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 - (Acres and Size: 2. 

Medium Small (10,946 acres). Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: 

Wasatch Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: 

Cherry Stems, 5 None. (Area is pretty much the relative steep west facing slope 

and canyons of the Wasatch Range from Farmington to Bountiful.)

Summary Statement 

• All values are low to medium, except PFC and scenery that are somewhat higher.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Farmington – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.4 1,200 1,200 200 200 200 1,200 1,200 

2.6 8,700 8,700 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 0 9,600 9,600 9,600 8,700 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,700 

4.4 1000 1000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1000 1000 

Farmington – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 

RN 4,500 4,700 4,700 2,000 4,700 4,700 3,200 3,200 

SPM 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 800 

SPNM 6,500 6,200 6,200 8,600 6,200 6,200 7,000 7,000 

Farmington – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 3,600 2,000 3,400 3,200 1,300 1,300 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

10,900 10,900 7,400 8,600 7,600 7,700 9,600 9,600 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 700 700 700 700 700 700 

Heliski - no 10,900 10,900 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-48 

Farmington – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

10,900 9,900 9,800 200 1,200 1,200 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 200 8,700 8,700 

Allows Development 1000 1,100 10,700 10,700 1000 1000 

Sum 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900 

Hogsback 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - This roadless area is dominated by aspen, 

sagebrush and Gambel oak with some isolated limber pine at the higher elevations 

on the western boundary. Two sheep allotments occur within this roadless area 

boundary, although evidence of grazing is not severe. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - Broadleaf penstemon occurs in this roadless area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk and flammulated owl habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5 - This area has the potential for isolated population of 

cutthroat trout in the tributaries to Hardscrabble Creek 

• ROS – 3 – 0 % SPM, 65% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Some ghost roads in the area. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common for the Wasatch Front. Main vegetation is 

gambel oak except in drainages where there are cottonwoods and aspen/conifer at 

higher elevations. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 - No survey data, rank based on professional judgment 

and likelihood of presence of cultural resources. 

• Unique Characteristics –1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 – (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (7931 acres). Adjacency: 1. Isolated near rural or within general national 

forest context. Context: Wasatch Range, 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in 

section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. 5 and/or long and moderately intrusive. 

(Moderate intrusion into the area from the northwest in the Farmington Flats area. 

Constricts area to narrow corridor.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-49 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly low except PFC, vegetation SAR, semi-primitive experience, and scenic 

integrity that are medium, and fish SAR that is high.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Hogsback – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 6,900 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 

4.4 1,000 1,000 1,000 400 1,000 1,000 1,000 

5.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 

6.1 0 0 0 0 0 6,900 3,400 

6.2 0 0 6,900 7,500 6,900 0 0 

Hogsback – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 0 

RN 2,700 2,700 2,700 1,300 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 

SPNM 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,700 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 

Hogsback – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 2,700 1,300 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

7,900 7,900 5,200 5,700 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 

Heliski - no 7,900 7,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 

Hogsback – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

7,900 6,900 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 6,900 

Allows Development 1,000 7,900 7,900 7,900 1,000 7,900 

Sum 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-50 

Mueller Park 

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - A surface water source is located at 

Mueller Park about 2 miles west of the roadless area. Located about 4 miles 

directly east of Bountiful, access to this area is about 9 miles from Bountiful when 

driving up the Ward Canyon Road to this area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - This roadless area includes relatively 

undisturbed Gambel oak, sagebrush, Douglas-fir, and spruce-fir plant 

communities. Noxious weeds are not conspicuous in this roadless area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area, although habitat for the nearby occurring Utah fleabane is present. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk, Northern three-toed woodpecker, and 

flammulated owl habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk –3 - This area has no cutthroat trout but has the potential 

habitat. 

• ROS – 3 – 0 % SPM, 67% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Some ghost roads in the area. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common for the Wasatch Front; main vegetation is 

gambel oak except in drainages where there are cottonwoods and aspen/conifer at 

higher elevations. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - Low data, but moderate potential for cultural resources. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context Criteria – 1 (Acres and 

Size: 1. Small (7,752 acres). Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: Wasatch 

Range, 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems 

3. 3 or 4 and/or short and short intrusions. (Four short cherry stems, the longest of 

which is just less than 1 mile along Forest Road 805 near the Davis/Morgan 

County line. Area is

Summary Statement 

• Some low values with some medium values for PFC, fish SAR, semi-primitive 

experience and heritage. Public drinking water and scenic integrity are high.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mueller Park – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.6 5,300 3,800 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 1,500 1,500 3,200 1,500 1,500 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 

4.1 1,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4.2 500 500 500 0 500 500 500 

4.4 200 1,800 1,800 500 1,800 1,800 1,800 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-51 

6.1 0 0 0 0 0 3,800 3,800 

6.2 0 0 3,800 4,000 3,800 0 0 

Mueller – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 

RN 2,400 2,400 4,200 0 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 

SPM 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 0 

SPNM 5,200 5,200 3,500 6,000 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 

Mueller Park – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

400 400 2,700 900 2,700 400 400 400 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

7,300 7,300 4,900 6,000 4,900 7,300 7,300 7,300 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 

Heliski - no 0 0 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 

Mueller Park – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

7,700 5,300 1,500 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 500 500 500 5,800 2,000 

Allows Development 1,800 5,600 7,700 7,100 1,800 5,600 

Sum 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-52 

Central Wasatch Management Area 

Red Butte 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 5 - Includes all of the existing Red Butte 

Research Natural Area (RNA), which is dominated by Gambel oak, with 

inclusions of Douglas-fir, aspen, and sagebrush communities in relatively 

undisturbed condition. The lower portion of this RNA is being proposed as a 

special interest area because of the widespread dominance of non-native plant 

species such as cheatgrass and dalmation toadflax (a Utah noxious weed). 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 5 - This roadless area has populations of several 

plant species at risk (SAR) including Wasatch rockcress, Arabis glabra var. 

furcatipilis, Utah fleabane, and broadleaf penstemon. In addition, it has the only 

known population of small yellow lady's slipper known to occur in an 

uncultivated population within the state of Utah. Beckwith violet, a disjunct 

species (one more common elsewhere, but uncommon in Utah) likely occurs 

within this roadless area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 3 - Yellow-billed cuckoo, goshawk, peregrine falcon 

habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5 - This area contains cutthroat trout and June sucker. 

• ROS – 5* – In mapping according to ROS conventions, Red Butte comes out as 

100% SPM or SPNM. *In reality, under current management as a Research 

Natural Area management the area is closed to all recreation use. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - There is a spider web of trails or 

ghost roads in the southwest corner of this area. The dam face is not vegetated. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 to 4 - Low data, but potential to discover early Mormon 

history, lime kilns, etc. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 – (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (6159 acres.) Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: Wasatch Range, 

1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 4. and 5. 

Two roads present, but none open in practice. Area has been closed to public 

access as RNA for years.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium and some high. High values for Vegetation SAR, PFC, fish SAR 

and semi-primitive experience.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-53 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Red Butte – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

2.4 3,200 3,200 3,200 4,700 3,900 3,200 3,200 

2.6 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.7 800 800 800 0 900 800 800 

3.1 800 2,200 2,200 1,400 1,400 2,200 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400 

Red Butte – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 0 0 100 1,700 0 0 0 0 

SPNM 6,200 6,200 6,100 4,400 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 

Red Butte – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 200 1,700 1,100 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

6,200 6,200 6,000 4,400 5,100 6,200 6,200 6,200 

Red Butte – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

6,200 6,200 5,300 3,900 4,000 3,200 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 800 4,700 900 2,200 3,000 

Allows Development 1,400 1,400 

Sum 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 

Mount Aire 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands occur along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5- Located adjacent to Salt Lake City in 

Parleys and Mill Creek Canyons. The northern portion of the flows into Parleys 

Creek that is a surface water public drinking source for Salt Lake City. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - The Mount Aire roadless area is dominated 

by Gambel oak with Douglas-fir at mid elevations, often on cooler, protected 

sites, spruce-fir stands at higher elevations and aspen stands (many being replaced 

by conifer) scattered at mid and upper elevations. Some noxious weeds are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-54 

present, but are not a conspicuous aspect in this roadless area, except along some 

trails. Dyers woad is likely to increase here unless actions are taken to keep it out 

of the area. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Utah fleabane is present in this roadless area, and 

habitat is present for nearby occurring Broadleaf penstemon. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Peregrine falcon habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk –5 - The area has the potential for a population of cutthroat 

trout in Mill Creek. Cutthroat trout are found in Lamb's Creek. 

• ROS – 5 – 0% SPM, 85% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Pipeline trail bisects this area 

which otherwise has a high integrity level. Scenic Attractiveness level: Common, 

with rugged slopes and somewhat common rock outcrops and vegetation of 

gamble oak and maple. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - No data, but moderate potential for mining sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 - (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (9701 acres). Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban, and 2. Isolated near rural 

or within general national forest context, and 3. Surrounded or adjacent to major 

paved highways or roads that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. 

Context: Wasatch Range, Uinta Mountains. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness 

in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5. None. (Area is erratically shaped based on 

close to urban landownership patterns. While small, it has higher value than some 

more remote areas of the same size.)

Summary Statement 

• All low to medium values except public drinking water, fish SAR and semiprimitive experience that are high.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mount Aire – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 9,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.7 0 5,700 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 3,800 3,800 4,800 3,800 3,800 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,600 

4.1 0 0 5,700 4,700 5,700 0 0 

4.2 200 0 0 0 0 5,700 0 

4.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Mount Aire – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 

Rural 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RN 0 1,400 1,400 1,600 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 

SPNM 9,500 8,300 8,300 8,000 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-55 

Mount Aire – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 100 1,600 1,200 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

9,700 9,700 9,600 8,000 8,500 9,700 9,700 9,700 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 800 800 800 800 800 800 

Heliski - no 9,700 9,700 8,900 8,900 8,900 8,900 8,900 8,900 

Mount Aire – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

9,700 9,600 3,800 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 5,700 4,700 5,700 9,600 9,600 

Allows Development 100 100 5,000 4,000 100 100 

Sum 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 

Mount Olympus 

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located adjacent to Salt Lake City. The 

southern part of the roadless area in the upper part of Big Cottonwood Canyon 

drains into Big Cottonwood Creek that is a surface water public drinking source 

for Salt Lake City. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - Aspen is a dominant component of the 

Mount Olympus roadless area. Gambel oak stands occur on lower sites in Mill 

Creek Canyon and on south-facing mid elevations in Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

Spruce-fir stands occur at the high elevations. This area has not been grazed for a 

very long time and ecological conditions are generally very good. Understory 

plant dominance in the aspen stands is an example of some of the best conditions 

in these stands in northern Utah. Noxious weeds are not conspicuous in this 

roadless area, although jointed goatgrass has been seen near the road in the lower 

portion of Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 5 - Wasatch jamesia, Utah fleabane, broadleaf 

penstemon, and Utah shooting star are present in this roadless area, while habitat 

is present for the nearby occurring Wasatch draba. Because of the rarity of Utah 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-56 

shooting star and the potential threats to this species, this roadless area is ranked 

the highest. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Peregrine falcon habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 2 - The area has the potential for a population of cutthroat 

trout in Mill Creek. A treatment would need to be conducted to remove the 

natural rainbow trout 

• ROS – 5 – 0% SPM, 77% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 – A few ghost roads from past 

mining activity are visible, but area appears very natural. Scenic Attractiveness 

Level: Distinct. Steep rugged mountains with pockets of conifer at higher 

elevation and oak brush at lower elevations. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 - Low data, but moderate potential for mining sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 3 - Excellent examples of glaciation present.deep 

limestone cave present. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 – (Acres and Size: 2. 

Medium Small (10,139 acres + adjacent Mt. Olympus Wilderness 15,300 acres) = 

total over 25,000 acres for both areas.) Adjacency: 1.Isolated near urban, and 2. 

Isolated near rural or within general national forest context. Context: Wasatch 

Range. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section.Integrity: Cherry Stems, 

5. None. (While no cherry stems, area is composed of lots of small slivers around 

the west north and south sides of the Wilderness, and a large contiguous mass of 

lands to the east. Larger masses of undeveloped lands of this size have great value 

locally to relieve pressure of potential growth.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium values. High values for public drinking water, semi-primitive 

experience, vegetation SAR, and scenic attractiveness. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Mount Olympus – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 9,300 2,200 2,000 0 0 0 0 

2.6 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 

2.7 0 7,300 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 100 100 100 100 100 300 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,700 

3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4.1 200 0 7,400 9,400 9,000 0 0 

4.2 0 0 100 100 100 7,400 0 

4.5 500 500 500 500 900 300 300 

Mount Olympus – ROS (Acres) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-57 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 

Rural 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 

RN 0 1,900 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,100 

SPM 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 

SPNM 9600 8100 8000 8400 7600 7800 7800 7800 

Mount Olympus– Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 200 1,400 100 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

10,000 10,000 9,700 8,400 9,800 10,000 10,000 9,900 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 5,400 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 

Heliski - no 10,100 10,100 4,700 5,900 5,900 5,900 5,900 5,900 

Mount Olympus – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

10,100 9,600 2,100 2,000 2,000 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 7,400 9,500 9,100 7,700 7,700 

Allows Development 500 500 600 1000 300 300 

Sum 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 

Twin Peaks 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located adjacent to Salt Lake City and 

drains into Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks that are surface water public 

drinking sources for Salt Lake City. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - This roadless area likely contains stands of 

the Limber Pine/Oregon Grape habitat type and the Ross Avens cover type 

identified by The Nature Conservancy as RNA needs on National Forest Lands in 

Utah (Tuhy 1998). 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - Wasatch jamesia, Garrett fleabane, Garrett 

bladderpod, and broadleaf penstemon occur within this roadless area. In addition, 

habitat is present for the nearby occurring Lepidium montanum var. alpinum. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2- Peregrine falcon habitat present. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-58 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5 - There is a small population of cutthroat trout in Death 

Smith Canyon. 

• ROS – 1 – 0 % SPM, 48% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - There was a lot of mining activity 

in this area. There are remnants of tailings piles and disturbed areas. There are a 

number of ghost roads and maintenance roads for the mines still on the mountain. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct, because of the steep jagged cliffs and 

glaciation on many of the slopes. 

• Heritage Resources – 4 to 5 - Low data, but high potential for mining sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – Renowned examples of glaciation, portion of one river 

found eligible in wild and scenic river inventory; medium value. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context Criteria – 3- Acres and 

Size: 1, 2, and 3. Small to medium (6,490 acres + 11,495 Twin Peaks Wilderness. 

The cumulative total of the Wilderness and this roadless area makes for a medium 

sized area for the Forest.)Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban, and 2. Isolated near 

rural or within general national forest context. Context: Wasatch Range, 1. Much 

other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5. None. (Area is 

erratically shaped due to Wilderness and other developed uses and landownership 

in the area. Size of undeveloped area is considered of some value to relieve 

pressure of potential growth on undeveloped area.) 

Summary Statement 

• Some low, but mostly medium values. High values for public drinking water, 

Fish SAR, and heritage. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Twin Peaks – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 5,700 2,300 500 0 0 0 0 

2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 

2.7 0 2,600 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 300 800 300 800 800 1,000 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,600 

4.1 0 0 3,600 3,500 3,200 3,600 0 

4.2 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 

4.3 0 0 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 0 

4.5 200 200 200 300 500 0 0 

Twin Peaks – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 0 

Rural 300 300 500 0 700 500 0 0 

RN 0 2,000 1,900 900 2,800 3,100 3,600 3,600 

SPM 0 0 800 1,400 0 0 0 0 

SPNM 5,900 3,900 3,100 3,000 2,500 2,600 2,600 2,600 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-59 

Twin Peaks – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 500 2,300 800 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

6,100 6,100 5,600 3,000 5,300 6,200 6,200 6,200 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 

Heliski - no 6,200 6,200 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 

Twin Peaks – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

6,200 5,700 800 1,600 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 300 3,600 3,500 3,200 6,200 4,600 

Allows Development 200 1,900 2,700 3,000 

Sum 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 

White Pine 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located about 6 miles east of Salt Lake 

City in Little Cottonwood Canyon and flows into Little Cottonwood Creek that is 

a surface water public drinking source for Salt Lake City. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - This roadless area includes alpine and 

subalpine plant communities and likely contains stands of the Limber 

Pine/Oregon Grape habitat type and the Ross Avens cover type identified by The 

Nature Conservancy as RNA needs on National Forest Lands in Utah (Tuhy 

1998). Aspen and spruce -fir communities also occur. No noxious weeds have 

been noted and the area has not been grazed. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - Wasatch fitweed, Garrett's fleabane, and 

broadleaf penstemon occur in this roadless area, while habitat for Garrett's 

bladderpod is present. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk and peregrine falcon habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 2 - Habitat is available in White Pine Creek. The stream 

would have to be treated to remove existing trout. 

• ROS – 5 – 0 % SPM, 81% SPNM. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-60 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 5 – Area generally appears natural. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct, steep rugged peaks and glaciation 

topography. Alpine fir in pockets and lakes in depressions. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 to 4 - Low data, but moderate potential for mining sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 3 – (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (2059 acres + adjacent to Lone Peak Wilderness 9747 acres on WCNF, to 

total 31,165 total acres for the Wilderness, including 20,829 on the Uinta NF.) 

Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban, and 2. Isolated near rural or within general 

national forest context. Context: Wasatch Range 1. Much other roadless or 

Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5 None. (Area lies between 

Snowbird and Lone Peak Wilderness. As a roadless area it is small in its own 

right, but has relatively high value for an area this size due to its location.) 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium to low values except for public drinking water, semi-primitive 

experience, and scenic attractiveness.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area

White Pine – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 1,900 1,900 0 0 0 0 0 

2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,900 

4.1 0 0 1,900 1,900 0 1,900 0 

4.5 0 0 0 0 1,900 0 0 

White Pine – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

Rural 0 0 1,900 200 1,900 300 0 0 

RN 0 0 0 100 0 0 300 300 

SPNM 1,900 1,900 0 1,600 0 1,700 1,700 1,700 

White Pine – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 0 300 1,800 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

1,900 1,900 1,900 1,600 100 1,900 1,900 1,900 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 

Heliski – 

no 

1,900 1,900 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-61 

White Pine – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

1,900 1,900 1,900 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 1,900 1,900 1,900 

Allows Development 1,900 

Sum 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 

Lone Peak 

Inventory of Values 

 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - This roadless area likely contains the 

Aspen/Bracken Fern community type identified by The Nature Conservancy as an 

RNA need on National Forest Lands in Utah (Tuhy 1998). While dyers woad is 

not a conspicuous component, it is prime habitat for the expansion of this noxious 

weed, especially on the western unit. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 3 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area, although habitats for the nearby occurring Wasatch jamesia, Wasatch 

rockcress, and Utah fleabane are present and these species are likely to occur. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Peregrine falcon habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk –5 - There is a small population of cutthroat trout in Little 

Cottonwood Creek. 

• ROS – 3 – 0 % SPM, 57% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - The area is adjacent to Little 

Cottonwood road and it has had a lot of activity in the past. From an aerial 

section view the landscape appears intact, but there are numerous cultural features 

that can be found in of the foreground landscape when you are on the ground. 

Scenic Attractiveness Level: Distinct. 

• Heritage Resources – 4 - Low data, but moderate to high potential for mining and 

Native American sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Portion of one river found eligible in wild and scenic 

river inventory. 

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 - (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (874 acres of roadless + adjacent to Lone Peak Wilderness 9747 acres on 

WCNF, to total 31,165 total acres for the Wilderness, including 20,829 on the 

Uinta NF.) Adjacency: 1. Isolated near urban. Context: Rank 3. Wasatch Range.1. 

Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5. None. 

(Area consists of several blocks and slivers of roadless lands adjacent to Lone 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-62 

Peak Wilderness. Size of acreage and relative increase to existing roadless from 

protection is small.)

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium values, some low values. High value for fish SAR. 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area

Lone Peak – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 900 500 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1 0 400 400 900 400 400 0 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 

3.2 0 0 500 0 500 500 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 

Lone Peak – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

NA 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 

Rural 0 400 400 0 400 400 0 0 

RN 0 0 0 100 0 0 400 400 

SPNM 900 500 500 400 500 500 500 500 

Lone Peak – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

900 900 900 400 900 900 900 900 

Heliski – 

yes 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Heliski - no 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 

Lone Peak – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

900 900 900 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 900 900 

Allows Development 900 900 

Sum 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-63 

Stansbury Management Area 

Stansbury Mountains 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 1- No surface sources of public drinking 

water are downstream of roadless area. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 4 - This roadless area includes some stands of 

Douglas-fir and Aspen with minor inclusions of white fir identified by The Nature 

Conservancy as RNA needs on National Forest Lands in Utah (Tuhy 1998). 

Allotments cover almost all of the roadless area. White top occurs in the lower 

portions of North Willow and South Willow canyons, typically outside the 

roadless areas. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Broadleaf penstemon occurs in this roadless area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Peregrine falcon and goshawk present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 2 - The area has the potential for a population of cutthroat 

trout in North and South Willow Creeks. A treatment would need to be 

conducted to remove the natural rainbow and brown trout. 

• ROS – 5 – 52% SPM, 43 % SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - FS and BL M travel routes inside 

the area. Chaining areas inside the area on eastern edge. Watershed treatment 

terracing is present. Scenic Attractiveness Levels: Distinct in main drainages with 

rock spires. Common on much of the front face in the upper elevations; in lower 

elevations the area is Indistinct. 

• Heritage Resources – 5 - High number of prehistoric sites located in a small 

survey area and high potential for new discoveries. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Portion of the area is part of wild horse territory.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 4 - (Acres and Size: 5. 

Large (39,680 acres WCNF roadless + 25,215 Deseret Peak Wilderness + 

adjacent roadless on BLM to the north – over 75,000 acres total.) Adjacency: 2. 

Isolated near rural or within general national forest context. Context:Stansbury 

Range. 2. Some other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 

1. More than 5 and/or very long and intrudes deeply. These segmentations and 

intrusions do detract from the undisturbed nature of the area.) (The Stansbury 

Roadless Area has about 10 cherry stems. The most intrusive are up South 

Willow, North Willow, Davenport Canyons on the east slope. Other more minor 

intrusions come up Bear Fork on the east slope north of East Hickman Canyon, 

and up Deadman Canyon in the southwest corner. This roadless area has 

relatively high value on the Forest as it is large and in different geographic area.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-64 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium to higher values. High values for heritage, semi-primitive 

experience and size and context.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Stansbury Mountains – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 37,300 17,100 5,000 0 0 0 0 

2.6 0 16,800 12,100 0 0 17,100 17,100 

3.1 0 300 0 0 0 300 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 

3.2 0 100 100 100 100 100 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

4.3 0 0 0 0 0 1,100 1,100 

4.4 500 3,500 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,300 3,300 

4.5 0 0 0 0 0 300 300 

6.1 1,900 1,900 0 0 0 17,500 17,500 

6.2 0 0 18,700 35,800 35,800 0 0 

Stansbury Mountains – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 500 3,000 3,100 6,000 4,600 3,000 1,800 1,800 

SPM 0 17,500 20,100 29,900 22,700 19,200 20,700 20,700 

SPNM 39,200 19,200 16,500 3,800 12,500 17,500 17,200 17,200 

Stansbury Mountains – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

500 2,400 2,500 35,800 4,100 3,400 800 800 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

39,200 37,300 37,200 3,800 35,500 36,300 38,800 38,800 

Stansbury Mountains – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

39,700 36,200 17,200 17,100 17,100 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 19,100 400 

Allows Development 3,500 22,400 39,700 39,700 3,500 22,200 

Sum 39,700 39,700 39,800 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-65 

Additional Comments on Effects for High Value Roadless Area 

In Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 the intent of the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule is applied 

and neither timber harvest nor road construction is allowed. 

Alternative 1 recommends 94% of the Stansbury Mountains roadless area as Wilderness. 

The 500 of the remaining acres are in MPC 4.4, dispersed motorized, and 1,900 acres in 

MPC 6.1 maintaining and restoring non-forested vegetation ecosystems in the northwest 

corner of the area. All of these prescriptions maintain roadless values in this alternative. 

In Alternative 2 substantial recommendations for Wilderness in the Stansbury Mountains 

roadless area both north and south of the existing Deseret Peak Wilderness total 43% of 

the area. Additionally, MPC 2.6 is applied to 42% of the area along its east side, and 6% 

is in MPC 6.1 for non forested-vegetation restoration, so that a total of 91% of the area’s 

roadless values are maintained. The remaining 9% of the Stansbury Mountains roadless 

area is MPC 4.4 for dispersed motorized recreation that allows development. 

In Alternative 3 Wilderness is recommended for 13% of the Stansbury Mountain roadless 

area, an area south of Deseret Peak. 30% of the roadless area is managed as MPC 2.6, 

which also maintains roadless values. 56% of the roadless area allows development; 

most of this is in MPC 6.2 forage production for livestock (47% of the roadless area), 

while 9% of the roadless area is in MPC 4.4 for dispersed motorized recreation. A 100-

acre block of MPC 3.2 is provided on the west slope of the area. 

In Alternative 4 and 5 no Wilderness or roadless value maintenance is provided for the 

Stansbury Mountains roadless area. MPC 6.2 is applied to 91% of the roadless area, for 

providing vegetation as livestock forage. The remaining 9% of the roadless areas is 

allocated to MPC 4.4 for dispersed motorized recreation. A 100-acre block of MPC 3.2 is 

provided on the west slope of the area. 

In Alternative 6, no Wilderness is recommended for the Stansbury Mountain Roadless 

area. However, MPC 2.6 is applied to two large blocks adjacent to the south and north 

ends of Deseret Peak Wilderness that total 43% of the roadless area and protect roadless 

values. Almost half the roadless area’s values are mostly maintained by applying MPC 

6.1 along the east flank of the area with some minor acreages of MPC 3.1 and 3.2. The 

4.3 MPC is applied to 1,100 acres, and in this alternative that MPC mostly maintains 

roadless values, allowing only new trail construction. Development is allowed on about 

9% of the area allocated to 4.4 and 4.5 MPCs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-66 

In Alternative 7, no Wilderness is recommended for the Stansbury Mountain Roadless 

area. MPC 2.6 is applied to two large blocks adjacent to the south and north ends of 

Deseret Peak Wilderness that total 43% of the roadless area and protect roadless values as 

in Alternative 6. MPC 6.1 is also applied in the same areas as in Alternative 6, however, 

in this alternative the 6.1 MPC allows for timber harvest and road building, consequently 

these acres do not maintain roadless values. Minor acreages are allocated in MPCs 3.1a 

and 3.2u, which also mostly maintain roadless values. In this alternative development is 

also allowed on the 12% of the area allocated to 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 MPCs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-67 

Western Uintas Management Area 

Nobletts 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located about 24 miles from Park City 

and 55 miles from Salt Lake City and a surface water public drinking source for 

Wasatch Front. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - Nobletts roadless area is dominated by 

aspen and aspen-conifer communities. The area is entirely within an allotment 

and shows some effects from grazing, although conditions are 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 2 - Goshawk, Northern three-toed woodpecker and 

other SAR species habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5 - This area contains isolated populations of cutthroat trout 

in Rock and Soapstone Creek. 

• ROS – 1- 16% SPM, 0% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 5 - No evidence of past vegetation 

harvests or ghost roading. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common. Typical of 

surrounding forested landscapes. 

• Heritage Resources – 2 to 3 - No survey data. Rank based on professional 

judgment. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - None identified.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 – (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (3113 acres WCNF, + 5693 Uinta NF roadless acres = 8806 total roadless 

acres.) Adjacency: 3. Surrounded or adjacent to major paved highways or roads 

that separate the area from other undeveloped areas. Context: Uinta Mountains, 1. 

Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5. None.)

 

Summary Statement 

• Several low and some high values. High values for public drinking water, fish 

SAR, and scenic attractiveness.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area

Nobletts – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2.5 400 400 400 400 400 400 200 

3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 

3.2 0 2,600 2,700 0 0 2,600 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-68 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,600 

6.1 0 0 0 2,700 2,700 0 0 

Nobletts – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

Rural 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 

RN 400 3,100 3,100 3,000 3,100 3,100 2,600 2,600 

SPM 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 500 

SPNM 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nobletts – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

400 2,700 2,700 3,100 2,700 2,700 2,600 2,600 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

2,700 400 400 0 400 400 500 500 

Nobletts – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

3,100 3,100 2,700 400 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 2,700 2,900 

Allows Development 400 3,100 3,100 200 

Sum 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 

Lakes 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 5- Many small and some large wetlands throughout the area. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located about 16 miles from Park City 

and 47 miles from Salt Lake City and a surface water public drinking source for 

Wasatch Front. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – For the Lakes roadless area under this value, 

two areas are considered: the western and eastern portions of the area. – 3 - The 

western portion of this roadless area has been heavily impacted through historic 

grazing. Areas that were dominated by Tall Forb communities can be described 

as tarweed communities. The central and eastern portion of this roadless area, 

especially at higher elevations, are relatively undisturbed. 4 - The eastern portion 

of this roadless area has not been heavily impacted by grazing and has high 

diversity of subalpine ecosystems in good ecological condition. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Utah ivesia occurs in this roadless area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-69 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Lynx and wolverine habitat present. Goshawk and 

Northern three-toed woodpeckers present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5 - This area has three metapopulations of cutthroat trout. 

These are Beaver, Smith and Morehouse and the headwaters of the Weber. 

• ROS – 5 – 29% SPM, 62% SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - Looking at this roadless area as a 

whole unit it has an integrity level of Moderate because of the timber harvest units 

on the outside fringes of the unit. If those units were excluded the area would be 

rated as High. Cherry-stemmed roads found in the area affect its scenery. Scenic 

Attractiveness Level: Distinct, because of glaciation, high mountain lakes, scenic 

vistas and rock domes. 

• Heritage Resources – 5 - Low survey data, but based on historic records and 

percentage of water, possibility of cultural resources is high. 

• Unique Characteristics – 3 - Portions of four rivers found eligible in wild and 

scenic river inventory.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 5 – (Acres and Size: 5. 

Large (122,019 acres). Adjacency: 5. Area is so large as to be adjacent to a lot of 

different kinds of wild and developed areas. Interior of this area is very primitive, 

and still very large. Criteria considered, and given high score. Area tends to fall 

outside general rankings and criteria on the Forest due to its larger size. Contains 

settings like items 2, 3, and 4 in the criteria. Context: Uinta Mountains. 1. Much 

other roadless or Wilderness in section. Integrity: Cherry Stems, 5. (Scored highly 

based on rationale provided below that is outside criteria per se but with 

consideration of criteria.) Whole area defined as roadless is very large and 

contains numerous (about 20 cherry stems) around which the roadless area 

boundary was delineated given the mapping rules. These cherry stems 

significantly alter the roadless character of the parts into which they create 

access/impacts. Intrusions occur in Gardners Fork, over 4 miles; Smith 

Morehouse, over 4 miles; Red Pine Creek, over 4 miles; S. Fork Weber River, 2.5 

miles; Swifts Canyon, 1 mile; Cedar Fork and Left Fork Beaver Creek, 2-3 miles; 

Upper Setting, 4 miles; Norway Flat, 5 miles; North Fork Trailhead, 1 mile. 

Nevertheless, the core of the roadless area within these incursions is still very 

large and not especially influenced by road intrusions.)

 

Summary Statement 

• Mostly medium to high values. High values for soil and water, public drinking 

water, terrestrial SAR, fish SAR, heritage, semi-primitive experience, and size 

and context. Much of the area has high scenic integrity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-70 

Effects on Individual Roadless Area

Lakes – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 119,200 71,900 0 0 0 26,300 38,000 

2.5 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 

2.6 0 4,500 60,400 0 0 33,300 27,500 

3.1 0 5,300 7,600 0 3,300 9,100 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,100 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,300 

3.2 0 23,700 33,300 0 0 33,100 0 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,000 

4.1 0 2,800 0 58,900 60,400 0 0 

4.2 0 0 0 0 0 2,800 0 

4.3 0 4,900 8,000 0 0 4,700 4,500 

4.4 0 5,000 5,800 0 5,200 5,800 5,800 

4.5 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 

5.1 0 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 4,000 

5.2 0 0 0 20,100 15,000 0 0 

5.2/6.2 0 0 0 0 16,000 0 0 

6.1 0 1,200 1,200 0 18,700 1,200 1,200 

6.2 0 0 0 40,100 0 0 0 

Lakes – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

Rural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RN 2,600 12,800 15,000 64,300 15,000 14,600 10,600 10,600 

SPM 0 22,600 32,200 0 32,200 32,200 36,000 36,000 

SPNM 119,200 86,500 74,600 57,600 74,600 75,000 75,300 75,300 

Lakes – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 19,800 115,300 121,900 115,300 90,000 115,300 115,300 

Snowmobile 

Not 

Allowed 

121,800 102,000 6,500 0 6,500 31,800 6,500 6,500 

Lakes – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

121,900 109,100 101,300 62,200 65,500 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 7,700 58,900 60,400 53,800 38,400 

Allows Development 5,000 20,600 62,900 61,500 5,800 18,000 

Sum 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 121,900 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-71 

Additional Comments on Effects for High Value Roadless Area 

In Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 the intent of the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule is applied 

and neither timber harvest nor road construction is allowed. 

In every Alternative, a band of MPC 2.5 is applied to about 2,600 acres (2% of the 

roadless area) along the Mirror Lake Highway to protect outstanding scenic qualities of 

the Scenic Byway. Development is allowed in this acreage. 

In Alternative 1, 98% of the acreage in the Lakes Roadless area is recommended for 

Wilderness, maintaining roadless area values. 

In Alternative 2, a relatively large Wilderness recommendation of 71,900 acres maintains 

roadless values, as does 29,000 acres of MPCs 3.1 + 3.2 on the west side of the 

recommended Wilderness, and 4,500 acres of MPC 2.6 along the area’s northern and 

eastern edges. 4.1 and 4.2 MPCs are allocated to 6% (7,700 acres) on the northeast side 

of the area next to the Mirror Lake Highway corridor, and this allocation mostly 

maintains roadless values, allowing only new trail construction. 4.3-4.5 MPCs for 

motorized and developed recreation are allocated on 5,000 acres in the southeast portion 

of the area where development is allowed. 

In Alternative 3, no Wilderness is recommended, but MPC 2.6 is applied to about 1⁄2 the 

Lakes roadless area and maintains roadless values for the core of area. Similarly, the 

combinations of MPCs 3.1 (6%), MPC 3.2 (19%) maintain large amounts of the area’s 

roadless values. MPCs 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, and 6.1 allow development to meet those 

different prescriptions on about 17% of the Lakes roadless area. 

In Alternative 4 MPC 4.1 backcountry non-motorized summer recreation is applied to 

48% of the area that had been 2.6 MPC in Alternative 3. In this alternative, roadless 

values are mostly maintained, as new trail construction is allowed. New trail construction 

might affect the area by allowing more recreation use. Development is allowed for the 

rest of the roadless area, mostly through the application of MPC 5.2 on 16% of the lands 

on the north, east and south sides of the area for timber growth and yield, and 6.2 on 33% 

of the lands along the west side for livestock forage production. 

In Alternative 5, there is a slightly larger allocation of MPC 4.1 for backcountry nonmotorized summer recreation for the core of the Lakes roadless area (50%) than in 

Alternative 4; this area mostly maintains roadless values, allowing only new trail 

construction. Development is allowed on the remaining acreage in the Lakes roadless 

area with 3% in MPC 3.1 for aquatic habitat/watershed restoration (Left Fork Beaver 

Creek and Pinon Canyon areas) 25% in MPC 5.2 for timber growth and yield on the 

north side, and 5.2/6.2 timber growth-yield/rangeland forage production to the northwest; 

and 15% for MPC 6.1 for non-forested vegetation maintenance or restoration. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-72 

In Alternative 6 Wilderness is recommended for 26,300 acres or 22% of the area. This 

plus 33,300 acres of MPC 2.6 make up a total of 49% of the area that has roadless values 

maintained. 53,800 acres have roadless values mostly maintained by allocating 27% of 

the area to MPC 3.2, 7% to MPC 3.1, and 2% to MPC 4.2. In this alternative MPCs 5.1 

and 6.1 mostly maintain roadless character on about 3% of the area’s acreage by not 

allowing timber harvest or road construction. Development is allowed in 5% of the area 

through the allocation to MPCs 4.4 and 4.5 for facilities associated with dispersed 

motorized and developed recreation. 

In Alternative 7 a Wilderness recommendation of 38,000 acres and 2.6 MPC of 27,500 

acres maintain roadless values in 54% of the Lakes roadless area. 13% of the area allows 

development through a combination of 4.3-4.5 MPCs in the southeast portion of the area 

and in the Weber River and Gardners Fork drainages, and acreages of 5.1 and 6.1 MPCs. 

Roadless values are mostly maintained by allocation to 3.1a, 3.1w and 3.2u MPCs to 32% 

of the area where constraints on development activities are specific to the prescriptions in 

this alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-73 

Eastern Uintas Management Area 

High Uintas 

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water –5 - Many small and some large wetlands along streams within the 

area. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located about 28 miles from Park City 

and 59 miles from Salt Lake City and southeastern part a surface water public 

drinking source for Wasatch Front. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – In general the entire High Uintas roadless area 

has low age class diversity with most forested stands in the mature age class. 

Some areas have many acres of the wet meadow vegetation type that are not 

common elsewhere on the forest. Dyers woad is present primarily in the 

Stillwater/Hayden Fork portion, but Canada and musk thistle are more widespread 

and are next to, and potentially in, the roadless area. Also, for the High Uintas 

roadless area information unique to several subrareas (related to drainages) are 

considered for this value. 2 - Area between Duchesne and Provo River/Lost Creek 

- There is some age class diversity, although minor, in the forested communities; 

nearly all of the forested stands are mature and nearly all aspen is being replaced 

by conifer. 2 - Stillwater/Hayden Fork – There is little age class diversity in the 

forested communities. Nearly all of the forested stands are mature with some 

sapling-small tree stands near the wilderness boundary. 2 - East Fork Bear River – 

There is little age class diversity in the forested communities. Nearly all of the 

forested stands are mature with some sapling-small tree stands. 4 - Blacks Fork – 

There is very little age class diversity in the forested communities. Nearly all of 

the forested stands are mature. This area has over 1700 acres of the wet meadow 

vegetation type. 2 – West Fork Smiths Fork – There is very little age class 

diversity in the forested communities. Nearly all of the forested stands are 

mature. 3 - Henrys/Gilbert – There is very little age class diversity in the forested 

communities. Nearly all of the forested stands are mature. This portion has over 

300 acres of the wet meadow vegetation type. 2 - Beaver Creek - There is very 

little age class diversity in the forested communities. Nearly all of the forested 

stands are mature. This portion has approximately 200 acres of the wet meadow 

vegetation type. 2 - Burnt Fork/Thompson/Kabell – There is very little age class 

diversity in the forested communities. Nearly all of the forested stands are 

mature. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 2 - Area between Duchesne and Provo River/Lost 

Creek Rockcress draba is present and habitat for Utah Ivesia is nearby. 1 - 

Stillwater/Hayden Fork – No SAR plants present. 2 - East Fork Bear River – No 

SAR plants are present, but rockcress draba occurs nearby and has potential to 

occur. 4 - Blacks Fork – Siberian aster, a globally common species, but a species 

rare in Utah is present. In addition, Uinta beardtongue is also present at upper 

elevations. 1 - Smiths Fork - No SAR plants present. 1 - Henrys/Gilbert - No SAR 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-74 

plants present. 1 - Beaver Creek - No SAR plants present. 1 - Burnt 

Fork/Thompson/Kabell - No SAR plants present. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – 4 - Lynx and wolverine habitat present. Goshawk 

and Northern three-toed woodpeckers present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5 - This area contains a number of metapopulations of 

Colorado River and Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

• ROS – 5 – 14% SPM, 64% SPNM. High quality backcountry values. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 4 - Ghost roads on eastern edge of 

this area. Scenic Attractiveness Level: Common for mid-elevations in the Uintas 

with lodgepole pine and with some fir. 

• Heritage Resources – 5 - Most survey data of the forest. Very high probability of 

historic tie hack sites as well as prehistoric sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 5 - Portions of 15 rivers found eligible in wild and scenic 

river inventory.

• Size and Context - Overall Score for Size and Context – 5 – (Acres and Size: 5. 

Large (103,071(WCNF roadless )+ 460,000 (High Uintas Wilderness) + circa 

250,000 adjacent Ashley NF roadless) (By far the largest contiguous 

roadless/wilderness area on the Forest and state, and among the larger in the lower 

48.) Adjacency: 5. Immediately adjacent to designated Wilderness. Context: 

Rank 3. Uinta Mountains. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in section. 

Integrity: Cherry Stems, 1. More than 5 and/or very long and intrudes deeply. (At 

least a dozen cherry stems or peninsulas of roaded corridor extend into the High 

Uintas Roadless area. Each is a road(s) corridor up a canyon or into the area, 

approaching higher elevations and eventually butting into steeper lands. The area 

is too large to not be subdivided when considering management recommendations 

and applying prescriptions, however if a generalization must be made about the 

whole (and from a roadless perspective) it has very great value by its size alone.) 

Summary Statement 

• (Refer to detailed evaluation for some drainage by drainage assessments of 

values.) Mostly high values. For Vegetation SAR, Blacks Fork drainage has high 

value, all others have low values. High values for public drinking water in Provo 

River drainage and for wetlands. High values for fish SAR, scenic integrity, 

context and size.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

High Uintas – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 98,200 29,300 18,200 0 0 20,100 20,600 

2.5 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 5,400 4,800 

2.6 0 12,300 11,900 0 2,000 9,600 10,800 

3.1 0 6,300 2,200 100 300 4,500 0 

3.1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,600 

3.1W 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 

3.2 0 16,000 18,700 0 13,200 24,300 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-75 

3.2D 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,400 

3.2U 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400 

4.1 0 18,700 16,400 18,100 7,100 12,700 13,000 

4.2 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 2,400 2,400 

4.3 1,700 6,400 6,400 0 3,000 6,400 7,200 

4.4 0 5,100 5,600 800 11,000 5,500 5,800 

4.5 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 

5.1 0 3,200 14,700 0 0 12,000 14,700 

5.2 0 0 3,600 76,300 61,800 0 0 

6.1 0 200 200 0 1,000 200 200 

6.2 0 0 0 4,500 400 0 0 

High Uintas – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 3,300 23,600 25,200 79,000 29,300 25,300 22,100 22,100 

SPM 1,500 10,600 11,100 2,300 56,200 11,100 14,200 14,200 

SPNM 98,300 68,800 66,800 21,800 17,500 66,700 66,700 66,700 

High Uintas – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

1,600 21,100 43,800 81,300 102,700 57,000 57,800 80,100 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

101,400 82,000 59,300 21,800 400 46,000 45,200 23,000 

High Uintas – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow Development 

(Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

103,100 70,500 50,900 2,000 35,000 33,000 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 27,100 18,400 18,100 7,100 62,500 21,500 

Allows Development 5,500 33,700 84,900 94,000 5,500 48,600 

Sum 103,100 103,100 103,000 103,000 103,000 103,000 103,100 

Additional Comments on Effects for High Value Roadless Area 

In Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 the intent of the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule is applied 

and neither timber harvest nor road construction is allowed. 

In every Alternative, a band of MPC 2.5 is applied to about 3,100 to 5,400 acres (3% to 

5% of the roadless area) along the Mirror Lake Highway to protect outstanding scenic 

qualities of the Scenic Byway. Development is allowed in this acreage. 

In Alternative 1, 98% of roadless area values in the High Uintas roadless area are 

protected by allocation to recommended Wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-76 

In Alternative 2, the Wilderness recommendation in three areas on the north slope 

maintains 29% of roadless values. MPC 2.6 maintains another 13%. MPCs 3.1-3.2, 5.1 

and 6.1 maintain an additional 26% of the area’s roadless value. Only 5% of the area 

allows development; this in MPCs 4.4 and 4.5. MPCs 4.1-4.3 mostly maintain roadless 

values on 26% of the High Uintas roadless area, mostly in the East Fork of the Bear, 

Stillwater and Hayden Forks. 

In Alternative 3, 18% of the roadless area acres are maintained through Wilderness 

recommendation of two areas on the north slope. Other acreage is maintained for its 

roadless value by MPC 2.6 (11%) and MPCs 3.1-3.2 (20%) especially in the East Fork 

Blacks Fork and further east. MPCs 4.1-4.2 near Stillwater Fork, along the Middle Fork 

Blacks Fork and Bridger Lake mostly maintain roadless values on 18% of the area by not 

allowing road construction and timber harvest, but allowing some new trail construction 

and minor recreation construction. Development is allowed in 33% of the roadless area: 

about 12,000 acres in 4.3 and 4.4 MPCs, and an additional 18,000 acres in 5.1 MPC 

(mostly in checkerboard ownership) and 5.2 MPC (mostly on the east side of the area). 

In Alternative 4, 82% of the High Uintas roadless area is available for development as 

mostly defined by MPC 5.2 for timber growth and yield (74% of the area), and with the 

remaining acreage for livestock forage production, MPC 6.2, or minor dispersed 

motorized recreation acreage, MPC 4.4. The remaining 18% of the area has roadless 

values mostly maintained through allocation to MPC 4.1. 

In Alternative 5, 91% of the High Uintas roadless area allows development: MPC 5.2 is 

applied to 60%, emphasizing timber growth and yield, 4.3 and 4.4 MPCs are applied to 

14%, 13% is in 3.2MPC that allows development in this alternative. Only 2,000 acres 

have roadless values protected by MPC 2.6. About 7,100 acres in MPC 4.1 mostly 

maintain roadless values in the Upper Stillwater Fork by limiting development to new 

trail construction. 

In Alternative 6 the Wilderness recommendation of two north slope areas maintains 

roadless values for 19% of the area. Additional acreage of MPC 2.6 maintains another 

9% of the area’s roadless character. MPCs 3.1-3.2, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.2, and 6.1-6.2 mostly 

maintain roadless values on 61% of the roadless area. 5% of the area allows development 

which is attributable to MPC 4.4 allocation. 

In Alternative 7, the Wilderness recommendation maintains 20% of the High Uintas 

roadless area values; 10% are maintained by allocation to MPC 2.6. Development is 

allowed on 49% of the area’s acreage acres divided among MPC 4.3 and 4.4 (13%), MPC 

5.1 (14%) and MPC 3.2d (17%). The roadless values of 21% of the High Uintas roadless 

area are mostly maintained in allocations to MPCs 4.1 (13%), 4.2 (2%), and 4.3 (7%) in 

Bridger Lake, East Fork Blacks Fork, and near Stillwater Fork. In this alternative 2,220 

acres in MPCs 4.1 and 4.2 allow oil and gas leasing with Controlled Surface Use; in this 

case roadless values would not be mostly maintained. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-77 

Widdop Mountain

Inventory of Values 

• Soil and Water – 1 - Few small wetlands along small narrow streams. 

• Sources of Public Drinking Water – 5 - Located in the Burnt Fork drainage 

tributary to the Henrys Fork and eventually drain into Flaming Gorge. It is about 

30 miles from Flaming Gorge, a surface water public drinking source. 

• Properly Functioning Condition – 3 - This roadless area is dominated by Douglasfir on the north-facing portions of the limestone outcrops that are a common 

component. Sagebrush communities are common on the south-facing slopes. 

The entire area is included in cattle allotments. 

• Vegetation Species at Risk - 1 - No known SAR plants occur within this roadless 

area. 

• Terrestrial Species at Risk – Score for Criteria – 2 - Lynx habitat present. 

• Fish Species at Risk – 5- Cutthroat trout are found in Thompson Creek and the 

Burnt Fork. 

• ROS – 5 – 90% SPM, 0 SPNM. 

• Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity – 3 - Appears like that there has been 

considerable timber harvest in the past and much of the area has not regenerated. 

Timber harvest evident in clear cuts and past thinning project just north of Hole in 

the Rock, with many unconstructed travelways present. Scenic Attractiveness 

Level: Common with some exceptions in some old Douglas fir and sagebrush 

areas. Limestone outcrops present are unique for the North Slope. 

• Heritage Resources – 3 to 4 - Low data, but moderate to high potential for mining 

and Native American sites. 

• Unique Characteristics – 1 - Portion of one river found eligible in wild and scenic 

river inventory.

• Size and Context – Overall Score for Size and Context – 1 - (Acres and Size: 1. 

Small (7,997 acres). Adjacency: 2. Isolated near rural or within general national 

forest context. Context: Uinta Mountains. 1. Much other roadless or Wilderness in 

section.Integrity: Cherry Stems, 2. 3 or 4 and/or short and short intrusions. (1.4 

mileintrusion near Burnt Fork.) 

Summary Statement 

• Widdop Mountain – Several low values with medium values for PFC and 

heritage, and high values for public drinking water and fish SAR.

Effects on Individual Roadless Area 

Widdop Mountain – Management Prescriptions (Acres) 

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

1.5 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3.2 0 8,000 7,300 0 0 7,300 0 

3.2D 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,300 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-78 

5.1 0 0 0 0 0 700 700 

5.2 0 0 700 2,400 2,600 0 0 

6.1 0 0 0 0 5,400 0 0 

6.2 0 0 0 5,500 0 0 0 

Widdop Mountain – ROS (Acres) 

ROS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 1985 Plan

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing Condition

RN 0 5,600 5,600 8,000 5,600 5,600 800 800 

SPM 0 2,400 2,400 0 2,400 2,400 7,200 7,200 

SPNM 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Widdop Mountain – Winter Recreation (Acres) 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

1985 

Plan 

Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Existing 

Condition 

Snowmobile 

Allowed 

0 100 0 8,000 100 100 100 100 

Snowmobile 

Not Allowed 

8,000 7,900 8,000 0 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 

Widdop Mountain – MPCs that Maintain Values, Mostly Maintain Values, or Allow 

Development (Acres) 

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

Maintains Roadless 

Values 

8,000 8,000 7,300 

Mostly Maintains 

Roadless Values 

 8,000 

Allows Development 700 8,000 8,000 8,000 

Sum 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-79 

Appendices C-1 and C-2 - Roadless Area Maps 

The following pages give maps of inventoried roadless areas discussed in this appendix. 

Maps Page 

C2- 

Wasatch-Cache Existing Wilderness and Roadless Areas 81 

Areas eliminated from local inventory, but on record with Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule 

Public Grove 82 

Lamb Canyon 83 

Little West Fork Blacks 84 

Management Area Maps with Roadless Areas and Individual Roadless 

Areas 

Cache-Box Elder Management Area 85 

Gibson 86 

Mt Naomi 87 

Temple Peak 88 

Right Hand Fork Logan 89 

Mount Logan North 90 

Mount Logan South 91 

Mount Logan West 92 

Boulder Mountain 93 

Elk Valley 94 

Mahogany Range 95 

Mollens Hollow 96 

Wellsville Mountain 97 

Bear Management Area 98 

Swan Creek 99 

Rock Creek-Green Fork 100 

Sugar Pine 101 

North Wasatch-Ogden Valley Management Area 102 

Upper South Fork 103 

Willard 104 

Lewis Peak 105 

Burch Creek 106 

Francis 107 

Farmington 108 

Hogsback 109 

Mueller Park 110 

Central Wasatch Management Area 111 

Red Butte 112 

Mount Aire 113 

Mount Olympus 114 

Twin Peaks 115 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest C2-80 

White Pine 116 

Lone Peak Additions 117 

Stansbury Management Area 118 

Stansbury Mountains 119 

Western Uintas Management Area 120 

Nobletts 121 

Lakes 122 

High Uintas (west half) 123 

Eastern Uintas Management Area 124 

High Uintas (east half) 125 

Widdop Mountain 126 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 1 

APPENDIX D - 1 

Forestwide 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 contained in this Appendix are the basis for describing the key 

choices made in each alternative and displaying important differences between the alternatives. 

The set of maps for each alternative are best understood by first reviewing the standardized 

categories and descriptions that go with each map legend. This FEIS Appendix- D provides 

detailed descriptions of the categories. The maps and their accompanying descriptions for the 

selected Alternative (7) are a key part of the Revised Forest Plan.

Relationships between Map Layers 

The Forestwide Management Direction for this FEIS and the Revised Forest Plan includes

multiple map layers with accompanying definitions and management direction. The primary 

maps are Management Prescription (MP), Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Winter 

Recreation (WR), and the Scenery Management System (SMS). Management Prescriptions 

define the primary allowable land use with the other three maps further defining other intended 

management for a given land area. In most instances the four map layers are compatible by 

design. However, in the instance of a conflict between direction for a Management Prescription 

and any of the three other layers, the Management Prescription takes precedence. If site-specific 

analysis identifies a conflict, the Forest Plan Maps may need to be amended to bring the other 

layers into consistency with the overlying Management Prescriptions. In addition there are 

Transmission Corridor maps that do not vary by Alternative tied to Forestwide Guideline 82, and 

Oil and Gas Leasing maps that do vary by Alternative for the North Slope Uinta Mountains.

Management Prescription Categories 

Management Prescriptions are defined as “management practices and intensity selected and 

scheduled for application on a specific area to attain multiple-use and other goals and 

objectives.” Management Prescription Categories are intended to provide a general sense of the 

management or treatment of the land intended to result in a particular condition being achieved 

or set of values being restored or maintained. These categories were developed based on 

experience and learning from the original development of Forest Plans in the 1980’s. In more 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 2 

recent times, especially as issues that cross boundaries or involve very large land areas have 

arisen, the need for improving consistency across multiple national forests was identified. In the 

1993 Intermountain Region Desk Guide for plan revision, a menu of Management Prescription 

Categories was provided to address the need for consistency while allowing each planning team 

to develop prescriptions within the categories, meeting specific needs of that Forest. The 

original Categories were revised in 1998 forming the basis for further refinement and mapping 

contained in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Proposed Action for Forest Plan Revision, 

September 1999. These have been further refined during the process of developing this FEIS. 

Each Management Prescription provides a listing of allowed activities as well as identification of 

special factors based on the goals and needs or opportunities in an area. Each Category identifies 

emphasis and focus, highlighting considerations that must be included in the harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various resources there, without impairment of the productivity 

of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, etc. 

consistent with the definition of multiple-use. Prescriptions are meant to identify the 

tools/activities that can be used to achieve objectives. Emphasis as used in these Prescriptions 

is defined as focus or highlighting, not exclusive or “dominant” use. In the event of a 

conflict between uses, resolution will be based on the specific merits of the situation rather 

than assuming that the Prescription implies a “trumping” of one resource over another. 

The entire Management Direction Package for the area must be considered, not just the 

Prescription. 

Consistency of Prescriptions with Multiple-Use and Other Laws 

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 defines the term “multiple-use” to mean: the 

management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forests so that they 

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the 

most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas 

large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing 

needs and conditions; that some lands will be used for less than all of the resources; and 

harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without 

impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values 

of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest 

dollar return or the greatest unit output.” (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat.215; 16 U.S.C. 528(note), 528-

531, Sec. 4. (a). 

Highlighting of considerations through emphasis in a Prescription Category may also be based 

on needs and opportunities tied to other key laws that guide and direct management of the 

National Forests. Some of these include the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, 

Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act of 1973, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970, National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation 

Act, North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (Scenic Byways Program and Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 

1991). For example Prescription Category 2 has subcategories directly tied to the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 3 

Another important aspect of the Multiple-Use Act as well as the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act and National Forest Management Act is the need for 

periodic adjustments to conform to changing needs and conditions. The monitoring components 

of the Forest Plan are designed to surface indicators of needs for change and to initiate actions to 

adjust management. 

As described above, the Prescription Categories are not intended to stand-alone. They are one 

part of the Management Direction Package that also includes goals, objectives, desired future 

conditions, standards, guidelines, implementation direction, and monitoring and evaluation 

requirements. Where an activity is allowed in the Prescription, the standards and guidelines 

provide specific parameters within which the activity must be managed. 

MPC maps of alternatives can be found in the Map Packets. 

Allowed Activities Table Heading Explanations 

(See Table of Allowed Activities for each Alternative in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.) 

Timber Harvest refers to commercial removal of vegetation for a variety of purposes including 

providing raw wood materials, improving wildlife habitat, adjusting age class distribution to 

mimic historic disturbance regimes, providing fire-resistant landscapes and commercial thinning. 

Vegetation/Fuel Treatment refers to a host of activities including, thinning, seeding; planting; 

mechanical treatments such as cutting by hand with chainsaws, cutting using tracked eqiupment 

or equipment on wheels for roller-chopping, chaining, crushing, or chipping; chemical 

application; and biological treatments (i.e., specialized grazing regimes). These are methods 

used to achieve a broad range of multiple-use objectives including maintaining or restoring 

healthy ecosystems, reducing likelihood of unwanted wildfire, removing public safety hazards, 

reducing potential for high-intensity wildfires and resulting erosion, improving forage or browse 

production, restoring native plant communities, improving or restoring watersheds, and 

providing for specific elements of terrestrial or aquatic wildlife habitats. 

Prescribed Fire refers to any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A 

written, approved presribed fire plan must exist, and site-specific NEPA analysis requirements 

must be met prior to ignition. Prescribed fire plans are docments prepared by qualified 

personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include criteria for the conditions under 

which the fire will be conducted (a prescription). Prescribed fire activities include actuallly 

lighting a fire using a fire accelerant with ground or aviation equipment and personnel; and may 

include the following: removal or piling of vegetation to secure perimeter lines, clearing areas 

for helicopter operations, clearing holding lines to bare mineral soil using hand tools or heavy 

eqiupment (i.e., bull dozers), using fire resistant foam or water on holding lines, constructing 

temporary camps for base operations, using aviation resources for fire retardant or water drops to 

reduce high-intensity fire behavior, closing areas to livestock grazing before and after burning, 

and closing roads and areas to the public before and after burning. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 4 

Wildland Fire Use is the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific 

prestated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in the Fire 

Management Plan. The term does not include fires that are human-caused (either accidental or 

arson) that are considered unwanted wildland fires and that must be suppressed. It also does not 

include the use of those fires that are management ignited, referred to as prescribed fires. Use of 

wildland fire requires a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan which is a progressively developed 

assessment and operational management plan that documents the analysis and selection of 

strategies and describes the appropriate management response for a wildland fire being managed 

for resource benefits. 

Road Construction refers to activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary 

road miles. Road is defined as a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated 

and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary. (FSM 7705) 

Note: Where road construction is not allowed by a Management Prescription the responsible 

official may authorize road construction or reconstruction when: 

a. A road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of flood, 

fire, or other catastrophic event, that without intervention would cause the loss of life or 

property; 

b. A road is needed to conduct a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or to conduct a natural restoration action 

under CERCLA, section 3d11 of the Clean Water Act, or Oil Pollution Act; 

c. A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided by statute or 

treaty; or 

d. Realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage by a classified road. The road 

must be deemed essential for public or private access, natural resource management, or public 

health and safety, and the resource damage associated with the road cannot be corrected by 

maintenance. 

New Trail Construction refers to development of any “pathway for foot, horse, or trail vehicles 

“(bikes, scooters, snomobiles, and all terrain vehicles[ motorized OHV 50” or less]) FSM 

2305.05, WO Amendment 2300-94-3, 7/8/94, pg. 8-9. and FSH 2309.18 WO Amendment 

2309.18-91-2, 11//8/91 pg. 1-2). To determine whether a trail is open to motorized or 

mechanized uses refer to District Travel Management Plans. 

Note: In Prescriptions where new trail construction is not allowed, reconstruction and/or 

realignment to correct resource impacts from existing trails is allowed. 

Grazing refers to grazing of forage by permitted livestock managed under an approved 

Allotment Management Plan and terms of a livestock grazing permit. Forestwide and 

management prescription standards and guidelines provide direction for grazing management 

until site-specific desired conditions and/or objectives can be developed. Grazing may also 

include use of livestock under contract to reduce fuels. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 5 

New Recreation Development refers to major structural public use facilities such as campgrounds and 

trailheads. It does not refer to construction within already established developed recreation sites. 

Trails and single restrooms are not considered recreation development for these descriptions. 

Summary of Management Prescription Categories 

1.0 Wilderness

 1.1 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class I 

1.2 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class II 

 1.3 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class III 

 1.4 Existing Wilderness - No Class 

1.5 Recommended Wilderness 

2.0 Special Management Areas

 2.1-2.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (not used on revision maps) 

 2.4 Research Natural Areas 

 2.5 Scenic Byways 

 2.6 Undeveloped Areas 

2.7 Special Interest Areas and Special Areas 

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

 3.1 Aquatic Habitat/Watershed Emphasis (a- Aquatic, w- Watershed) 

 3.2 Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis (d- Development allowed, - Undeveloped). 

4.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Recreation Needs and Opportunities

 4.1 Emphasis on Backcountry non-motorized recreation settings. 

 4.2 Emphasis on Dispersed non-motorized recreation settings. 

 4.3 Emphasis on Backcountry Motorized recreation settings 

 4.4 Emphasis on Dispersed Motorized recreation settings. 

 4.5 Emphasis on Developed Recreation Areas 

5.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Forested Vegetation Management Needs and Opportunities

5.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring forested ecosystem integrity while meeting multiple 

 resource objectives. 

5.2 Emphasis on managing timber for growth and yield while maintaining or restoring forested 

 ecosystem integrity. 

6.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Rangeland Vegetation Management Needs and Opportunities

6.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring non-forested ecosystem integrity while meeting 

multiple resource objectives. 

6.2 Emphasis on managing for livestock forage production while maintaining or restoring 

non-forested ecosystem integrity . 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 6 

7.0 Intermingled Public/Private Lands (This prescription accompanied one of the other 

prescriptions in earlier versions. It has been eliminated because it made maps difficult to 

read and because private lands are already shown clearly on the maps.)

8.0 Concentrated Development Areas 

8.1 Mineral Development Emphasis 

Management Prescription Categories

1.0 - Wilderness

Theme 

This prescription includes areas designated by Congress as Wilderness and areas recommended 

by the Forest Service for Wilderness designation. Management emphasis is on maintaining 

wilderness attributes, including natural appearance, natural integrity, opportunities for solitude, 

opportunities for primitive recreation, and any identified special features. 

Although the theme for management prescription category 1 is wilderness, multiple-use means 

the harmonious and coordinated management of a variety of resources, without impairment of 

the productivity of the land. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines, as well as any 

management direction developed specifically for this prescription category, provide the limits or 

constraints to guide this coordinated management. As long as other allowed (see table of 

Allowed Activities in each Alternative) resource activities, such as livestock grazing or fire use, 

meet the direction in the standards and guidelines, then they are consistent with the Wilderness 

and Recommended Wilderness prescription categories. 

Each designated Wilderness Area may have a management plan developed to provide additional 

direction specific to that area. At the time of this revision only one, the High Uintas 

Wilderness, has such a management plan. 

Management Emphasis You Will See 

The area is managed to allow natural processes to prevail in adherence with the 1964 Wilderness 

Act and the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act. Timber harvest, vegetation treatment, road building, 

new recreation development, and new trail construction are not allowed within these 

prescriptions. Grazing and wildland fire use are allowed. Prescribed fire is allowed in these 

prescriptions in some FEIS Alternatives but not in others. 

1.1 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class I 

1.2 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class II 

1.3 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class III 

1.4 Existing Wilderness - No Class 

1.5 Recommended Wilderness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 7 

1.1 Opportunity Class I: This area in existing wilderness is characterized by an unmodified 

natural environment. Human induced change is temporary and minor. Outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation are available for visitors, who travel in small 

groups, practice excellent wilderness ethics and spend extra effort to leave no trace. Encounters 

with others are rare. 

1.2 Opportunity Class II: This area in existing wilderness is characterized by predominately 

unmodified natural environment. Human induced change is evident but will recover (slowly in 

higher elevation areas). Outstanding opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation exist. 

Encounters with others are more frequent than Class I. 

1.3 Opportunity Class III: This area in existing wilderness is characterized by predominately 

unmodified natural environment, but impacts could persist from year to year. During peak season 

and in popular areas concentrated use is more common and opportunities for solitude and 

unconfined recreation more limited. 

1.4 Existing Wilderness - No Class Assigned: This area in existing wilderness is managed 

within the intent of the Wilderness Act but with no delineation of opportunity class or 

recognition of varying levels of opportunities for solitude available (used only in the No action 

Alternative 4) 

1.5 Recommended Wilderness: These are areas recommended for wilderness. They were 

identified through the Forest Plan revision roadless area inventory, evaluation and 

recommendation process. This analysis is required by the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) planning regulations and the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act. Congress retains the final 

authority for designating wilderness areas. For areas recommended as wilderness, wilderness 

characteristics must be protected until Congress takes final action (FSH 1909.12,7.31). These 

areas are managed to maintain the characteristics qualifying them as capable and available for 

wilderness recommendation. Existing use of snowmobiles is allowed in Alternative 7; this 

activity must not result in long-term changes to the wilderness character. 

 

2.0 – Special Management Areas 

Theme

This prescription includes areas that have been or will be administratively or Congressionally 

designated for the conservation of specific values. These areas are Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

their corridors, Research Natural Areas, Forest Service Scenic Byways, Special Interest Areas 

and Specially Designated Trails. Management emphasis is on maintaining, enhancing, or 

restoring those values for which the area was established or designated. 

Although the theme for management prescription category 2 is special management areas, 

multiple-use means the harmonious and coordinated management of a variety of resources, 

without impairment of the productivity of the land. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines, as 

well as any management direction developed specifically for this prescription category, the limits 

or constraints to guide this coordinated management. As long as other allowed (see table of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 8 

Allowed Activities in each Alternative) resource activities, such as livestock grazing, fire use, or 

road construction meet the direction in the standards and guidelines, then they are consistent with 

the Special Management Area prescription category. 

Management Emphasis You Will See 

2.1 - 2.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Wild (2.1), Scenic (2.2), and Recreational (2.3) Rivers 

include land corridors that extend 1/4 mile from each bank. Rivers and their corridors found 

suitable as additions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are managed to protect their freeflowing waters and existing or potential outstandingly remarkable values. Suitability 

determination is not part of decisions being made in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan 

Revision. These Prescription numbers will not be used until such time as suitability work is 

completed, however eligible segments will be managed according to standards included in the 

Proposed Forest Plan. See Appendix VIII of the Revised Forest Plan. 

2.4 Research Natural Areas: Manage existing and proposed Research Natural Areas to protect 

their unique and/or representative qualities. Vegetation treatment and fire use is limited to 

circumstances where these activities help perpetuate the unique and/or representative ecosystem. 

Limit human-induced effects as much as possible for the purpose of using the ecotype as a 

benchmark from which to measure human-induced effects elsewhere. 

Each designated Research Natural Area may have a management plan developed to provide 

additional direction specific to that area. At the time of this revision no RNA’s have 

management plans. 

2.5 Scenic Byways: Manage Scenic Byways to protect and maintain their outstanding scenic 

quality. Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plans may be developed for each designated 

Byway. Timber harvest is not allowed. Vegetation and fuels treatments are limited to 

circumstances where these activities are necessary to maintain or enhance the scenic setting. 

Grazing and wildland fire use are allowed. Allowance of prescribed fire, road construction, new 

recreation development and new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. 

2.6 Undeveloped Areas: Manage to protect undeveloped landscapes in a manner other than 

formal recommended wilderness. Although other uses and activities may occur, the primary 

emphasis is protection to assure the values and unique qualities associated with undeveloped 

areas are recognized and preserved. No new development or activities that would alter the 

landscape or character are allowed, however use of motorized equipment (such as chainsaws for 

trail clearing) is allowed. 

Public use of motorized vehicles in non-snow seasons within this prescription is based on open 

designated routes shown on District Travel Management Plans. In winter, allowance for 

motorized use varies by alternative in the FEIS (See maps of Winter Recreation opportunities). 

Timber harvest, road construction, new recreation development, and new trail construction are 

not allowed. Grazing, prescribed fire and wildland fire use are allowed however mechanical fuel 

treatments are not allowed. Vegetation treatment is limited to fire use intended to mimic 

conditions within the historic range of variability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 9 

 

2.7 Special Interest Areas and Special Areas: Manage to protect particular values or unique 

qualities of special interest. The intent for Special Interest Areas is “to protect and, where 

appropriate, foster public use and enjoyment of areas with scenic, historical, geological, 

botanical, zoological, palentological, or other special characteristics. To classify areas that 

possess unusual recreation and scientific values so that these special values are available for 

public study, use, or enjoyment” (FSM 2360.2). The intent for Special Areas are: “To protect 

and manage for public use and enjoyment, special recreation areas with scenic, geological, 

botanical, zoological, paleontological, archaeological, or other special characteristics or uniques 

values.” (FSM2372.02) 

 

Special Interest and Special Areas may have management plans developed to address specific 

needs and opportunities for the individual area. Currently there are no designated special areas 

in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Timber harvest, road construction, and new recreation development are not allowed. 

Vegetation/fuels treatments and prescribed or wildland fire use are allowed in circumstances 

where these activities help perpetuate the unique ecosystem. New trail construction is allowed if 

associated with resource interpretation and public study, use, or enjoyment. Allow manipulative 

restoration where needed for scientific study and increased public understanding of the unique 

values of the area. 

3.0 Multiple Resource Uses where Aquatic/Watershed and 

Terrestrial Habitat Integrity are emphasized

Theme

This prescription includes lands where management emphasis is on maintaining or restoring 

aquatic/watershed and terrestrial habitat integrity. Integrity refers to the degree to which the 

elements of habitat and the ecosystem functions that link them together and sustain habitat values 

are complete and capable of performing desired functions. Although other uses and activities are 

allowed, the primary management needs and opportunities are to provide high quality watershed 

conditions, fish and aquatic habitats, and wildlife habitats that allow proper functioning of 

ecosystems and sustain biological diversity and population viability. Commodity production is 

allowed as part of management activities designed to improve or maintain aquatic habitats, 

watershed conditions and terrestrial habitats. 

Although the theme for management prescription category 3 is aquatic/watershed and terrestrial 

habitat integrity, multiple-use means the harmonious and coordinated management of a variety of 

resources, without impairment of the productivity of the land. The Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, as well as any management direction developed specifically for this prescription category, 

provide the limits or constraints to guide this coordinated management. As long as other allowed (see 

Table of Allowed Activities for each Alternative) resource activities, such as livestock grazing, fire 

use, or road construction meet the direction in the standards and guidelines, then they are consistent 

with the habitat integrity prescription category. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 10 

Management Emphasis You Will See

Emphasis is on protection, maintenance, and/or restoration of quality aquatic habitats, watershed 

conditions, and terrestrial habitats. This prescription can include areas where resource and 

habitat values are not at desired conditions and need to be actively restored. It also can include 

areas where these values are at desired conditions and need to be conserved. Other uses and 

activities are allowed provided they can be conducted within the standards and guidelines. 

Grazing by livestock is allowed as managed to meet standards and guidelines which support 

desired hydrologic, aquatic, and terrestrial conditions. 

The importance of these areas is for meeting mid to long-term watershed and habitat objectives, 

with the strategy of taking a low to moderate risk approach to managing for biodiverrsity and 

population viability this planning period (10-15 years). The tools associated with this 

prescription are of moderate intensity and can provide for improvement of existing conditions 

through natural processes and moderate management activities. Management activities are 

designed to pose low risk of sediment delivery and low risk of adversely affecting the hydrologic 

regime, riparian areas, and important terrestrial habitat. 

3.1 - Aquatic Habitat(3.1A)/Watershed (3.1W)Emphasis: Emphasis is on maintaining or 

improving quality of watershed conditions and aquatic habitats. The watershed function and 

aquatic habitat values are recognized as important and may require restoration to reach desired 

conditions. Areas of municipal watershed and public drinking water sources will be managed 

to maintain or improve soil processes and watershed conditions. Where improvement is needed, 

it is achieved by implementing watershed improvement projects, and by applying soil and water 

conservation practices to land-disturbing activities. Improve or maintain these lands to meet 

desired conditions of habitat for species at risk. 

3.1A consists of the stream and adjacent riparian areas. Allowance for timber harvest , 

vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, road construction, wildland fire use, new recreation 

development, and new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Livestock grazing is 

allowed with the utilization standard for Riparian Class 1. 

3.1W consists of uplands identified as important watersheds. Allowance for timber harvest , 

vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, road construction, wildland fire use, new recreation 

development, and new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Livestock grazing is 

allowed in open allotments. 

3.2 Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis: (U- Undeveloped, D- Development allowed) Manage 

upland habitats to provide for sustaining and/or recovering plant and animal species and/or 

communities. Improve or maintain lands to meet desired conditions of habitat for threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species. Considerations for these areas include corridors for seasonal 

migrations as well as movement of genetic materials, individuals, and populations; vegetation 

composition, structure, and pattern needed for all life cycle stages; control or eradication of 

undesirable non-native species; and protection of special habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 11 

3.2U consists of those terrestrial habitat areas where development including timber harvest, road 

construction, new recreation developments, new trail construction, is not allowed because of 

potential impacts to key habitat elements. Vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed and wildland 

fire use are allowed to maintain or restore habitat elements. Grazing of livestock is allowed. 

3.2D consists of those terrestrial habitat areas where timber harvest and road construction as well 

as vegetation/fuels treatments, and prescribed and wildland fire use are allowed to maintain or 

restore habitat. Roads may be temporary based on site-specific analysis. Allowance for new 

recreation development and new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Livestock 

grazing is allowed. 

4.0 – Multiple Resource Uses with Receration Needs and Opportunities

Theme 

This prescription includes lands managed with special consideration for dispersed and developed 

recreation. Recreation needs and opportunities are emphasized is these areas. A wide spectrum of 

recreational settings may be provided. Facilities are constructed and maintained, and areas for 

non-winter motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities are designated. Winter 

Recreation Allocations are displayed on separate maps. For snowmobiling, heli-skiing and nonmotorized winter opportunities, see these maps. Landscape elements may be altered by human 

activities and developments. Recreation as well as other uses, are managed to ensure 

maintenance of watershed functions including water quality. The prescription subcategories 

(4.1-4.5) are based primarily on differences in recreation activities and settings. These include 

1) access, 2) remoteness, 3) naturalness, 4) level of facilities and site management, 5) social 

encounters, and 6) visitor impacts and management. 

Although the theme for management prescription category 4 is recreation settings and opportunities, 

multiple-use means the harmonious and coordinated management of a variety of resources, without 

impairment of the productivity of the land. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines, as well as any 

management direction developed specifically for this prescription category, provide the limits or 

constraints to guide this coordinated management. As long as other allowed (see Table of Generally 

Allowed Activities in each Alternative) resource activities, such as livestock grazing, fire use, or road 

construction meet the direction in the standards and guidelines, then they are consistent with the 

recreation prescription category. 

Frequently used terms include the following: 

Dispersed recreation is recreation activities that occur outside developed sites (such as 

campgrounds) within general forest areas such as hiking, horseback riding, ATV riding, or 

camping (outside developed campgrounds). ADA stands for the Americans with Disabilities Act 

and refers to facilities that accommodate people with disabilities, primarily wheelchair accessible 

sites and facilities. Management techniques refers to those tools and techniques the Forest 

Service can use to direct or manage people, such as defining and hardening (altering vegetation 

and access into) sites, putting up physical barriers such as large boulders to prevent undesired 

parking, or issuing area closures or implementing a permit system in a certain area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 12 

Areas not mapped with 4. Prescriptions have recreation management guidance from the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) allocation map which includes Classes that describe 

physical setting and activities range along a scale from a natural evolving environment and high 

degree of solitude to most evidence of humans and most social interactions. The classes in the 

Spectrum are: Wilderness/Primitive, Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (Mapped as

Wilderness and/or Proposed Wilderness), Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive 

Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. 

Management Emphasis You Will See 

4.1 Emphasis on Backcountry Non-motorized Settings: These areas provide recreation 

opportunities in remote and isolated settings where visitors can obtain a high degree of solitude 

and the environment is in a near-natural state. Access within these areas is through the use of 

non-motorized trails. Sights and sounds of others are minimal. Visitors will largely be managed 

off-site, with signs and regulations posted at area boundaries. Recreation site development is 

limited to those of a semi-primitive nature with regulation of use a priority management tool 

over site-hardening. The need for visitor self-reliance is high. Management visibility is low 

with backcountry ranger patrols focusing on monitoring and maintaining natural conditions and 

processes. ADA level development is not accommodated. 

Livestock grazing and wildland fire use are allowed. Timber harvest, road construction, and new 

recreation development are not allowed. Allowance for vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed 

fire, and new trail constuction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Where vegetation/fuels 

treatments and prescribed fire are allowed, the purpose is to mimic historic conditions and to 

restore ecosystem functioning. 

4.2 Emphasis on Dispersed Non-motorized Settings: These areas provide recreation 

opportunities in a semi-primitive to modified setting where visitors can obtain various degrees of 

solitude within a near-natural environment. Access to the perimeter of these areas may be 

motorized, but travel within the area is non-motorized. Sights and sounds of others may be 

noticeable. Visitors can expect various levels of regulation. Signs and other information are 

found both at portals and within the prescription area. Recreation site development is less 

limited than in backcountry and can range from semi-primitive to rural depending on 

management objectives at specific areas and visitors' desires for convenience. Impacts to natural 

resources, such as soil compaction or loss of vegetation are dealt with through various 

management techniques and regulations. Some development accommodating ADA standards 

may be appropriate. 

Livestock grazing and wildland fire use are allowed. Timber harvest and road construction are 

not allowed. Allowance for vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, new recreation 

development and new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Where 

vegetation/fuels treatments and prescribed fire are allowed, the purpose is to mimic historic 

conditions and to restore ecosystem functioning. 

4.3 Emphasis on Backcountry Motorized Settings: These areas provide recreation 

opportunities in a more remote and isolated setting where visitors can obtain a higher degree of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 13 

solitude and the environment is in a near-natural setting. Access to and within these areas is 

primarily through the use of motorized trails and roads. Sights of other visitors are low and 

sounds of other users are low to moderate. Visitors are largely managed off-site, with signs and 

regulations posted at area boundaries. Site development is of a semi-primitive nature with 

regulation of use a priority management tool over site modification. Visitor self-reliance is high. 

Management visibility is low with backcountry ranger patrols focusing on monitoring and 

maintaining natural conditions and processes. ADA level development is not accommodated. 

Livestock grazing and wildland fire use are allowed. Allowance for timber harvest, 

vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, road construction, new recreation development, and 

new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Where these activities are allowed they 

must be compatible with the backcountry recreation opportunity and natural setting desired. 

4.4 Emphasis on Dispersed Motorized Settings: These areas provide recreation opportunities 

within a range of semi-primitive to rural settings. Visitors may be able to obtain a moderate 

degree of solitude, but this prescription area provides opportunities for increased social 

interaction. Access to and within these areas is primarily through the use of motorized trails and 

roads. Sights and sounds of others may be noticeable throughout the area. Recreation site 

developments range from semi-primitive to rural depending on management objectives at 

specific areas and visitor desires for convenience. Impacts to natural resources are dealt with 

through various management techniques and regulations. Some development to ADA standards 

may be appropriate. 

Livestock grazing and wildland fire use are allowed. Allowance for timber harvest, 

vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, road construction, new recreation development, and 

new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Where these are allowed they must not 

detract from the recreation setting. They should be designed to facilitate the motorized recreation 

opportunity desired if possible. 

4.5 Developed Recreation Areas: These areas include developed facilities such as 

campgrounds, trailheads, boat docks, and resorts as well as adjacent areas associated with these 

sites. High levels of visitor interaction can be expected where sights and sounds of others are 

noticeable and there are moderate to high opportunities for social interaction. Access to these 

areas is primarily by motorized roads. Visitors can expect higher levels of regulation. Signs and 

visitor information are noticeable throughout the area. Site development tends toward the 

Roaded Natural to Rural end of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Facilities vary 

from rustic using native materials to facilities designed primarily for visitor comfort or 

convenience and built using synthetic materials. Visitor impacts are noticeable. Impacts to 

natural resources are dealt with through various management techniques and regulations. ADA 

level development is encouraged. Because of the large capitol investments in these areas, site 

protection is paramount. 

 

Livestock grazing, timber harvest, and wildland fire use are not allowed. Allowance for 

vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, road construction, new recreation development, and 

new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Activities allowed are limited to those 

that provide public enjoyment, safety and protection of site investments. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 14 

5.0 - Multiple Resource Uses with Forestland Vegetation Management Needs 

and Opportunities

Theme

This prescription includes lands that are predominantly forested. Emphasis is on maintaining and 

restoring forest ecosystem functioning to achieve sustainable resource conditions, while 

providing favorable conditions for commodity and non-commodity outputs and services. 

Although the theme for management prescription category 5 is forestland vegetation, multipleuse means the harmonious and coordinated management of a variety of resources, without 

impairment of the productivity of the land. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines, as well as 

any management direction developed specifically for this prescription category, provide the 

limits or constraints to guide this coordinated management. As long as other allowed (see Table 

of Allowed Activities in each alternative) resource activities, such as recreation, livestock 

grazing, aquatic habitat restoration or road construction, meet the direction in the standards and 

guidelines, then they are consistent with the forestland prescription category. 

Frequently used terms include the following: 

Sustainability is the ability to maintain a desired condition or flow of benefits over time. The 

ecosystem management principle of sustainability implies our ability to define and measure 

where ecosystems are now as compared to their historic range of variability. The concept of 

“historic range” recognizes that ecosystems are dynamic in nature and that disturbance and 

change is a common component. Areas that are within their historic range of variability are said 

to be in proper functioning condition. 

Management Emphasis You Will See 

5.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring forested ecosystem integrity while meeting 

multiple resource objectives. 

Emphasis is on properly functioning conditions. Livestock grazing and wildland fire use are 

allowed. Allowance for timber harvest, vegetation/fuels treatments, prescribed fire, road 

construction, new recreation developments and new trail construction varies by alternative in the 

FEIS. Emphasis is not on timber growth and yield. Instead it is on maintaining or restoring 

vegetation composition, structure and patterns within the historic range of variability. 

5.2 Emphasis on managing timber for growth and yield while maintaining or restoring 

forested ecosystem integrity. 

Emphasis is on timber growth and yield. Forested landscapes range in appearance from near 

natural to altered where management activities are evident. Goods and services are provided 

within the productive capacity of the land, and ecological functions are maintained. The quantity 

of goods and services produced may or may not fully meet demand. Amenity values are provided 

for by management area direction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 15 

Timber harvest and road construction are allowed. Allowance for prescribed and wildland fire 

use varies by alternative in the FEIS. Investments made in these areas for timber production, 

such as road systems and silvicultural improvements, and the value of the timber for wood 

production receive consideration prior to the use of fire. Roads are compatible with timber 

growth and yield management objectives. Livestock grazing is allowed but considers the need for 

timber regeneration and is compatible with timber management objectives. Allowance for new 

recreation development and new trail construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Where 

allowed, these may be limited to the degree they are compatible with commercial timber 

production. In other words, timber harvest in these areas will not be restricted because of 

recreation development or trail construction. 

6.0 - Multiple Resource Uses with Rangeland Vegetation Management Needs 

and Opportunities

Theme

This prescription includes lands that are predominantly non-forested. Management focuses on 

non-forest vegetation composition, structure, and pattern to achieve properly functioning 

conditions while providing sustainable commodity and non-commodity outputs, values and 

services. 

Although the theme for management prescription category 6 is rangeland vegetation, multipleuse means the harmonious and coordinated management of a variety of resources, without 

impairment of the productivity of the land. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines, as well as 

any management direction developed specifically for this prescription category, provide the 

limits or constraints to guide this coordinated management. As long as other allowed (see table 

of Allowed Activities in each Alternative) resource activities such as recreation, fire use, aquatic 

habitat restoration or road construction, meet the direction in the standards and guidelines, then 

they are consistent with the rangeland prescription category. 

Management Emphasis You Will See 

6.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring non-forested ecosystem integrity while meeting multiple 

resource objectives.

Emphasis is on non-forested vegetation properly functioning conditions (i.e. vegetation 

composition, structure and patterns within the historic range of variability). Management 

encompasses the full range of land and resource treatment activities. Allowance for timber 

harvest, prescribed fire, road construction, new recreation development and new trail 

construction varies by alternative in the FEIS. Vegetation/fuels treatments, wildland fire use, and 

grazing are allowed. Forage production for livestock use is managed to also meet desired 

conditions for wildlife, riparian, water quality, or other objectives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 16 

6.2 Emphasis on managing for livestock forage production while maintaining or restoring 

non-forested ecosystem integrity. 

Emphasis is on managing vegetation composition and structure to produce forage for livestock. 

Livestock use is managed to ensure that rangelands are in satisfactory condition and/or with an 

upward trend. Goods and services are provided within the productive capacity of the land, and 

ecological functions are maintained. Non-forested landscapes range in appearance from near 

natural to altered where management activities are evident. The quantity of goods and services 

produced may or may not fully meet demand. Amenity values are provided for by management 

area direction. Allowance for timber harvest, prescribed fire, road building and new recreation 

development varies by alternative. Allowance for timber harvest, prescribed fire, road 

construction, new recreation development and new trail construction varies by alternative in the 

FEIS. Vegetation/fuels treatments, wildland fire use, and grazing are allowed. Where allowed, 

new recreation development and trail construction may be limited to the degree it is compatible 

with livestock grazing. In other words, livestock grazing will not be restricted because of 

recreation development. 

7.0 – Intermingled Public/Private Lands

Theme

This prescription addressed National Forest System lands that are intermingled with lands owned 

or managed by others. Prescription Categories 7.1 and 7.2 (Intermingled Public/Private Lands, 

Rural or Urban) that were originally used in conjunction with other prescription numbers have 

been removed from the maps. The purpose of these prescriptions was to highlight the special 

need for coordinated land management with private landowners. However, the extra numbers 

made the maps difficult to read and since private lands are shown in gray on the maps this 

purpose can be met without the 7.1 and 7.2 prescriptions. Management emphasis is to cooperate 

with adjacent landowners in managing for diverse interests. 

Management Emphasis You Will See 

Areas with intermingled private lands (shown in gray on Maps) in an urban or town 

interface will be managed with the following considerations: Emphasis is on protecting 

natural ecosystem components from degradation while allowing for high levels of day use. 

Trespass for extractive or construction activities will not be allowed. Access for recreation to the 

National Forest System lands will be kept open, and specific public access points will be 

identified to assure access as well as to limit resource degradation. Motorized recreation may be 

limited to the extent necessary to be compatible with adjacent owners' needs and management 

area objectives. Fire use is allowed only if adjacent private property will be protected from fire. 

Areas with intermingled private lands (shown in gray on Maps) in a rural interface will be 

managed with the following considerations: Emphasis is on protecting natural ecosystem 

components from degradation while allowing for moderate use. Trespass for extractive or 

construction activities will not be allowed. Access for recreation to the National Forest System 

lands will be kept open, and specific public access points will be identified to assure access as 

well as to limit resource degradation. Any grazing or timber activities will be carefully 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D1 - 17 

coordinated with adjacent owners. Motorized recreation may be limited to the extent necessary to 

be compatible with adjacent owners' needs and management area objectives. Fire use is allowed 

only if adjacent private property will be protected from fire. 

8.0 – Concentrated Development Areas

Theme

This prescription includes lands managed for concentrated development and use within a 

multiple use context. 

Management Emphasis You Will See

Uses and facility development dominate the landscape and often require extensive site 

alterations. Emphasis is on maintaining or restoring the existing facilities and uses. 

8.1 Features may include oil and gas production sites or other mineral development sites for 

common variety (saleable) minerals. Allowance for timber harvest, vegetation and fuels 

treatments, prescribed fire, new recreation development and new trail construction varies by 

alternative in the FEIS. Wildland fire use is not allowed. Road construction and grazing are 

allowed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 1

APPENDIX D - 2 

Forestwide Management Direction - 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - (ROS) Summer

Introduction 

The Forest Service has used ROS since the 1980’s as a management tool to describe and map 

outdoor recreation settings. (See (Forest Service, ROS Book, 1986). ROS is one of four mapped 

management direction tools used in this FEIS, the others being Management Prescription 

Categories (MPC), Winter Recreation, and Scenery Management System (SMS). The ROS 

system provides a way to help managers and recreation users understand what recreation 

experiences to expect and where these are available across the forest. ROS can help people 

visualize the variety of natural outdoor settings, the types of activities that can be pursued, and 

how many other people might be found in an area of the forest. The system is applied in 

combination with other management direction such as desired future conditions, standards, 

guidelines, goals, and objectives to define expectations about management of a particular area of 

the forest. 

ROS Application and Relationship to Travel Planning and Management 

This section addresses how ROS mapping is to be used when Travel Management Plans are 

updated. A mapped ROS Class such as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized is not intended to 

preclude consideration of additional motorized routes in that area, for example to develop a loop 

between existing motorized routes. Likewise, an area mapped as Semi-Primitive Motorized 

because of an existing motorized trail is not intended to be precluded from consideration for 

closure and return to non-motorized status. ROS Maps provide direction for managing 

recreation settings until such time that Travel Management Plans are updated through sitespecific analysis. As Travel Plans are updated, that analysis can include alternatives that will 

require amendment of the Forest Plan ROS Maps. In other words, ROS Mapping necessarily 

follows Travel Management Plan updates, rather than precluding certain changes to them. This 

ensures that a range of options can be considered at the site-specific level, which is the 

appropriate scale for decision-making on designated open travel routes. This is an expected and 

appropriate type of adaptation of the Plan to changes in the future. 

Finally, it is important to recognize that the ROS maps are NOT Travel Management Maps and 

do not show which routes are designated as open to motorized uses. A ROS Class of motorized 

on the map may be the result of motorized routes nearby but off National Forest that influence 

the recreation setting on National Forest. A good example of this is in some areas of the 

Wasatch Front foothills where roads off Forest create sights and sounds that cause the adjacent 

Forest to be mapped as semi-primitive motorized even though there are no motorized routes 

within them on National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 2

Recreation Opportunity Class Descriptions 

Table D2-1 provides a description of each of the seven ROS classes applied to the WasatchCache National Forest. These classes were applied using rules established in the ROS manual 

(listed above) in conjunction with minor adjustments for local conditions. It is important to 

recognize that these maps are NOT Travel Management Maps and do not show which routes are 

designated as open to motorized uses. A ROS Class of motorized may be the result of motorized 

routes nearby but off National Forest and influencing the recreation setting on National Forest. 

ROS (summer) maps of alternatives can be found in the Map Packets. 

Table D2-1. Classes, Settings and Opportunity Descriptions 

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics Wilderness/Primitive 

Physical 

Theme: 

Remote (3 miles from motorized use), predominately 

unmodified, naturally evolving landscape character 

Location: 

MPC 1.1, High Uintas Wilderness 

Infrastructure: 

Access – non-motorized trails are present 

Fishing Sites – rivers and lakes 

Camp/Picnic Sites – not developed or defined, leave no trace 

Sanitation – no facilities, leave no trace 

Water Supply – undeveloped natural 

Signing – minimal, constructed of rustic natural materials 

Interpretation – through self discovery and at trailheads 

Water Crossing – minimal, some bridges made of natural 

(non-dimensional) materials may exist, but are rare 

Vegetation: 

Natural, no treatments except for fire use 

Managerial 

Few signs, few encounters with rangers, travel on foot and 

horse, no motorized or mechanized travel allowed 

Social 

Local adjustment: High Uintas Wilderness may have the 

sights and sounds of commercial flight routes near by 

or directly over the Wilderness 

Off Trail System: Very Low encounters with other parties 

Trials: Low encounters with other parties 

Camp Spacing: Should not be closer than one mile apart 

Opportunities: Closeness to nature; self-reliance, 

moderately-high to high challenge and risk; little 

evidence of people off of trails 

Wilderness/Primitive 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 3

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics 

Physical 

Theme: 

Remote (less than 3 miles from motorized use), 

predominately unmodified, naturally evolving 

landscape character 

Location: 

MPC 1.2 & 1.3, High Uintas 

MPC 1.1 - 1.3, Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, 

Deseret Peak, Mount Naomi and Wellsville Mountain 

Wildernesses 

Infrastructure: 

Access – non-motorized trails are present 

Fishing Sites – rivers and lakes 

Camp/Picnic Sites – not developed or defined, leave no trace 

Sanitation – no facilities, leave no trace 

Water Supply – undeveloped natural 

Signing – minimal, constructed of rustic natural materials 

Interpretation – through self discovery and at trailheads 

Water Crossing – minimal, some bridges made of natural 

(non-dimensional) materials may exist, but are rare 

Vegetation: 

Natural, no treatments except for fire use 

Managerial Few signs, few encounters with rangers, travel on foot and 

horse, no motorized or mechanized travel allowed 

Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

Social 

Off Trail System: MPC 1.1 in Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, 

Lone Peak, Deseret Peak, Mount Naomi, and 

Wellsville Mountain Wildernesses Low encounters 

with other parties 

Trails: MPC 1.1 in Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, 

Deseret Peak, Mount Naomi, and Wellsville 

Wildernesses –Low encounters with other parties 

MPC 1.2, 1.3 in High Uintas, Mt. Olympus, Twin 

Peaks, Lone Peak, Deseret Peak, Mount Naomi and 

Wellsville Mountain Wildernesses –Low encounters 

with other parties 

Local Adjustment: High Uintas, Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, 

Lone Peak, Deseret Peak and Mount Naomi, and 

Wellsville Wildernesses all have the sights and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 4

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics 

Social 

Sounds of commercial flight routes near by or 

directly over the wilderness 

Local Adjustment: Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, 

Deseret Peak Mt. Naomi, and Wellsville 

Wildernesses are adjacent to population centers and 

the sights and sounds of these communities could be 

evident 

Local Adjustment for Weekends and Holidays Trails: 

High Uintas, Mount Naomi, Wellsville Mountain and 

Deseret Peak Wildernesses – MPC 1.2 – Moderately 

Low encounters with other parties 

Local Adjustment for Weekends and Holidays Trails: 

Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak 

Wildernesses – MPC 1.2 – Moderate encounters with 

other parties 

Local Adjustment for Weekends and Holidays Trails: 

High Uintas, Mount Naomi, Wellsville Mountain, 

and Deseret Peak Wildernesses – MPC 1.3 – 

Moderate encounters with other parties 

Local Adjustment for Weekends and Holidays Trails: 

Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak 

Wildernesses – MPC 1.3 – High encounters with 

other parties (reason for high encounters is because 

access to a desired destination is on a cherry stem 

trail) 

Camp Spacing: MPC 1.2 - 1.3, High Uintas – Campsites 

should be no closer than 1⁄4 mile apart 

MPC 1.1, Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, 

Deseret Peak and Mount Naomi Wildernesses – 

Campsites should be no closer than 1⁄2 mile apart 

MPC 1.2, Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, 

Deseret Peak and Mount Naomi Wildernesses – 

Campsites should be no closer than 1⁄4 mile apart 

MPC 1.3, Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, 

Deseret Peak and Mount Naomi Wildernesses – 

Campsites should be no closer than 100 feet apart 

Opportunities: Closeness to nature; self-reliance, high 

challenge and risk; little evidence of people off of 

trails 

Wilderness/Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 5

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

Physical 

Theme: 

Predominately a natural evolving /natural appearing 

landscape character with minimal rustic 

improvements to protect resources 

Infrastructure: 

Access – non-motorized trails are present 

closed and temporary roads may be present 

Fishing Sites – rivers, lakes, and reservoirs 

Camp/Picnic Sites – not developed, leave no trace 

Sanitation – no facilities, leave no trace 

Water Supply – undeveloped natural 

Signing – rustic constructed of natural materials 

Interpretation – through self discovery, at trailheads 

Physical 

Water Crossing – rustic structures or bridges made of natural 

materials 

Vegetation: 

Predominately natural, treatment areas exist to enhance 

forest health but are few and widely dispersed. 

Managerial Minimum or subtle signing and regulations, some encounters 

with rangers, motorized travel prohibited 

Social 

Off Trail System: Low encounter with other parties 

Trails: Low to Moderate encounters with other parties 

Local Adjustment: Some areas are adjacent to population 

centers and the sights and sounds of these 

communities could be evident 

Local Adjustments for Weekends and Holidays Trails: 

Check with local Ranger Districts for information on 

trails with High encounters with other parties 

Camp Spacing: Usually less than 6 parties visible from a 

campsite 

Opportunities: Closeness to nature, self-reliance high to 

moderate challenge and risk, some evidence of others 

Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 6

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics 

Physical 

Theme: 

Predominately a natural appearing landscape character with 

minimal improvements to protect resources 

Infrastructure: 

Access – motorized trails and primitive raods (maintenance 

level 2 roads) 

Fishing Sites – rivers, lakes, and reservoirs with some trails 

and primitive roads 

Camp/Picnic Sites – not developed, leave no trace, some 

identified concentrated use areas 

Sanitation – limited facilities, rustic, may have rustic 

outhouse available 

Water Supply – undeveloped natural, rustic developments 

Signing – rustic, made of natural materials 

Interpretation – self discovery, some located on site or at 

trailheads 

Water Crossing – rustic structures or bridges made of natural 

material, some designed for motorized use 

Vegetation: 

Treatment areas are very small in number, widely disbursed, 

and consistent with natural vegetation patterns. 

Managerial 

Minimum or subtle on-site controls with some restrictions, 

motorized and mechanized travel restricted to 

designated travel routes, no motorized or mechanized 

travel allowed off designated travel routes 

Social 

Motorized Travel Ways: Low to moderate contact 

frequency on loop travel ways, moderate contact 

frequency on cherry stem travel ways 

Local adjustment for Weekends and Holidays:

Check with local Ranger Districts for information on 

travel ways with High encounters with other parties 

Concentrated Use Sites: Low to moderate group and 

family interaction 

Opportunities: 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 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 7

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics 

Physical 

Theme: 

Predominately a natural appearing and developed natural 

appearing landscape character with nodes and 

corridors of development such as campgrounds, 

trailheads, boat launches, small-scale resorts, and 

recreation residences 

Infrastructure: 

Access – Roads (typically maintenance levels 3-5) and 

motorized and non-motorized trails 

Fishing Sites – rivers, lakes, reservoirs with some facilities 

Camp/Picnic Sites – concentrated use areas and developed 

sites 

Sanitation – developed outhouses that blend with natural 

setting 

Water Supply – often developed 

Signing – Rustic with natural materials to more refined using 

a variety of materials such as fiberglass, metal, etc. 

Interpretation – simple roadside signs, some interpretive 

programs 

Water Crossing – bridges generally constructed of natural 

materials 

Vegetation: 

Changes (treatments) to the natural vegetation patterns are 

evident, but in harmony with natural environment 

Managerial 

Opportunity to be with other users in developed sites, some 

obvious signs (information and regulation) and low to 

moderate likelihood of meeting Forest Service 

Rangers, motorized and mechanized travel restricted 

to designated routes, no motorized or mechanized 

travel allowed off designated travel routes 

Social 

Developed and Concentrated Use Areas: Moderate 

evidence of human sights and sounds

Travel Ways: Moderate to high sites and sounds of humans 

Opportunities: Moderate concentration of users at 

campsites, little challenge or risk 

Roaded Natural Rural 

Physical

Theme: 

Predominately a altered landscapes of developed natural 

appearing, resort natural setting and water recreation 

rural appearing with natural appearing backdrops, ski 

resorts, campgrounds, interpretive sites, marinas, boat 

launch, swimming beaches, trailheads and reservoirs 

Infrastructure: 

Access – roads (typically level 4 and 5) and trails are 

hardened 

Fishing Sites – some facility development 

Camp/Picnic Sites – designed for user comfort, natural to 

synthetic materials that blend with the natural 

environment, may have hookup amenities such as hot 

water, electricity, and sewage disposal sites 

Sanitation – developed, design for user comfort
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 8

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics 

Physical 

Water Supply – developed, designed for user convenience

Signing – rustic to highly designed that harmonizes 

with the landscape character 

Interpretation – complex roadside signs, some staffed 

facilities, visitor centers, and interpretive programs 

Water Crossing – bridges of varying size that are in harmony 

with the landscape 

Vegetation: 

Treatment areas often dominate, but blend with natural 

appearing landscape by utilizing lines , forms, colors, 

and textures of the surrounding natural landscape 

Managerial 

Obvious signing (regulation and information), education and 

law enforcement staff available, motorized and 

mechanized travel restricted to designated routes, no 

motorized or mechanized travel allowed off 

designated travel routes 

Rural 

Social 

Developed Use Areas and Travel Ways: High interaction 

among users is common 

Opportunities: Little challenge or risk associated with 

being in the outdoors 

Physical 

Theme: 

Predominately, heavy site modifications and facilities of 

resort natural setting and water recreation rural 

appearing with natural appearing backdrops; highly 

developed ski areas and resorts are examples of urban 

nodes within the National Forest system lands 

Infrastructure: 

Access – travel routes highly developed (typically levels 4 

and 5) for motorized use often with mass transit 

supplements available; trails are constructed for ease 

of movement; majority of routes are concrete, paved, 

or graveled 

Camp/Picnic Sites – developed and designed for user 

comfort, variety of construction materials used, 

campsites in close proximity to each other, nearby 

cafés and restaurants 

Sanitation – developed and designed for user comfort, most 

have running water 

Water Supply – developed and designed for user comfort, 

many have hot water available 

Signing – natural and synthetic materials appropriate 

Interpretation – exhibits in staffed visitor centers, roadside 

exhibits, etc. 

Water Crossing – bridges constructed of a variety of 

materials, design for user convenience and safety 

Vegetation: 

Often planted, manicured and maintained 

Urban 

Managerial 

Intensive on-site management obvious signs and staffing, 

education and law enforcement available; motorized 

and mechanized travel restricted to designated routes; 

no motorized or mechanized travel allowed off 

designated travel routes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D2 - 9

ROS DESCRIPTION 

CLASS Setting Characteristics 

Social Developed Areas: Opportunity to be with others; high 

degree of interaction with people 

Urban 

Social 

Opportunities: Challenge and risk are unimportant 

except for competitive sports 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D3 - 1 

APPENDIX D-3 

Forestwide Management Direction -– 

Winter Recreation Opportunities

Introduction 

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

describe and allocate outdoor winter recreation areas and routes. Winter Recreation (WR) is one 

of four management direction elements used in this FEIS, the others being Management 

Prescription Categories (MPC), Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Scenery 

Management System (SMS). The WR system provides a way to help managers and recreation 

users understand where winter motorized recreation is allowed; which areas allow Heli-skiing; 

and where winter motorized uses are not allowed. These Winter Recreation Classes and Maps 

replace the winter portion of District Travel Management Plans. The system is applied in 

combination with other management direction such as desired future conditions, standards, 

guidelines, goals, and objectives to define expectations about management of a particular area of 

the forest. 

The classes below provide a description of each of the four WR classes applied to the WasatchCache National Forest. These classes were applied using criteria established in Appendix B WR 

Process. WR maps of the classes for each of the alternatives can be found in the Map Packets. 

Winter Recreation Classes

 

Winter Recreation maps answer three basic questions: 

1. “Where can I snowmobile?” 

2. “Where is helicopter skiing allowed?” 

3. “Where is winter motorized use not allowed?” 

 

The Winter Recreation Class applies when there is an adequate depth of snow present on the 

ground to protect vegetative resources. When there is an inadequate depth of snow present, 

summer ROS maps as well as Travel Management Plans apply and use of snowmobiles is not 

permitted off of designated routes. 

Four classes are mapped for Winter Recreation: 

1) Wilderness—these areas show designated wilderness and recommended Wilderness. 

Snowmobiling, heli-skiing, or other motorized use is not allowed. 

2) Non-motorized Areas – These areas emphasize non-motorized winter recreation 

such as x-country skiing, snowshoeing, tubing, etc., no snowmobiles or other 

motorized uses are allowed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest D3 - 2 

3) Motorized – Snowmobiling is permitted in these areas and/or on designated routes. 

Non-motorized uses are also permitted here. 

4) Heli-skiing – These areas are designated for heli-skiing (helicopter supported 

backcountry skiing), generally, there is no snowmobiling allowed in these areas 

unless otherwise noted. Other non-motorized uses are permitted. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 1 

APPENDIX E 

Vertebrate Wildlife Species of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest

The following list was compiled after reviewing the species list from the 1985 Forest Plan along 

with lists from the other Forests in Northern Utah. The list contains species known to exist on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest or species whose range includes the Forest and habitat is 

present. Species at Risk (as defined in the glossary) are marked with an asterisk (*). Plant 

species at risk are listed in Appendix F. 

Fish 

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni

Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka 

Golden Trout Oncorhynchus aguabonita 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout* Oncorhynchus clarki utah

Colorado Cutthroat Trout* Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Brown Trout Salmo trutta 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush

Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus

Carp Cyprinus carpio 

Utah Chub Gila atraria

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 

Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osulus

Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus

Utah Sucker Catostomus ardens 

Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus

Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Tiger Muskie Esox masquinongy 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus mictus 

Paiute Sculpin Cottus beldingi 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 2 

Reptiles and Amphibians

 

Western Collared Lizard Crotaphytus collaris baileyi

Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma douglassii

Tree Lizard Urosaurus ornatus 

Side-blotched Lizard Uta stansburiana

Great Basin Skink Eumeces skiltonianus utahensis

Great Basin Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris tigris 

 

Utah Milk Snake* Lampropeltis triangulum taylori

Rubber Boa Charina bottae

Western Yellow-bellied Racer Coluber constrictor mormon 

Ringnecked Snake Diadophis punctuatus regalis 

Night Snake Hypsiglena torquata

Common Kingsnake Lampropeltis pyomelana infralabialis

Striped Whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus

Wandering Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans vagrans 

Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis

Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus deserticola

Valley Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi 

Midget Faded Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor 

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum

Western Toad* Bufo boreas boreas

Woodhouses Toad Bufo woodhousei woodhousei

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata maculata 

Leopard Frog Rana pipiens brachycephala 

Columbian Spotted Frog* Rana pretiosa 

Mammals 

Dwarf Shrew* Sorex nanus

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris 

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Fringed Myotis* Myotis thysanodes

Western Small-footed Myotis* Myotis cilolabrum (Formerly Myotis subulatus and M. 

 Leibii.) 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris nactivagans 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans

Townsned’s Big-eared Bat* Plecotus townsendi 

Western Red Bat* Lasiurus blossevillii 

Black Bear Ursus Americanus

Racoon Procyon lotor

Ring-tailed Cat Bassariscus astutus
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 3 

American Pine Marten* Martes americana

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Shorttail Weasel Mustela erminea

Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis

Wolverine* Gulo luscus

Badger Taxidea taxus

Coyote Canis latrans

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis

Mountain Lion Felis concolor

Canada Lynx* Lynx canidensis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Cliff Chipmunk Eutamias dorsalis

Least Chipmunk Eutamias minimus

Uinta Chipmunk Eutamias umbrinus

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

Yellowbelly Marmot Marmota flaviventris

Whtetail Prairie Dog Cynomys gunnisoni 

Uinta Ground Squirrel Spermophilus armatus

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis 

Rock Squirrel Spermaphilus variegatus 

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

Idaho Pocket Gopher* Thomomys idahoensis 

Great Basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus parvus

Beaver Castor canadensis

Boreal Redback Vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Sagebrush vole Lagurus curtatus 

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Longtail Vole Microtus longicaudus 

Mountain Vole Microtus montanus 

Richardson Vole Microtus richardsoni

Desert Woodrat Neotoma lepida

Bushytail Woodrat Neotoma cinerea

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

Canyon Mouse Peromyscus crinitus

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Pinon Mouse Permyscus truei

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 

House Mouse Mus musculus

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps 

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Pika Ochotona princeps

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus

Blacktail Jackrabbit Lepus californicus 

Whitetail Jackrabbit Lepus townsendi 

Pygmy Rabbit Sylvilagus idahoensis

Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttalli
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 4 

Moose Alces alces 

Elk Cervis canadensis 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis 

Humans Homo sapien 

Birds 

Common Loon Gavia immer

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Sandhill Crane* Grus canadensis

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Pintail Anas acuta 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Gadwall Anas strepera

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

American Wigeon Anas americana

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Buffelhead Bucephala albeola

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Sora Porzana carolina

Amerian Coot Fulica americana

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

California Gull Larus califonicus

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

Black Tern Childonias niger

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 5 

Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus laucocephalus

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striayus

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Northern Goshawk* Accipiter gentillis

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Osprey* Pandion haliaetus

American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Peregrine Falcon* Falco peregrinus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus

White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus

Sage Grouse* Centrocercus urophasianus

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse* Tynpanuchus phasianellus

California Quail Callipepla californica

Chukar Alectoris chukar

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Rock Dove Columba livia

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Western Screech Owl Otus kennicottii

Flammulated Owl* Otus flammeolus

Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Boreal Owl* Aegolius funereus

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Black Swift* Cypseloides niger

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope

Broad-tailed Hummingbird* Selasphorus platycercus

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Lewis’ Woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis

Williamson’s Sapsucker* Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 6 

Northern 3-toed Woodpecker* Picoides tridactylus

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus orealis 

Western Wood Peewee Contopus sordidulus 

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

Western Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Purple Martin Progne subis

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Scrub Jay Aphelocoma coerulescens

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis

Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana

Black-billed Magpie Pica pica

Common Raven Corvus corax

Plain Titmouse Parus inornatus 

Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus

Mountain Chickadee Parus gambeli

Common Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

American Pipit Anthus rubescens
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest E - 7 

American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens

Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi

Virginia’s Warbler* Vermivora virginiae 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena

Green-tailed Towhee Pipiol chlorurus

Rufous-sided Towhee Pipiol erythrophthalmus

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Brewer’s Sparrow* Spizella breweri

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis caniceps

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichis leucophrys

Fox Sparrow Pesserella illiaca

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana udoviciana 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Black Rosy Finch* Leucosticte arctoa

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Evening Grosbeak* Coccothraustes vespertinus
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 1 

APPENDIX F 

Botanical Resources

Introduction 

This Appendix provides information used to evaluate potential risks and threats of alternatives in 

the FEIS as well as to assess the current situation with regard to Plant Species at Risk(SAR), 

which includes Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, Recommended Sensitive and 

Watch list species. Table F-1 is an outline of the habit, life form, habitat group, and plant status. 

Table F-2 is an outline rating the impacts from Management activities to SAR. Impacts from 

these activities directly affect plant populations. Table F-3 rates the effects of alterations of 

ecological factors that would impact the habitat for SAR. These are activities that would have an 

indirect affect on SAR. Table F-4 rates the factors with potential to reduce habitat for the SAR. 

These directly impact both the SAR populations and the habitat. Ratings are categorized in Low 

(1), Medium (2), and High (3). Table F-5 lists the references used in the analysis. 

Table F-1. Habit, Lifeform, Habitat Group, and Plant Status (USFS and UCDC) of the SAR 

Plants that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Species Name Common Name Habit Lifeform Habitat group Plant 

Status

Abies concolor (Gord. & Glind.) 

Lindl. White Fir Perennial Tree Mountain Forest Watch 

Angelica wheeleri Wheeler's angelica Perennial Herb Riparian, 

Meadows/Seeps 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Arabis glabra var. furcatipilis Hopkin's tower-mustard Biennial/ 

perennial Herb 

Riparian, 

Meadows/Seeps 

Woodlands 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Arabis lasiocarpa Wasatch rock-cress, 

Toiyabe rock-cress Perennial Herb Mountain Forest, 

Woodland, Shrubland Watch 

Artemisia norvegica var.

piceetorum Spruce wormwood Perennial Herb Mountain Forst, Alpine Rec. 

Sensitive 

Aster sibericus var. meritus Siberian aster Herb Rock Cliffs/Crevices/ 

Talus/Scree, Alpine Watch 

Astragalus flexuosus var. 

flexuosus Bent milkvetch Perennial Herb Mountain Forest, 

Shrubland, Woodland Watch 

Astragalus jejunus var. jejunus Starvling milkvetch Perennial Herb Shrubland Sensitive 

Astragalus robbinsii Robbins' milkvetch Perennial Herb Shrubland, Woodland Watch 

Botrychium crenulatum Dainty moonwort, 

crenualte moonwort Perennial Herb Shrubland, Woodland Watch 

Botrychium lineare Slender moonwort Perennial Herb Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps Proposed 

Cirsium eatonii var. murdockii Murdock's thistle Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/Crevices/ 

Talus/Scree Watch 

Corydalis caseana ssp.

brachycarpa Wasatch fitweed Perennial Herb 

Woodland, Mountain 

Forest, Alpine, 

Riparian meadows/ 

Seeps 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Cymopterus acaulis var. 

parvus Small spring parsley Perennial Herb Shrubland Watch 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 2 

Table F-1. Habit, Lifeform, Habitat Group, and Plant Status (USFS and UCDC) of the SAR 

Plants that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Species Name Common Name Habit Lifeform Habitat group Plant 

Status

 

Cymopterus lapidosus Echo spring-parsley Perennial Herb Shrubland Rec. 

Sensitive 

Cypripedium calceolus ssp

parviflorum Lady’s slipper Perennial Herb Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's slipper, 

brownie lady's slipper Perennial Herb Mountain Forests Sensitive 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. 

utahense 

Utah shooting star, 

Wasatch shooting star Perennial Herb Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Draba brachystylis Wasatch draba Biennial/ 

Perennial Herb 

Mountain Forests, 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, 

Talus/Scree 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Draba globosa (D. densifolia 

var. apiculata) Rockcress draba Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, Talus/Scree, Alpine Sensitive 

Draba maguirei sensu lato Maguire's draba Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, 

Talus/Scree, 

Subalpine, Alpine 

Mountain Forest 

Sensitive 

Draba maguirei var. burkei Burke's draba Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, 

Talus/Scree, 

Subalpine, Alpine 

Sensitive 

Epipactis gigantea Giant Helleborine Perennial Herb Riparian Meadows/ 

Seeps Watch 

Erigeron arenarioides Wasatch daisy Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, 

Talus/Scree 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Erigeron cronquistii Cronquist daisy Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, 

Talus/Scree Sensitive 

Erigeron garrettii Garrett's daisy Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices, 

Talus/Scree 

Subalpine, Alpine 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Eriogonum brevicaule var. 

loganum Logan buckwheat Perennial Herb 

Mountain Forest, Rock 

Cliffs/ Crevices Talus 

/Scree, Shrubland, 

Woodland, Alpine, 

Subalpine 

Sensitive 

Ivesia utahensis Utah Ivesia Perennial Herb Alpine, Rock Cliffs/ 

Crevices Talus /Scree 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Jamesia americana var. 

macrocalyx 

Wasatch Jamesia, 

Wasatch cliff-bush Perennial Shrub Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree Sensitive 

Lathyrus lanszwertii var. 

Lanszwertii Nevada Sweetpea Perennial Forb Woodland Watch 

Lepidium montanum var. 

alpinum 

Alpine pepper plant, 

Wasatch pepper-wort Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Lesquerella garrettii Garrett's bladderpod Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree, 

Subalpine 

Sensitive 

Lesquerella utahensis Utah bladderpod Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree 

Shrubland, Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps, 

Alpine 

Watch 

Musineon lineare Rydberg’s musineon Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree Watch 

Papaver radicatum ssp

kluanense Alpine poppy Perennial Herb Alpine, Rock Cliffs/ 

Crevices Talus /Scree Sensitive 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 3 

Table F-1. Habit, Lifeform, Habitat Group, and Plant Status (USFS and UCDC) of the SAR 

Plants that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Species Name Common Name Habit Lifeform Habitat group Plant 

Status

 

Pedicularis parryi ssp.

Mogollonica Mogollon Lousewort Perennial Herb 

Mountain Forst 

Shrubland Woodland 

Alpine 

Watch 

Penstemon compactus Cache beardtongue Perennial Herb Subalpine, Rock Cliffs/ 

Crevices Talus /Scree Sensitive 

Penstemon platyphyllus Broad-leaf beardtongue, 

Broad-leaf penstemon Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree, 

Woodland 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Penstemon uintahensis Uinta beardtongue Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree, Alpine, 

Subalpine 

Watch 

Porterella carnosula Western Porterella Annual Herb Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps Watch 

Potamogeton foliosus var

fibrillosus 

fibrous-stipuled pondweed Perennial Aquatic 

Herb 

Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps Watch 

Potentilla cottamii Cottam's cinquefoil, 

Cottam's Potentilla Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree Sensitive 

Potentilla pensylvanica var.

paucijuga 

Alpine cinquefoil, fewleaflet cinquefoil Perennial Herb Alpine, High Elevation 

Grassland 

Rec. 

Sensitive 

Primula maguirei Maguire's primrose Perennial Herb 

Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree 

Woodlands 

Threatend 

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies'-tresses Perennial Herb Riparian 

Meadows/Seeps Threatened

Thelesperma pubescens Uinta greenthread Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree Sensitive 

Viola beckwithii Beckwith's violet Perennial Herb 

High elevation 

grassland, Woodland, 

Shrubland 

Sensitive 

Viola frank-smithii Frank Smith’s Violet Perennial Herb Rock Cliffs/ Crevices 

Talus /Scree Sensitive 

Plant Status- Recommended Sensitive is abbreviated as Rec. Sensitive.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 4 

Table F-2. Rating of Impacts to Plant Species at Risk that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High)

SPECIES NAME Grazing Recreation ORV's Wildlife Hiking/Trampling Rock Climbing Chemical Treatment Logging Collection Fire Suppression No Information No Known Threats SUMMARY REFERENCES 

Abies concolor X No Known 

Threats 

Angelica wheeleri 1 1 Trampling by 

livestock, hikers 1, 2, 3

Arabis glabra var. 

furcatipilis 

 X No information 1, 2, 3

Arabis lasiocarpa X No information 1, 2, 3

Artemisia norvegica 

var. piceetorum 

 X No information 

Aster sibericus var.

meritus 

 X No information 

Astragalus flexuosus 

var. flexuosus 

 X No information 

Astragalus jejunus 

var. jejunus 

1 Trampling by 

livestock 

Astragalus robbinsii X No information 

Botrychium 

crenulatum 

1 1 Trampling by 

livestock, ORV 

Botrychium lineare 1 Recreation 

Cirsium eatonii var.

murdockii 

 X No information 

Corydalis caseana 

ssp brachycarpa 

 X No information 1, 2, 3

Cymopterus acaulis 

var. parvus 

 X No information 

Cymopterus 

lapidosus 

 X No information 

Cypripedium 

calceolus ssp 

parviflorum 

 X 

No information 

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 

 1 Forest 

fragmentation 

5, 62, 

63 

Dodecatheon 

dentatum var. 

utahense 

 3 2 Rock climbing, 

trampling by 

hikers picnic 

area 

61 

Draba brachystylis X No information 

Draba globosa (D. 

densifolia var. 

apiculata) 

 1 Introduced 

mountain goats 

6, 20, 

48 

Draba maguirei 

sensu lato

 X 

No information 

37, 

46, 

65 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 5 

Table F-2. Rating of Impacts to Plant Species at Risk that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High)

SPECIES NAME Grazing Recreation ORV's Wildlife Hiking/Trampling Rock Climbing Chemical Treatment Logging Collection Fire Suppression No Information No Known Threats SUMMARY REFERENCES 

Draba maguirei var. 

burkei 

 2 Hiking, mountain 

biking, rock 

scrambling 

47 

Epipactis gigantea X No information 

Erigeron 

arenarioides 

 X No information 

Erigeron cronquistii 

 X 

No information 

34, 

41, 

64 

Erigeron garrettii X No information 

Eriogonum 

brevicaule var.

loganum 

 X 

No information 36 

Ivesia utahensis 

 1 2 Trampling by 

hikers, trails, 

wildlife 

21 

Jamesia americana 

var. macrocalyx 

 1 1 1 Rock climbing, 

Trampling by 

hikers, trails, 

wildlife 

22, 

60, 

31 

Lathyrus Lanszwertii 

var. Lanswerti 

 X No Information 

Lepidium montanum 

var. alpinum 

 1 1 Rock climbing, 

Trampling by 

hikers, trails 

Lesquerella garrettii 

 1 1 1 Rock climbing, 

Trampling by 

hikers, trails, 

wildlife 

18,23

,25,2

7,28

Lesquerella 

utahensis 

 X No Information 59 

Musineon lineare X No Known 

Threats 

Papaver radicatum 

ssp kluanense 

 X No Information 16, 

39 

Pedicularis parryi 

ssp. Mogollonica 

 X No Information 

Penstemon 

compactus 

1 Livestock 

trampling 

35, 

43 

Penstemon 

platyphyllus 

 X No Information 

Penstemon 

uintahensis X No Known 

Threats 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 6 

Table F-2. Rating of Impacts to Plant Species at Risk that occur on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High)

SPECIES NAME Grazing Recreation ORV's Wildlife Hiking/Trampling Rock Climbing Chemical Treatment Logging Collection Fire Suppression No Information No Known Threats SUMMARY REFERENCES 

Porterella carnosula X No Information 

Potamogeton 

foliosus var

fibrillosus 

 X 

No Information 

Potentilla cottamii X No Information 

Potentilla 

pensylvanica var.

paucijuga 

 X 

No Information 

Primula maguirei 

 3 1 

Rock climbing, 

personal 

collection 

32,10

,49,5

0,51,

51,53

,54 

Spiranthes diluvialis 1 Trampling by 

hikers 

11,12

,13,1

4,26,

55,56

,57,5

8 

Thelesperma 

pubescens 1 Livestock 

trampling 7, 8 

Viola beckwithii X No Information 

Viola frank-smithii 3 Rock climbing 33, 

44 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 7 

Table F-3. Effects of Alteration of Ecological Factors for the 

Plant Species at Risk for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High) SPECIES NAME Fire Exclusion Fire Inclusion Genetic Purity Changes in Hydrology Insects/Disease Loss of Pollinators Non-native Species Natural Conditions Pollution Seed Bank Succession No Information No Known Threats Summary REFERENCES 

Abies concolor X No Information 

Angelica wheeleri 1 1 

Alteration of 

hydrologic 

regime, 

1, 2, 3 

Arabis glabra var 

furcatipilis X No Information 1, 2, 3 

Arabis lasiocarpa X No Information 1, 2, 3 

Artemisia 

norvegica var.

piceetorum 

 X No Information 

Aster sibericus 

var. meritus X No Information 

Astragalus 

flexuosus var. 

flexuosus 

 X No Information 

Astragalus jejunus 

var. jejunus X No Information 

Astragalus 

robbinsii X No Information 

Botrychium 

crenulatum X No Information 

Botrychium lineare X No Information 

Cirsium eatonii 

var. murdockii X No Information 

Corydalis caseana 

ssp brachycarpa X No Information 1, 2, 3 

Cymopterus 

acaulis var. parvus 

 X No Information 

Cymopterus 

lapidosus X No Information 

Cypripedium 

calceolus ssp 

parviflorum 

 1 

Alteration of 

moisture 

regime 

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum X No Information 5, 62, 63 

Dodecatheon 

dentatum var.

utahense 

 X 

No Information 61 

Draba brachystylis X No Information 

Draba globosa (D. 

densifolia var.

apiculata) 

 X 

No Information 6, 20, 48 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 8 

Table F-3. Effects of Alteration of Ecological Factors for the 

Plant Species at Risk for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High) SPECIES NAME Fire Exclusion Fire Inclusion Genetic Purity Changes in Hydrology Insects/Disease Loss of Pollinators Non-native Species Natural Conditions Pollution Seed Bank Succession No Information No Known Threats Summary REFERENCES 

Draba maguirei 

sensu lato X No Information 37, 46, 65

Draba maguirei 

var. burkei X No Information 47 

Epipactis gigantea X No Information 

Erigeron 

arenarioides X No Information 

Erigeron 

cronquistii X No Information 34, 41, 64

Erigeron garrettii X No Information 

Eriogonum 

brevicaule var.

loganum 

 X 

No Information 36 

Ivesia utahensis X No Information 21 

Jamesia 

americana var.

macrocalyx 

 X 

No Information 22, 60, 31

Lathyrus 

Lanszwertii var.

Lanszwerti 

 X 

No Information 

Lepidium 

montanum var.

alpinum 

 X 

No Information 

Lesquerella 

garrettii X No Information 18,23,25,27

,28 

Lesquerella 

utahensis X No Information 59 

Musineon lineare X No Information 

Papaver radicatum 

ssp kluanense X No Information 16, 39 

Pedicularis parryi 

ssp. Mogollonica X No Information 

Penstemon 

compactus X No Information 35, 43 

Penstemon 

platyphyllus X No Information 

Penstemon 

uintahensis X No Information 

Porterella 

carnosula X No Information 

Potamogeton 

foliosus var

fibrillosus 

 X 

No Information 

Potentilla cottamii X No Information 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 9 

Table F-3. Effects of Alteration of Ecological Factors for the 

Plant Species at Risk for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High) SPECIES NAME Fire Exclusion Fire Inclusion Genetic Purity Changes in Hydrology Insects/Disease Loss of Pollinators Non-native Species Natural Conditions Pollution Seed Bank Succession No Information No Known Threats Summary REFERENCES 

Potentilla 

pensylvanica var.

paucijuga 

 X 

No Information 

Primula maguirei 1 

Dust pollution 

from road 

expansion 

32,10,49,50

,51,51,53,5

4 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 1 1 

Altered 

pollinator 

frequencies and 

hydrologic 

regime 

11,12,13,14

,26,55,56,5

7,58 

Thelesperma 

pubescens X No Information 7, 8 

Viola beckwithii X No Information 

Viola frank-smithii 1 

Dust pollution 

from road 

expansion 

33, 44 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 10 

Table F-4. Factors with Potential to Reduce Habitat for the Plant Species at Risk for the WasatchCache National Forest. (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High) SPECIES NAME Agriculture Energy Facilities Military Activities Mining Activities Road Construction Ski areas Transmission Lines Trail construction Urban development Timber harvest No Information No Known Threats SUMMARY REFERENCES 

Abies concolor X No Information 

Angelica wheeleri 1 1 1 

Urban 

development, road 

construction, lines 

1, 2, 3 

Arabis glabra var 

furcatipilis 1 road construction 1, 2, 3 

Arabis lasiocarpa 1 road construction 1, 2, 3 

Artemisia 

norvegica var.

piceetorum 

 X 

No information 

Aster sibericus 

var. meritus X No information 

Astragalus 

flexuosus var. 

flexuosus 

 X 

No information 

Astragalus jejunus 

var. jejunus X No information 

Astragalus 

robbinsii X No information 

Botrychium 

crenulatum X No information 

Cirsium eatonii 

var. murdockii X No information 

Corydalis caseana 

ssp brachycarpa X No information 1, 2, 3 

Cymopterus 

acaulis var. parvus 

 X No information 

Cymopterus 

lapidosus X No information 

Cypripedium 

calceolus ssp 

parviflorum 

 X 

No information 

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 1 

Activities 

associated with 

timber harvest 

5, 62, 63 

Dodecatheon 

dentatum var.

utahense 

 X 

No information 61 

Draba brachystylis X No information 

Draba globosa (D. 

densifolia var.

apiculata) 

 X 

No information 6, 20, 48 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 11 

Table F-4. Factors with Potential to Reduce Habitat for the Plant Species at Risk for the WasatchCache National Forest. (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High) SPECIES NAME Agriculture Energy Facilities Military Activities Mining Activities Road Construction Ski areas Transmission Lines Trail construction Urban development Timber harvest No Information No Known Threats SUMMARY REFERENCES 

Draba maguirei 

sensu lato X No information 37, 46, 65 

Draba maguirei 

var. burkei 3 3 2 

Communications 

tower, roads, 

Snowbasin 

expansion 

47 

Epipactis gigantea X No information 

Erigeron 

arenarioides X No information 

Erigeron 

cronquistii 1 Road construction 34, 41, 64 

Erigeron garrettii X No information 

Eriogonum 

brevicaule var.

loganum 

 X 

Urban development 36 

Ivesia utahensis 1 Alta ski resort 

activities 

21 

Jamesia 

americana var. 

macrocalyx 

 1 

Solitude ski resort 

activities 

22, 60, 31 

Lathyrus 

lanszwertii 

var.lanswerti 

 X 

No information 

Lepidium 

montanum var.

alpinum 

 X 

No information 

Lesquerella 

garrettii X No information 18,23,25,27,28 

Lesquerella 

utahensis 1 1 Ski area activities, 

road construction 

59 

Musineon lineare 

(Rydb.) Mathias X No Information 

Pedicularis parryi 

ssp. Mogollonica X No Information 

Papaver radicatum 

ssp kluanense X No information 16, 39 

Penstemon 

compactus X No information 35, 43 

Penstemon 

platyphyllus X No information 

Porterella 

carnosula X No Information 

 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 12 

Table F-4. Factors with Potential to Reduce Habitat for the Plant Species at Risk for the WasatchCache National Forest. (1= Low, 2= Moderate, 3= High) SPECIES NAME Agriculture Energy Facilities Military Activities Mining Activities Road Construction Ski areas Transmission Lines Trail construction Urban development Timber harvest No Information No Known Threats SUMMARY REFERENCES 

Potamogeton 

foliosus var

fibrillosus 

 X 

No information 

Potentilla cottamii X No information 

Potentilla 

pensylvanica var.

paucijuga 

 X 

No information 

Primula maguirei 1 1 

Expansion of 

Highway 89, 

facilities 

32,10,49,50,51,51,

53,54 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 1 

Facilities 

associated with 

water diversion 

11,12,13,14,26,55,

56,57,58 

Thelesperma 

pubescens 1 Oil exploration 7, 8 

Townsendia 

alpigena var.

caelilnensis 

 X 

No information 

Viola beckwithii 1 Urban development 

Viola frank-smithii 1 1 

Expansion of 

Highway 89, 

facilities 

33, 44 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 13 

Table F-5. References used in Botanical Resources

Scientific Name Authors Year Title Source Ref.

ID #

Aster kingii var. 

barnebyana 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 Final Report on the 1995 Sensitive 

Plant Survey for the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 30

Aster kingii var. 

barnebyana 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 A Floristic Study of the Southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis. 

Department of Botany and Range 

Science. Brigham Young University. 

Provo, Utah. 

18

Aster kingii var. 

kingii 

Tuhy, J.S. 1991 Aster kingii (King Aster) and 

Lesquerella garrettii (Garrett 

Bladderpod) on the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests, 

Utah. Final Report for Challenge 

Cost Share Agreements with the 

Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National 

Forests. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

24

Aster kingii var. 

kingii 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 Final Report on the 1995 Sensitive 

Plant Survey for the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 29

Aster kingii var. 

kingii 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1990 Report for 1989 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Erigeron cronquistii, Musineon 

lineare, and Penstemon cyanthus 

var. compactus. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 45

Aster kingii var. 

kingii 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 A Floristic Study of the Southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis. 

Department of Botany and Range 

Science. Brigham Young University. 

Provo, Utah. 

19

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1990 Report for 1990 Challenge Cost 

Share project, Ashley National 

Forest. Target species: 

Cypripedium fasciculatum Kellogg 

ex Wats. (Clustered lady's-slipper).

Utah Natural Heritage Program, 

Department of Natural Resources. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 63

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 

Wallentine, 

K.J. 

1993 TES Plant Field Data Reports with 

cover letter. Cypripedium 

fasciculatum. 

62

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 

Caicco, S.L. 1987 Special plant survey forms for 

Lower Selway and Lochsa Rivers 

vicinity: Mimulus clivicola and 

Cypripedium fasciculatum. 

Idaho Conservation Data Center 

5 

Dodecatheon 

dentatum var. 

utahense 

Clapier, K.B. 

and K. 

Nichols 

1997 TES Plant Field Data Reports. 

Dodecatheon dentatum var. 

utahense. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 61

Draba globosa 

(D. densifolia 

var. apiculata) 

Windham, 

M.D., and M. 

Beilstein. 

1998 A Taxonomic Study of Draba 

maguirei and Allied Taxa 

(Brassicaceae) 

Utah Museum of Natural History and 

Department of Natural History, 

University of Utah. Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

48

Draba globosa 

(D. densifolia 

var. apiculata) 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 A Floristic Study of the Southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis. 

Department of Botany and Range 

Science. Brigham Young University. 

Provo, Utah. 

20

Draba globosa 

(D. densifolia 

var. apiculata) 

Stone, D.R. 1995 Status Review of Draba Globosa 

and Related Species. Final Report 

for 1994 Challenge Cost Share 

Project. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 6 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 14 

Table F-5. References used in Botanical Resources

Scientific Name Authors Year Title Source Ref.

ID #

Draba maguirei 

sensu lato 

Windham, 

M.D., and M. 

Beilstein. 

1998 A Taxonomic Study of Draba 

maguirei and Allied Taxa 

(Brassicaceae) 

Utah Museum of Natural History and 

Department of Natural History, 

University of Utah. Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

46

Draba maguirei 

sensu lato 

Padgett, 

W.G. 

1997 TES Plant Field Data Reports. 

Draba maguirei var. maguirei. 

Woodcamp Survey. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 65

Draba maguirei 

sensu lato 

Glisson, B. 1995 Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan, Bear River Endemics. 

Prepared for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 37

Draba sp 2 (D. 

burkei nom nov.) 

Windham, 

M.D., and M. 

Beilstein. 

1998 A Taxonomic Study of Draba 

maguirei and Allied Taxa 

(Brassicaceae) 

Utah Museum of Natural History and 

Department of Natural History, 

University of Utah. Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

47

Erigeron 

cronquistii 

Padgett, 

W.G. 

1998 TES Plant Field Data Reports. 

Erigeron cronquistii. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 64

Erigeron 

cronquistii 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1990 Report for 1989 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Erigeron cronquistii, Musineon 

lineare, Penstemon cyanthus var. 

compactus. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 41

Erigeron 

cronquistii 

Glisson, B. 1995 Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan, Bear River Endemics. 

Prepared for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 34

Eriogonum 

brevicaule var. 

loganum 

Glisson, B. 1995 Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan, Bear River Endemics. 

Prepared for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 36

Ivesia utahensis Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 A Floristic Study of the Southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis. 

Department of Botany and Range 

Science. Brigham Young University. 

Provo, Utah. 

21

Jamesia 

americana var. 

macrocalyx 

Nichols, K. 1995 TES Plant Field Data Reports. 

Jamesia americana var. 

macrocalyx. 

Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Salt Lake City, Utah. 60

Jamesia 

americana var. 

macrocalyx 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 Final Report on the 1995 Sensitive 

Plant Survey for the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 31

Jamesia 

americana var. 

macrocalyx 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 A Floristic Study of the Southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis. 

Department of Botany and Range 

Science. Brigham Young University. 

Provo, Utah. 

22

Lesquerella 

garrettii 

Tuhy, J.S. 1991 Aster kingii (King Aster) and 

Lesquerella garrettii (Garrett 

Bladderpod) on the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests, 

Utah. Final Report for Challenge 

Cost Share Agreements with the 

Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National 

Forests. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

25

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 15 

Table F-5. References used in Botanical Resources

Scientific Name Authors Year Title Source Ref.

ID #

Lesquerella 

garrettii 

Tuhy, J.S. 1993 Monitoring Study of Lesquerella 

garrettii (Garrett Bladderpod) on 

the Uinta and Wasatch- Cache 

National Forests, Utah. Final 

Report for Challenge Cost Share 

Agreements with the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

27

Lesquerella 

garrettii 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 A Floristic Study of the Southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Thesis. 

Department of Botany and Range 

Science. Brigham Young University. 

Provo, Utah. 

23

Lesquerella 

garrettii 

Brasher, 

J.W. 

1996 Final Report on the 1995 Sensitive 

Plant Survey for the Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 28

Lesquerella 

utahensis 

Clapier, K.B. 1997 Botanical Survey and Inventory 

Record 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 59

Multiple Welsh, S.L., 

N.D. Atwood, 

S. Goodrich 

and L.C. 

Higgins. 

1993 A Utah Flora (2nd ed., revised). Brigham Young University. Provo, 

Utah. 

3 

Multiple USDA, 

NRCS 

1999 The PLANTS database 

(http://plants.usda.gov/plants). 

National Plant Data Center, Baton 

Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 4 

Multiple UNHP. 1999 Challenge Cost Share Agreement 

Between the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources and the USDA 

Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2 

Multiple Utah Natural 

Heritage 

Program. 

1998 Element Occurrence Database Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

Salt Lake City, Utah. 1 

Papaver 

radicatum ssp

kluanense 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1989 Report for 1988 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Parrya rydbergii, Papaver 

radicatum var. pygmaaeum, and 

Penstemon uintahensis. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 39

Papaver 

radicatum ssp 

kluanense 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1991 Report for 1990 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Parrya rydbergii, Papaver 

radicatum var. pygmaaeum, and 

Penstemon uintahensis. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 16

Penstemon 

compactus 

Glisson, B. 1995 Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan, Bear River Endemics. 

Prepared for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 35

Penstemon 

compactus 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1990 Report for 1989 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Erigeron cronquistii, Musineon 

lineare, Penstemon cyanthus var. 

compactus. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 43

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 16 

Table F-5. References used in Botanical Resources

Scientific Name Authors Year Title Source Ref.

ID #

Penstemon 

uintahensis 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1991 Report for 1990 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Parrya rydbergii, Papaver 

radicatum var. pygmaaeum, and 

Penstemon uintahensis. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 17

Penstemon 

uintahensis 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1989 Report for 1988 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Parrya rydbergii, Papaver 

radicatum var. pygmaaeum, and 

Penstemon uintahensis. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 40

Primula maguirei USDA, FS 1990 Maguire Primrose (Primula 

maguirei) Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, 

Colorado. 49

Primula maguirei Padgett, 

W.G. 

1987 Maguire Primrose Summary 

Report. 

Utah Native Plant Society. Logan, 

Utah. 50

Primula maguirei Beedlow, 

P.A., J.G. 

Carter, and 

F.J. Smith 

1980 Primula maguirei L. Wms. 

(Primulaceae): A Preliminary 

Report on the Population Biology of 

an Endemic Plant. 

Bio-Resources, Inc. Logan, Utah. 

51

Primula maguirei USDA, FS. 1989 Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plant Program Action 

Plan. 

Forest Service Intermountain Region. 

Ogden, Utah. 10

Primula maguirei Wolf, P.G., 

and R.B. 

Sinclair. 

1997 Highly differentiated populations of 

the narrow endemic plant Maguire 

primrose (Primula maguirei). 

Conservation Biology; Vol. 11, no. 2 

(Apr. 1997): p. 375-378. 53

Primula maguirei Glisson, B. 1995 Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan, Bear River Endemics. 

Prepared for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 32

Primula maguirei Welsh, S.L. 1987 Logan Canyon, U.S. 89 Study, 

Biological Assessment of Maguire 

Primrose Near Wood Camp. 

Report to UDOT. 

54

Primula maguirei Padgett, 

W.G. 

1990 Hydrothermograph Report for the 

Wood Camp Population of Maguire 

Primrose (Primula maguirei L. 

Williams). 

Logan Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Logan, Utah. 52

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

US Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service. 

1995 DRAFT Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) recovery 

plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, 

Colorado. 13

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Pierson, K. 

and V.J. 

Tepedino. 

2000 The Pollination and Reproduction 

of Spiranthes diluvialis: 

Implications for Conservation of 

Four Populations. 

USDA Forest Service Challenge Cost 

Share Program. Uinta National Forest. 

Provo, Utah. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

55

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Sheviak, C.J. 1984 Spiranthes diluvialis (Orchidaceae), 

A New Species from the Western 

United States. 

New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, 

New York. Brittonia 36 (1). Pp.8-14. 14

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

US Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service. 

1995 Recommendations and Guidelines 

for Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) Recovery 

and Fulfilling Section 7 

Consultation Responsibilities. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah 

Field Office. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

58

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

USDA, FS. 1995 DRAFT Diamond Fork/Spanish 

Fork Watershed Management 

Plan. 

Resource Management International. 

12
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest F - 17 

Table F-5. References used in Botanical Resources

Scientific Name Authors Year Title Source Ref.

ID #

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Stone, D.R. 1993 Final Report for 1992 Challenge 

Cost Share Project, Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

26

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Sipes, S.D., 

and V.J. 

Tepedino. 

1995 The Pollination and Reproduction 

of Spiranthes diluvialis: 

Implications for Conservation of 

Four Populations. 

USDA Forest Service Challenge Cost 

Share Program. Uinta National Forest. 

Provo, Utah. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

11

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Jennings, 

W.F. 

1990 Letter to J.L. England, Botanist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

Louisville, Colorado. 

56

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Sheviak, C.J. 1990 Letter to J.L. England, Botanist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

The University of the State of New 

York. Albany, New York. 57

Thelesperma 

pubescens 

Glisson, B. 1995 DRAFT Conservation Strategy and 

Action Plan for Thelesperma 

pubescens (Uinta Greenthread) 

IHC Environmental. Salt Lake City, 

Utah 8 

Thelesperma 

pubescens 

Hollis, M. 1988 Inventory and Monitoring of 

Thelesperma pubescens on the 

Wasatch National Forest and the 

Rock Springs District of the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 

Rocky Mountain Heritage Task Force, 

and the Nature Conservancy. 7 

Viola franksmithii 

Franklin, 

M.A. "Ben". 

1990 Report for 1989 Challenge Cost 

Share Project, Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. Target Species 

Erigeron cronquistii, Musineon 

lineare, and Penstemon cyanthus 

var. compactus. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Utah Natural Heritage 

Program. Salt Lake City, Utah. 44

Viola franksmithii 

Glisson, B. 1995 Conservation Strategy and Action 

Plan, Bear River Endemics. 

Prepared for the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. 

Industrial Health Incorporated. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 33
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 1 

APPENDIX G 

Oil and Gas Lease Issuing Process and Stipulations 

In many places in the Unites States, National Forests lie over geological formations, which do, or 

may, contain oil or natural gas. Private firms purchase “leases” on many of these lands to search 

for oil or gas, to drill exploratory wells, and to extract any oil or gas located below them. 

Lease 

Individuals, associations of citizens, and corporations organized under the laws of the United 

States or any state, are entitled to lease Federal lands for these purposes under authority of the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and by the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands 

of 1947 unless the lands have been specifically withdrawn by the Department of the Interior. 

Leases also may be issued to a legal guardian or trustee on behalf of a minor. Aliens, whose 

country of origin does not deny similar privileges to United States citizens, may hold interest in 

leases, but only through stock ownership of United States corporations that hold leases. Aliens 

may not hold interest in Federal oil and gas leases through units in publicly traded limited 

partnerships. 

The issuance of a lease grants to the lessee the exclusive right to use so much of the leased lands 

as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of all the oil and gas 

(except helium) in the leasehold subject to stipulations attached to the lease; restrictions deriving 

from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the 

authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not 

addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed. To the extent consistent 

with lease rights granted, such reasonable measures may include, but are not limited to, 

modification to siting or design or facilities, timing of operations, and specifications of interim 

and final reclamation measures. At a minimum, measures shall be deemed consistent with the 

lease rights granted provided that they do not require relocation of proposed operations by more 

than 200 meters, require that operations be sited off the leasehold, or prohibit new surface 

disturbing operations for a period in excess of 60 days in an lease year (43 CFR 3102.1-2). 

Competitive and Noncompetitive Leases 

Competitive and noncompetitive leases may be obtained for oil and gas exploration and 

development on lands owned or controlled by the Federal government. The Leasing Reform Act 

of 1987 requires all public lands available for oil and gas leasing to be offered first by 

competitive leasing at an oral auction. Noncompetitive leases may be issued only if the 

competitive process results in no bids. Competitive and noncompetitive leases are issued for a 

ten-year period. Both are extended for the duration that they are producing oil and gas in paying 

quantities. The maximum competitive lease size is 2,560 acres in the “lower” 48 state and 5,760 

in Alaska. The maximum noncompetitive lease size is 10, x0 acres in all states. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 2 

Competitive Leases 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts oral auctions for oil and gas leases on at least 

a quarterly basis, when there are available parcels of land. A Notice of Competitive Lease Sale 

lists lease parcels to be offered at auction. The Sale Notice is published at least 45 days before 

the date of the auction. The Sale Notice identifies any lease stipulations to uses or restrictions on 

surface occupancy. There are three sources for Federal lands available for lease: 

(1) existing leases that have expired, and leases that have been terminated, canceled, or 

relinquished, 

(2) parcels identified by informal expressions of interest from either the public or BLM 

for management reasons, and 

(3) lands included in offers filed for noncompetitive leases (effective January 3, 1989). 

On the day of the auction, successful bidders must submit a properly executed lease bid form and 

make a payment consisting of an administrative fee ($75 per parcel), one-year advance rental 

($1.50 per acre), and not less than the $2.00 per acre minimum bonus. The balance of the bonus 

bid must be received within ten working days of the auction. The bid form constitutes the legally 

binding lease offer. 

Noncompetitive Leases 

Noncompetitive leases may be issued only for parcels that have been offered competitively and 

failed to receive a bid. Lands in expired, terminated, cancelled, or relinquished leases are not 

available for noncompetitive leasing until they have been offered competitively. After an 

auction, all lands that were offered competitively without receiving a bid are available for filing 

of noncompetitive offers for a period of two years. 

Noncompetitive offers must be submitted on a BLM-approved form, and they must include a $75 

filing fee, and one-year advance rental ($1.50 per acre). 

Noncompetitive lease offers filed on the first business day following the auction are considered 

as having been filed simultaneously. The priority among multiple offers received on the first 

business day for the same parcel are determined by drawings open to the public. 

Lease Restrictions 

A lease does not convey an unlimited right to explore or an unlimited right to develop any oil or 

gas resources found under the land. Leases are subject to terms and conditions. These are 

restrictions derived from legal statutes and measures to minimize adverse impacts to other 

resources and are generally characterized in a lease as stipulations. Stipulations modify the 

rights the government grants to a lessee. The stipulations are known by potential lessees prior to 

any sale and must be applied at the time of Application for Permit to Drill (APD). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 3 

Standard Lease Terms

The Standard Lease Terms are contained in Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and 

Gas, United States Department of the Interior, BLM, June 1988 or later addition (see Appendix 

B). The Standard Lease Terms provide the lessee the right to use the leased land as needed to 

explore for, drill for, extract, remove and dispose of oil and gas deposits located under the leased 

lands. Operations must be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the land, 

air, water, cultural, biological, and visual elements of the environment, as well as other land uses 

or users. Federal environmental protection laws such as the Clean Water Act, Endangered 

Species Act, and Historic Preservation Act, will be applied to all lands and are included in the 

standard lease stipulations. If threatened or endangered species, objects of historic, cultural, or 

scientific value, or substantial unanticipated environmental effects are encountered during 

construction, all work affecting the resource will stop and the land management agency will be 

contacted. Surface-disturbing operations that would destroy or harm these species or objects are 

prohibited. 

Standard Lease Terms provide for reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to surface 

resources. These include, but are not limited to, modifications to the siting or design of facilities, 

timing of operations, and specifications of interim and final reclamation measures. Standard 

Lease Terms may not require the lessee to relocate drilling rigs or supporting facilities by more 

than 200 meters, require that operations be sited off the leasehold, or prohibit new surfacedisturbing operation for more that 60 days each year (43 CFR part 3101.I-2). 

The lease requires that the lessee meet stipulation conditions or avoid activities within all, or an 

identified part, of the leasehold. All leases on National Forest System lands contain the 

“Stipulation for Lands of the National Forest System Under Jurisdiction of Department of 

Agriculture,” requiring the lessee to comply with the rules and regulations of the Department of 

Agriculture. All leases are subject to regulations and formal orders of the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture in effect at the time of issuance. 

Supplemental Stipulations

The Standard Lease Terms can be modified by special or supplemental stipulations attached to 

the lease (43 CFR 3101.I-2 through 3101.I4). Additional special stipulations can be developed 

specifically to meet resource concerns that cannot be mitigated by existing stipulations. The 

following supplemental stipulations have been developed for the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Applicable stipulations will be applied as shown on the leasing alternative maps. 

Section A shows the list of stipulations that apply to identified resources within the Appeal 

Settlement Zone and the area of the 1994 Leasing Decision. Section B shows the stipulations that 

apply to the Appeal Settlement Zone. Section C shows the stipulations that apply to the area of 

1994 Leasing Decision

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 4 

SECTION A: 

Stipulations that apply to identified resources within the Appeal Settlement Zone and the 

area of the 1994 Leasing Decision 

RESOURCE: Elk Calving Areas 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Objective: To preclude the commencement of surface disturbing activities within the elk 

calving area that could cause increased stress and/or displacement of animals 

during the critical time period (May 1 to June 30). 

RESOURCE: Elk Winter Range 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Objective: To preclude the commencement of surface disturbing activities within the elk 

winter range that could cause increased stress and/or displacement of animals 

during the critical time period (November 15 to April 30). 

RESOURCE: Elk Spring Use Area 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Objective: To preclude the commencement of surface disturbing activities within the elk 

Spring use area that could cause increased stress and/or displacement during the 

critical time period (May 1 to June 30). 

RESOURCE: Moose Winter Range 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Objective: To preclude the commencement of surface disturbing activities within the moose 

Winter range that could cause increased stress and/or displacement of animals 

during the critical time period (November 15 to April 30). 

RESOURCE: Bighorn Sheep Lambing Area 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Objective: To preclude the commencement of surface disturbing activities within the bighorn 

sheep lambing area that could cause increased stress and/or displacement of 

animals during the critical time period (May 1 to June 30). 

RSOURCE: Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – a survey would be required prior to surface disturbing 

activities to determine the possible presence of any sensitive wildlife species and 

operations be designed and/or located so as to not adversely affect the viability of 

the species. (A Controlled Surface Use stipulation requiring surveys for sensitive 

wildlife species will be included in all leases because the extent of these species 

has not yet been mapped.) 

Objective: To ensure that proposed activities do not adversely affect the viability of a 

wildlife species. 

RESOURCE: Sensitive Plants 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 5 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – a survey would be required prior to surface disturbing 

activities to determine the possible presence of any sensitive plant species and 

operations be designed or located so as to not adversely affect the viability of the 

plant species. (A Controlled Surface Use stipulation requiring surveys for 

sensitive plant species will be included in all leases because the extent of these 

species has not yet been mapped.) 

Objective: To ensure that proposed activities do not adversely affect the viability of a plant 

species. 

RESOURCE: Geologic Hazards and Unstable Soils 

Stipulation: Controlled surface Use 

Objective: To require that activities be located and or designed to avoid or minimize the 

potential for adverse effects to unstable areas and to ensure that the area can be 

reclaimed. 

RESOURCE: Slopes >40% 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To preclude construction of well sites and related facilities such as tank batteries 

on slopes over 40% that would involve relatively large cut and fill slopes and 

would be difficult to rehabilitate. 

RESOURCE: Riparian Areas >40 acres 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To preclude surface disturbing activities and protect riparian areas. 

RESOURCE: Wetland Areas >40 acres 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To preclude surface disturbing activities and protect jurisdictional wetlands 

relative to Executive Order 11990. 

SECTION B: 

The following stipulations apply to the Appeal Settlement Zone 

RESOURCE: Backcountry Recreation (Management Prescription 4.1 in areas of high quality 

backcountry recreation values) 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To maintain backcountry non-motorized recreation opportunities in remote and 

isolated settings with the environment in a near-natural state. 

RESOURCE: Backcountry Recreation (Management Prescription 4.1 and 4.2) 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – This stipulation would be required in areas where there 

is a desire to provide nonmotorized recreation opportunities yet allow industry 

more flexibility in developing oil and gas reserves. Proposed activities would be 

required to be located and/or screened away from dispersed use camping areas 

and trails and important viewpoints. Restoration of any site-disturbing activities is 

required after operations have ceased. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 6 

Objective: To maintain nonmotorized recreation opportunities in remote settings. 

RESOURCE: Undeveloped Lands (Management Prescription 2.6) 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To protect undeveloped landscapes and assure that the unique qualities associated 

with these areas are recognized and preserved. 

RESOURCE: Scenery Management System 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – proposed activities would be required to be located 

and/or designed to meet Naturally Appearing landscape character theme and high 

scenic integrity objective. 

Objective: To maintain the highly valued scenic quality of the area. 

RESOURCE: Scenery Management System 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – proposed activities would be required to be located 

and/or designed to meet Naturally Appearing landscape character theme and 

moderate scenic integrity objective. 

Objective: To maintain the highly valued scenic quality of the area. 

RESOURCE: Eligible Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – proposed activities would be required to protect 

identified outstandingly remarkable value(s) until such time the Suitability is 

determined. 

Objective: To maintain identified outstandingly remarkable value(s) 

SECTION C: 

The following stipulations apply to the area of the 1994 Leasing Decision. In the case of 

Visual Quality Objectives, they will be replaced with Scenery Management System 

stipulations. 

RESOURCE: Retention Visual Quality Objectives 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – proposed activities would be required to be located 

and/or designed to meet the visual quality objective of retention within one year 

of commencing operations. 

Objective: To ensure that the visual quality of the area is maintained. 

RESOURCE: Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use – proposed activities would be required to be located 

and/or designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention within one 

year of commencing operations. 

Objective: To maintain the highly valued scenic quality of the area. 

RESOURCE: Developed Campgrounds and Trailheads 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To precludes surface occupancy and new surface disturbing activities within 

developed recreation sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 7 

RESOURCE: Administrative Sites 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Objective: To preclude surface occupancy and new surface disturbing activities within 

administrative areas. 

 

The Staged Decision Process 

The legally required, staged-decision process is designed to accommodate the tentative nature of 

oil and gas exploration and development. Exploration for oil and gas resources is costly and 

speculative. Firms must commit costly equipment, purchase a variety of land rights and use 

expensive environmental protection technologies to begin exploration for oil and gas. Driven by 

pressures to be efficient and minimize risk, the nature of the enterprise has evolved over decades 

into a form in which exploration and development requires long-term planning by many loosely 

associated, mutually dependent industries. There is no guarantee that the expensive commitment 

of exploratory resources will result in a discovery of oil or gas as only about 15 percent of 

exploratory wells drilled in the United States result in a paying discovery of oil or gas. 

Consequently, companies or individuals pursuing oil and gas must be able to plan in advance to 

most efficiently use their exploratory resources. One tactic they rely on to stage commitments of 

their own resources is the purchase of public land leases. Developers want to know what lands 

are available for exploration and development and they want to be assured of continued future 

opportunities. Leasing of public lands is a way to do this. 

However, those purchasing leases do not automatically or immediately drill exploratory wells on 

these leaseholds. In any given time period, exploration firms must match geologic 

characteristics with the commitment of technology, capital, available equipment, and market 

conditions in a decision to risk a drilling operation. As a result, Federal land leases are bought, 

relinquished, expire, and may be bought and sold again many times without ever being drilled 

upon. This demonstrates a major distinction between oil and gas leasing and other activities that 

are authorized by the Forest Service. Most activities are reasonably certain to proceed to 

development after the permit or contract is issued. Even though there is great uncertainty at the 

time of lease authorization as to whether a well will be drilled and, if so, when and where, the 

effects of a typical well in a given location can be estimated reliably on the basis of past 

experience. 

The Federal government wants to respond to industry concerns, but must ensure that future 

activities will neither unduly harm the environment nor unduly interfere with other uses of these 

public lands. A regulatory framework has been created to meet industry’s needs while protecting 

other resources. The regulations include staged permitting of oil and gas exploration and 

development. Those stages include public disclosure at the following decision points: (1) the 

determination of lands available for leasing, (2) the leasing specific lands decision, (3) 

Application for Permit to Drill, and (4) analysis of field development if production is established. 

The staged process is designed to minimize the risk of making a decision that could lead to 

undisclosed irreversible or irrevocable environmental impacts. Each decision is based on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 8 

environmental analysis and disclosure of the probable effects in accord with NEPA. Each 

decision is appealable to the responsible Federal agency. 

The United State Supreme Court in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 104 L.Ed.2d 

351 (1989), upheld the use of more than one stage of NEPA Compliance after a Forest Plan is 

issued. In the Methow Valley situation, there was a permit stage (which allowed no grounddisturbing activities) and a faster development plan stage that involved another NEPA process 

and decision by the Government before environmental effects would be experienced. This is 

very similar to the situation that is involved here. 

Stage One – Lands Available for Leasing

The decision regarding lands available for leasing is based on disclosure and analysis provided in 

a “Leasing Analysis.” No rights are granted by the government to other parties when the 

Leasing Analysis is completed and the decision described in 36 CFR 228.102(d) is made. This 

EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA for the Leasing Analysis. 

The decision will identify which, if any, lands will be available for leasing. The Forest Plans 

will be amended, if necessary, at the time so that the decisions made on the basis of this EIS will 

be consistent with the Forest Plans. 

State Two – Leasing Decisions for Specific Lands

The Leasing Reform Act also provides for consent by the Forest Service for the issuance of oil 

and gas leases for specific lands. The regulations implementing the Leasing Reform Act require 

the following before consent can be given for one or more leases to by issued by the BLM: 

• verifying that oil and gas leasing on the specific lands has been adequately addressed in a 

NEPA document, and is consistent with the Forest Plans 

• ensuring that conditions of surface occupancy identified in section 228.102(c)(1) are 

properly included as stipulations in resulting leases 

• determining that operations and development could be allowed somewhere on each 

proposed lease, except where stipulations would prohibit all surface occupancy 

Stage Three – Application for Permit to Drill

This document, and its Record of Decision, do not authorize any ground-disturbing activities. 

Subsequent to lease award, the activities will be proposed through an APD and SUPO submitted 

to the Forest Service for approval. The Forest Service will analyze environmental effects of the 

proposed operations and issue a decision document. The Forest Service decision to approve or 

not approve the SUPO is forwarded to the BLM for incorporation into their decision of whether 

of not to approve the APD. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest G - 9 

If modification or changes in the APD are needed, based on drilling conditions encountered or 

some other unforeseen circumstance, the operator submits a Sundry Notice to the BLM for 

review and approval. If the change involves surfaced disturbance or potential affects on surface 

resources, a copy is forwarded to the Forest Service for approval or comment. Depending on the 

extent and nature of the change additional NEPA analysis may be necessary. 

Stage Four – Field Development Plan

If economically recoverable quantities of oil and gas resources are found through exploratory 

drilling, industry may submit a field development plan after evaluation of the discovery well and 

available geologic information. The Forest Service in cooperation with the BLM would analyze 

the environmental effects associated with the proposed field development and identify 

reasonable and necessary mitigation measures. Specific well sites and access routes may not be 

known at the time the field development plan is analyzed in which case additional NEPA 

analysis tiered to the field development plan may be necessary once a specific well is proposed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest H - 1 

APPENDIX H

Noxious Weeds of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest

This appendix discusses the known locations of various noxious weeds (Utah and/or 

Wyoming) that are known to occur on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Other species 

may occur, but those listed in Table H-1 have been identified on the Forest and are 

discussed in greater detail below. Included are comments on a few other species that are 

not classified as noxious weeds by either one or both of the states, but that are of concern 

because of their status in adjacent States, potential to become state noxious weeds, or 

because of their poisonous or injurious characteristics. Table H-1 lists noxious weeds 

and their occurrence within the ecological subsections of the forest. Sections that follow 

discuss these noxious weeds by Management Areas.

Table H-1. Noxious weeds that are known to occur in the three ecological sections of 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (unless noted, all plants are both Utah and 

Wyoming Noxious Weeds) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Wasatch & 

Bear River 

Ranges 

Stansbury 

Mountains 

Uinta 

Mountains 

Canada thistle Circium arvense X X 

Common burdock1 Arctium minus X 

Dalmatian toadflax1 Linaria dalmatica X 

Dyers woad Isatis tinctora X X 

Field bindweed, 

morning glory Convolvulus arvensis X 

Houndstongue1 Cyonoglossum officinale X 

Knapweed, Diffuse Centaurea diffusa X 

Knapweed, Russian Centaurea repens X 

Knapweed, Spotted Centaurea maculosa X X 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula X 

Medusahead2 Taeniatherum caput-medusae X 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans X X 

Salt Cedar1 Tamarix spp. X 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X 

Whitetop Cardaria draba X X X 

Yellow starthistle2 Centaurea solstitalis X 

 

1

 Wyoming State Noxious Weed only 

2

 Utah State Noxious Weed only 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest H - 2 

Noxious Weed Assessment by Management Area

Cache-Box Elder Management Area 

This management area likely has the greatest variety and concentration of noxious weeds 

on the forest. The most common noxious weed in this management area is dyers woad. 

While most abundant along roadsides and travel ways, it extends away from these areas 

onto adjacent areas. It occurs at nearly all elevations in the Bear River Range and has 

been noted at the lower to mid elevations of the Wellsville Range. Estimated population 

sizes range from less than 0.1 acre to over 200 acres in Wellsville Canyon and over 650 

acres in lower Logan Canyon. Leafy spurge has been found in both the Bear River and 

Wellsville Ranges. It has been inventoried in the Mount Naomi Wilderness and adjacent 

areas along South Canyon, High Creek, Cherry Creek and its tributaries, and City Creek. 

Leafy spurge occurs along the eastern slope on the Wellsville Range on Maple Bench 

and Coldwater Canyon, north to Three Mile Canyon. Musk thistle has been noted at two 

locations in Logan Canyon, near Wood Camp and along Bear Hollow. In addition, it has 

been found on the eastern portion of this management area and in the Bear Management 

Area at five locations within the North Rich cattle allotment. Canada thistle occurs 

primarily along streams throughout the management area, but mostly in the Bear River 

Range. Hemlock has been noted in Left Hand Fork Blacksmith Fork, Providence 

Canyon, Right Hand Fork, Franklin Basin, and Spawn Creek. Dalmatian toadflax has 

been noted in Cowley Canyon south of the Logan Canyon Highway. Russian 

Knapweed has been located in Logan Canyon near Beaver Mountain and spotted 

knapweed has been found in Mill Hollow. Black Henbane has been noted near Temple 

Fork and Saddle Creek Narrows. 

Bear Management Area 

Rich County to the east of this management area has a high concentration of noxious 

weeds and influences the occurrences of these species on the forest. The most commonly 

found weeds in Rich County, both on and off the Forest, include houndstongue, black 

henbane, Canada thistle, and musk thistle (Dewey 2000). Of the species found within the 

Bear Management Area, Canada thistle and houndstongue were the most common 

occurrences. Musk thistle while not as abundant was also present as were dyers woad, 

poison hemlock, hoary cress, and black henbane. 

North Wasatch-Ogden Valley Management Area 

Dyers woad is abundant on lands adjacent to the forest and is spreading onto the forest 

primarily along travel ways. Whitetop has been noted in lower Farmington Canyon, but 

likely occurs elsewhere. Spotted knapweed has been noted in Weber Canyon. It is not 

clear whether this population is on National Forest lands or on adjacent private lands, but 

it would be the highest priority for treatment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest H - 3 

Central Wasatch Management Area 

Dyers woad is abundant on the lower elevations in this management area and is 

spreading up canyon travel ways. Whitetop has been noted in Red Butte Canyon. 

Dalmatian toadflax is abundant along the foothills and along travel ways in the canyons 

on the western portion of this management area, but has also been found at a site in Little 

Cottonwood Canyon on soils brought in for restoration work. In addition, wand mullein, 

which is not currently a Utah noxious weed, but which has the potential to be very 

invasive, has been found on this site. Jointed goatgrass has been noted in the drainage 

ditches along the lower portion of Big Cottonwood Canyon. More noxious weeds occur 

in this management area, but have not been inventoried by the forest. 

Stansbury Management Area 

Whitetop has been noted along many drainages in the Stansbury Mountains including, 

but not limited to North Willow, South Willow, Big Hollow, Barlow, Spring Creek, 

Round, Big Granite, Monument, and Chokecherry Canyons. Other species are likely to 

occur, but have not been inventoried. 

Western Uintas Management Area 

Dyers woad is beginning to expand into this management area from adjacent Utah. 

While it has only been noted at one location along Beaver Creek east of Kamas, it is on 

several sites south of Evanston where it has been identified near Carrot Hollow, Moffit 

East Fork, near Stillwater Campground and near the Bear River. White top has been 

noted in many of the same areas as well. Canada thistle is common throughout this 

management area, while musk thistle has been noted in Rileys Canyon, SmithMorehouse, Nobletts, Swifts, and Left Hand Canyon as well as scattered locations on the 

north slope of the Uinta Mountains in this management area. 

Eastern Uintas Management Area 

Canada and musk thistle are common throughout this management area. In addition, 

dyers woad has been found near the East Fork Smiths Fork and Little Dry Creek. 

Whitetop has been noted near Henrys Fork and spotted knapweed has been found near 

the forest boundary south of Mountain View. 

Source of Data: 

Data were from field observations and maps produced in 1999 from Range Management 

Specialists across the forest. In addition, GIS map layers provided by Dr. Steven Dewey, 

Professor at Utah State University provided information, both on and off the Forest, for 

areas in Box Elder, Rich, and Cache Counties (Dewey 1997, Dewey 1999, and Dewey 

2000). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 1 

APPENDIX I 

Current Allotment Status and Allotment Status by 

Alternative

Table I-1 lists all open allotments on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, their type (cattle, 

sheep, or sheep & cattle combined) and their current status as well as their proposed status 

by each alternative: 

• o = open, grazed 

• v = vacant (open, ungrazed) 

• c = closed 

• ah = allotments closed only if permits are voluntarily waived without preference (for 

the benefit of bighorn sheep habitat and disease prevention). 

In addition, Figures I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-4 show where those allotments occur on the forest. 

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Allotment 

Type 

Current 

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

Stansbury Mountain Allotments 

Barlow Deadman 6,227 Cattle v c c v v v v v 

Black Bunch 4,891 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Box Elder 7,853 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

North Grantsville 4,986 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Rush Valley 10,365 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Skull Valley North 6,267 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Skull Valley South 7,157 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

South Grantsville 5,518 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Bear River Range and Wasatch Range Allotments 

Arthur’s Fork 3,305 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Beaver Mountain 6,049 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Blacksmith Fork 551 Cattle v c c v v v v v 

Blake Hollow 3,990 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Blind Hollow 6,758 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Boulder Mountain 6,628 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Bountiful 5,609 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Buck Springs 7,082 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Bug Lake 7,701 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Causey Creek 2,854 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Clegg 899 Sheep v c c v v v v c 

Cottonwood 12,125 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Cowley Canyon 3,713 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Crawford Frazier 7,255 Sheep o o o o o o o o 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 2 

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Allotment 

Type 

Current 

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

Dairy Ridge 1,988 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Davenport 328 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Deep Creek 2,761 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Dry Bread 1,907 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Dry Creek 163 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Elk Hollow 4,932 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Elk Valley 856 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Elk Valley - Saddle Creek 2,663 s&c o o o o o o o o 

Ephraim’s Grave 3,557 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Four Mile 501 s&c o o o o o o o o 

Hardscrabble 318 Sheep v c c v v v v c 

High Creek 12,371 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Little Bear 9,900 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Little Monte 4,101 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Logan Canyon 14,707 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Long Hollow 5,407 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Maple Bench 839 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Mill Canyon 730 Sheep v c c v v v v c 

Millville 4,552 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Morgan County 11,509 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

North Monte 42 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

North Randolph 8,897 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

North Rich 27,489 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Pete’s Hollow 3,153 Sheep v c c v v v v v 

Providence 9,598 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Public Grove 6,232 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Red Wells-Rock Creek 16,642 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Ricks Steel 5,975 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Saddle Creek 4,104 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Shingle Mill 286 Sheep v c c v v v v c 

Smithfield 6,033 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

South Cache 19,090 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

South Cottonwood 156 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

South Randolph 11,831 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Strawberry Valley 1,154 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Swan Peak 9,978 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Three Mile 1,741 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

White Rock 9,536 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Woodruff 5,630 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Wright 5,903 Sheep v c c v v v v c 

Uinta Mountains Allotments 

Beaver Creek 16,034 Cattle o o o o o o o o 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 3 

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Allotment 

Type 

Current 

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

Blacks Fork 7,707 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Burnt Fork 18,800 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Burro Peaks 19,102 Sheep v c c v v c c c 

Curry 941 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

East Fork Bear River 20,329 Cattle o o o o o o o ah 

East Fork Blacks Fork 25,976 Sheep o o o o o o o ah 

East Fork Smiths Fork 18,800 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Gilbert Creek 15,551 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Gilbert Peak 12,468 Sheep o ah ah o o o ah ah 

Gold Hill 8,193 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Henrys Fork - Hessie Lake 13,932 Sheep o ah ah o o o ah ah 

Humpy Creek 2,960 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Kamas Valley 54,894 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Larson 9,462 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Little West Fork Blacks Fork 7,693 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Luke-Lym 3,256 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Lyman Lake 2,978 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Meadow Creek 2,487 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Middle Fork Blacks Fork 12,591 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Mill Creek 9,496 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Moffit 2,874 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Mount Elizabeth #2 6,053 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

Poison Mountain 9,688 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Red Castle 12,293 Sheep o ah ah o o o ah ah 

Red Mountain 34,492 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Smith - Morehouse 15,276 Sheep o c c v v v v v 

Stillwater 26,625 Sheep o o o o o o o ah 

Thompson Peak 13,672 Sheep v c c v v c c c 

Walker 602 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Weber River 28,980 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

West Beaver 11,135 Sheep v c c v v c c c 

West Fork Bear River 4,294 Sheep o o o o o o o o 

West Fork Blacks Fork 17,923 Sheep o o o o o o o ah 

West Fork Smiths Fork 36,349 Cattle o o o o o o o o 

Woodpile 4,932 Sheep o o o o o o o o 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 4 

Figure I-1. Currently open allotments in the Bear River and Wellsville Ranges 

(Overthrust Mountains) of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in northern Utah 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 5 

Figure I-2. Currently open allotments in the Wasatch Range (Overthrust Mountains) 

of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in northern Utah 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 6 

Figure I-3. Currently open allotments in the Stansbury Mountains (Bonneville Basin) 

of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in northern Utah 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest I - 7 Figure I-4. Currently open allotments in the Uinta Mountains of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in nor
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 1 

APPENDIX J 

Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator 

Communities 

Introduction 

Management indicators are used to assess the effects of a management activity on wildlife. One 

of the factors considered when selecting management indicator species (MIS) is their close tie to 

the communities they represent. The communities being monitored through MIS are where the 

majority of management actions will take place. 

 

The general guidance and criteria for selecting MIS are contained in 36CFR219.19(a) and in the 

Forest Service Manual 2621.1. The 1985 Forest Plan includes two categories in the MIS 

discussion. These are Ecological Indicators that are intended to show the effects of management 

on the ecosystem, and High Interest Species that identify species of economic importance (such 

as big game) and species of concern (such as Federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive 

species and other species at risk). The 1985 Plan includes 14 Ecological Indicators to monitor 13 

vegetation types or age classes within a vegetation type, rivers and lakes. There are eight High 

Interest Species, including 3 big game animals, 2 fish species, and 3 species of concern. 

Updating MIS was recommended in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation 

(USDA Forest Service 1999a). The Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation proposed 

to use neo-tropical migratory birds for the majority of MIS. This was done in the DEIS for the 

revised Forest Plan. In reviewing the DEIS it was decided that neo-tropical migrants would not 

be suitable as MIS because they spend much of their time off on the Forest. Also, in reviewing 

USGS Breeding Bird surveys USGS always notes that on an individual site (survey route) 

variances may not be valid. For valid variances one must go to a larger area and that is provided 

on a statewide analysis. When the Forest Plan allows an average of 500 acres of timber to be 

harvested annually across the Forest a statewide analysis of the species would not show locations 

of increases or decreases in any frame of reference to indicate what Forest management practices 

might be having. 

Selection of Management Indicators 

The following criteria were used in selecting MIS: 

1. MIS must have a strong (but not exclusive) affinity for the habitat type. 

2. The habitat type is key habitat in the life cycle of the MIS. 

3. The MIS is sensitive to change. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 2 

4. The MIS is relatively easy to monitor, i.e., high visibility and in adequate 

numbers. 

5. The MIS is somewhat representative of all species that use the habitat type. 

6. The MIS is, for the most part, a year round resident on the forest. 

36 CFR 219.19(a)(1) states, “...the following categories shall be represented where appropriate.” 

1. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species. Endangered and threatened species 

have not been selected as MIS because none present on the Wasatch-Cache are well distributed 

across the Forest in a fashion that indicates how management activities are affecting the 

population as a whole. 

2. Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs. Again, these are usually inherently rare species and in most cases 

narrow endemics that are considered on a case-by-case basis for individual projects. 

 

3. Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped. Big game species are not used because they 

are very mobile, have relatively weak affinity for a given vegetation type, are somewhat 

insensitive to alteration of local habitat and their numbers are more controlled by State hunting 

regulations. Three species from this group have been selected as MIS. Cutthroat trout will be 

monitored by condition as well as estimated population. Snowshoe hares are not heavily hunted 

and beaver are in general not heavily trapped. More discussion follows. 

4. Non-game species of special interest. The goshawk has been selected from this group and is 

discussed below. 

5. Other. The CFR actually states, “...and additional plant or animal species selected because 

their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities...” The 

Forest has not chosen any MIS that fall into this category although vegetation is monitored 

through the range program and in connection with properly functioning condition and historic 

range of variability. 

Some revision participants suggested that large predators should be used as management 

indicator species. They were not chosen as MIS because they did not meet criteria 1-MIS must 

have a strong (but not exclusive) affinity for the habitat type; 2- The habitat type is key habitat in 

the life cycle of the MIS; and 4-The MIS is relatively easy to monitor, i.e., high visibility and in 

adequate numbers, above. 

It must be realized that almost every project that is implemented will benefit some wildlife 

species and be detrimental to others. In considering the effects on MIS we include how much 

habitat is available, how that habitat is spread across the Forest, and are we operating in or 

moving toward properly functioning condition (PFC) and the historic range of variability (HRV). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 3 

Following the above criteria, Table MI-1 shows the disposition of the 22 MIS identified in the 

1985 Forest Plan. 

Table MI-1. Management Indicator Species from the 1985 Plan and Disposition In Revised Plan 

MIS Disposition In New Forest Plan 

Ecological Indicators 

Gray Jay Species is not spread across the Forest. USGS 

Breeding Bird Survey results for Utah indicate the 

Uinta Mountains is the only area where there is a 

good population in the state. 

Red-breasted nuthatch Not a yearlong resident. 

Hairy woodpecker Replaced by the goshawk. 

Pine siskin Not a yearlong resident. 

Red-naped sapsucker Not a yearlong resident. 

Warbling vireo Not a yearlong resident. 

Mountain bluebird Not a yearlong resident. 

Water pipit Not a yearlong resident. 

MacGillivray’s warbler Not a yearlong resident. 

Green-tailed towhee Not a yearlong resident. 

Black-throated gray warbler Not a yearlong resident. 

Vesper sparrow Not a yearlong resident. 

Macroinvertebrates The cutthroat trout provide duplication on 

monitoring of aquatic habitat. It is also significantly 

less expensive and baselines are generally 

available. 

Cutthroat trout Carried over into new plan. 

 

Species of Special Interest 

Mule deer Generally very mobile, have relatively weak affinity 

for any given vegetation type, are somewhat 

insensitive to alteration of local habitat, and 

numbers are controlled more by State hunting 

regulations and number of permits issued. 

Elk Same as mule deer above. 

Moose Same as mule deer above. 

Bonneville cutthroat trout Carried over into new plan. 

Colorado River cutthroat trout Carried over into new plan. 

Pine marten Being high on the food chain it’s population are 

subject to changes in prey species populations. 

Monitoring is costly. 

Peregrine falcon Habitat is not in areas with high management 

opportunities and would not indicate what 

management in doing. 

Bald eagle Same as peregrine falcon above. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 4 

Table MI-2 shows the disposition of MIS identified in the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

Table MI-2. Management Indicators Identified in DEIS and Proposed Plan and Disposition Into 

FEIS and Revised Plan. 

MIS Disposition Between Draft and Final 

 

MacGillivray’s warbler Not a yearlong resident. 

Goshawk Carried into final. 

Warbling vireo Not a yearlong resident. 

Snowshoe hare Carried into final. 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Not a yearlong resident. 

Vesper sparrow Not a yearlong resident. 

Brewer’s sparrow Not a yearlong resident. 

Cutthroat trout (Bonneville and Colorado River) Carried into final. 

Selected Management Indicator Species 

Table MI-3 shows the management indicator species that will be used on the Forest. 

Table MI-3. Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator Communities 

Management Indicator Associated Vegetation Community 

Goshawk 

 Accipiter gentilis 

Aspen, Conifer, Mixed Conifer 

Snowshoe Hare 

 Lepus americanus 

Pole/Sapling Aspen, Conifer, and Mixed 

Conifer 

Beaver 

 Castor canadensis 

Riparian 

Cutthroat Trout 

 Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus 

 Oncorhynchus clarki utah 

Aquatic 

Goshawk – aspen, conifer and mixed conifer. The goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that 

uses a wide variety of forest ages, structural conditions, and successional stages. The goshawk 

preys on large-to-medium-sized birds and mammals, which it captures on the ground, in trees, or 

in the air. Three components of a goshawk's home range have been identified: nest area 

(approximately 30 acres), post fledging-family area (approximately 420 acres), and foraging area 

(approximately 5,400 acres). The species nests in a wide variety of forest types including aspen, 

coniferous, and mixed conifer forests. It typically nests in mature and old-growth forests (Nature 

Conservancy, 1999). 

Snowshoe hare -- pole/sapling aspen, conifer and mixed conifer. In the Rockies and 

westward, hares mainly use coniferous forests. They are predominately associated with forests 

that have a well-developed understory that provides protection from predation and supplies them 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 5 

with food. Such habitat structure is common in early seral stages but may also occur in 

coniferous forests with mature but relatively open overstories (Ruggiero, 2000). 

Beaver – riparian. The beaver occurs throughout most of North America and is fairly common 

in Utah. It is found in permanent slow moving streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs. On 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Uinta Mountains are classed as “substantial value” 

habitat and the rest of the Forest as “critical value” or “high value habitat as indicated on Gap 

Analysis maps. 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout – aquatic. The number of fish in a reach of 

stream is not considered a good monitoring factor because some streams are stocked and most 

streams are fished. Number fluctuations due to stocking and angling make it difficult, at best, to 

determine the effects of forest management activities on the population. Cutthroat trout 

(Bonneville or Colorado River, depending on the drainage) will be used as MIS using a 

“condition” factor as the monitoring tool (see monitoring below). 

Vegetation types not monitored by MIS 

There are two vegetation types not covered by MIS. The first is the sage/grasslands of which 

there are 189,600 acres across the Forest. The species which best fit the criteria for 

sage/grasslands is the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Since the sage grouse is not 

spread across the Forest in a manner that it will be able to indicate the effects of management in 

the sage/grasslands across the Forest it was determined not to fit the criteria in a manner to be 

acceptable as an MIS. With proposed projects in used habitat the species can be used on a 

project to monitor the effects of the individual project. This would be determined in a sitespecific NEPA document. The sage/grassland vegetation type will be monitored to track 

changes in amounts and age classes, as age classes are mapped. 

The other vegetation type not covered is oak/maple (mapped separately in the GIS layer with oak 

covering 90,800 acres and maple covering 14,600 acres). Work in the oak/maple is planned in 

the form of fuels reduction along the urban interface. This is planned to be mechanical and 

would serve to give better age class diversity in the type. As with the sage/grassland, oak/maple 

will be monitored as to assess changes in amounts and age classes, as age classes are mapped. 

Habitat Availability 

Table MI-4 shows the acres within the GIS vegetation layers that represent the habitats 

represented by each MI species. Maps showing how each of these habitats is spread across the 

Forest are in Appendix A of this paper. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 6 

Table MI-4 Habitat Availability 

Species Habitat 

Represented 

GIS Veg Layer 

Designation 

Acres 

 

Goshawk Aspen/Mixed Conifer AC, AS, CA, LP, MC, DF 1 506,200

Snowshoe Hare Pole/Sapling Conifer 

(Form 2+3 where 

available) 

AC, CA, LP, MC, DF, SF 1 

 

556,800

 

Beaver Riparian WM, WI, BH 24,800

Cutthroat Trout Aquatic Aquatic Refer to Chapter 

3 Topic 2 of the 

FEIS2

1 These are total acres not broken out by age class. It is realized that goshawks prefer mature and old 

age classes and showshoe hares prefer younger age classes or vegetative structure that has an open 

canopy that allows uderstory growth. 

2 There are approximately 640 miles of perennial streams on the Wasatch-Cache. Not all have cutthroat 

trout in them. The aquatic section of Chapter 3 better discusses waters having or not having cutthroat 

trout.

WM – Wet Meadow (16,900 acres) AS – Aspen (102,800 acres) 

 WI – Willow (4,400 acres) MC – Mixed Conifer (151,700 acres) 

BH – Bottomland Hardwood (3,500 acres) DF – Douglas Fir (87,600 acres) 

AC – Aspen/Conifer (55,800 acres) SF – Spruce/Fir (153,400 acres) 

CA – Conifer/Aspen (47,000 acres) LP – Lodgepole Pine (61,300 acres) 

The following figures, at the end of this report, show how the vegetation types for each terrestrial 

species are spread across the Forest. Also included are figures showing the sage/grassland and 

oak/maple distribution: 

 Figure 1 Goshawk. 

 Figure 2 Snowshoe Hare. 

 Figure 3 Beaver. 

 Figure 4 Sage/Grassland. 

 Figure 5 Oak/Maple. 

Population Information and Needs 

Goshawk 

The Forest has been monitoring goshawks territory occupancy since the Utah Forest Plan 

amendment in 1999. Monitoring results for different parts of the Wasatch-Cache are shown in 

Table MI-5. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 7 

Table MI-5 Goshawk Territory Occupancy 

Territories Monitored Active 

‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02

 

Kamas/Evanston/Mt.View 21 22 22 22 12 22 18 22 4 2 6 6 

Ogden/Logan 7 8 11 11 7 8 11 11 2 4 4 6 

Salt Lake 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Snowshoe Hare 

In Utah a study was done in the Bear River Range on the Wasatch-Cache where snowshoe hare 

densities were determined in different vegetation types (Wolfe, 1982). Data included: 

Aspen – sprce understory 0.01 hares/hectare ( .02 hares/acre) 

 Aspen – dense understory 0.22 “ ( .54 “ ) 

 Aspen-conifer edge 0.17 “ ( .42 “ ) 

 Douglas fir 0.57 “ (1.41 “ ) 

 Subalpine fir 0.99 “ (2.45 “ ) 

 Engelmann spruce 0.10 “ ( .10 “ ) 

Dennis Austin of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has been doing track and pellet 

transects in the Cache Wildlife Management Unit, North Amazon Basin since 1998. His 

findings are shown in Tables MI-6 and 7. 

 

Table MI-6 Snowshoe Hare Track Counts 

Accomplished in January and February 

 Snowshoe Hare 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Track Count 

 111(1)1 255(1) 054(0) 064(0) 051(0) 

 1 Number in ( ) indicates actual number of animals observed 

when transect was being read. 

Table MI-7 Snowshoe Hare Pellets Counted per 100 m2 

Accomplished in July 

Plot 1999 2000 2001 2002 

1 008 013 021 114 

2 082 006 101 1327 

3 030 005 107 329 

4 071 015 022 515 

5 109 030 131 495 

6 079 007 031 326 

7 059 029 228 414 

8 177 033 044 651 

9 078 130 077 330 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 8 

10 247 027 226 1128 

 

Total 940 295 988 5629 

Mean 94.0 29.5 98.8 562.9 

Standard 

Deviation 

70.2 36.9 77.5 381.0 

 

111 ND ND 203 456 

1 Adjacent to Plot 10, but cleared of dead under brush after the 2001 count. 

Mr. Austin feels that the summer pellet counts are much more reliable than the winter track 

counts. The large jump in the 2002 pellet counts definitely coincides with an increase hare 

population although it is to early to speculate on the cause of this jump. 

Information for the Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains is not presently available. A 

baseline will be established using pellet counts. The same protocol will be used across the 

Forest. 

As the database is built, consideration must be taken for the cyclic nature of snowshoe hares. As 

described in Ruggiero (1999), cycles can vary by one of four scenarios. Data from local areas 

would determine how these cycles run for that area. 

Beaver 

At the present time the Forest has no information on beaver populations on the Forest. The Utah 

Furbearer Harvest Report, 1998-1999 indicates that statewide the number of trappers increased 

by 36% in 1998-1999 but harvest was lower than expected although up 2% from the previous 

season. Beaver harvested per trapper decreased 25% from the previous season but was still 6% 

above the long-term average. This indicates that beaver are doing well in the state. 

Harvest information is not the most reliable source to gain information of beaver populations. 

The monitoring schedule will be set up to get population information across the Forest in the 

most expedient timeframes possible. 

Bonneville and Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Most streams on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have been surveyed for fish over the past 10 

years. This information will be summarized and comparisons made as the individual 4th level 

HUC are surveys as identified in the monitoring section of the Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 9 

Survey Protocol 

Goshawks 

The Forest has been monitoring goshawk territory occupancy for several years. Protocol calls 

for annual monitoring of 50% of known territories or all territories if there are less than 20. The 

acceptable range of change is less than a 20% decline in territory occupancy over a 3-year 

period. 

Snowshoe Hare 

Monitoring transects will be set up on the Bear River Range, the Uinta Mountains and the 

Wasatch Range. Protocols are being investigated with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

to determine the best for the Wasatch-Cache. McKelvey, et.al. (2002) and Krebs et.al. (2001) 

are the latest literature found on snowshoe hare transects and population density estimates. 

Plans are to have a pellet group protocol where transects are read in July. Transects will be read 

annually at least until a baseline is established. Then a proper timing interval will be established 

on how often transects will be read. 

Beaver 

Beaver will be monitored by surveying selected streams in the 4th order HUCs (hydrologic units) 

on the Forest. This can be done from the ground or the air (Hay 1958). Selected streams will be 

surveyed annually at least until a baseline is established. Then a proper timing interval will be 

established on how often transects will be read. Stream selection and protocols will be 

coordinated with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources so that we can establish transects that 

will benefit both agencies in our management responsibilities. 

Cutthroat Trout 

The relationship between length and weight of fish has been studied biologically and the lengthweight relationship is used from a purely academic view of growth. The coefficient of condition 

(K) is found by dividing the weight (W) by the length cubed (L3

), or K=W/L3 (Lagler, 1956). 

This technique has the advantage that data on fish from years past can be used to generate a 

baseline from which to analyze data collected in the future. The data is automatically collected 

as stream surveys are accomplished. Aquatic biologists have a schedule for surveys across the 

Forest on a regular basis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 10 

Figure 1

Figure 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 11 

Figure 3

Figure 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 12 

Figure 5